Incoming Transmission From Planet Flat Earth!

Read time: 3 mins

In an alternate universe, where up is down, planets are flat, and hot is actually cold, lives a certain Republican Senator named James Inhofe. He has been known to travel to the US Senate and hold climate change hearings in which science fiction is introduced as “evidence” that climate change is a “hoax”, and in which individuals with questionable scientific judgment are called upon to profess their agreement with his views.

One tired argument that he and his oily friends have consistently brought up is that global warming is cyclical, and is caused by sunspots. Regardless of the fact that the “sunspots and cosmic rays” theory of global warming has been conclusively disproved (multiple times), Inhofe brought it up in today's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meeting, citing the Farmer's Almanac as his “research” source.

Regarding the mark-up on the bills being considered, Inhofe said:

A few of the bills also address global warming. I would like to point out that according to the new Farmers’ Almanac released this week and its time-honored, complex calculations that it uses to predict weather, they predict we will be in for a colder than normal winter. In addition, they suggest that based on a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate that we will be in for a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

Wikipedia gives a good description of the Farmer's Almanac as:

… an annual North American periodical that has been in continuous publication since 1818. Published by the Almanac Publishing Company, of Lewiston, Maine, it is famous for its long-range weather predictions and astronomical data, as well as its trademark blend of humor, trivia, and advice on gardening, cooking, fishing, and human-interest crusades.

Click here to see for yourself. It's a quaint publication, with a “top secret ” formula (and forecaster) used to predict long-term weather. Mainstream meteorologists and meterological researchers tend to question the accuracy of the Almanac.

What is absolutely without question is that the Farmer's Almanac is a great source of global warming skepticism. For example, we have well-known skeptic Joseph D'Aleo writing the climate change section of the Almanac. His introduction ends with:

There is another possible explanation for—or, at least, influence on—climate change. This involves natural factors, most notably the Sun and Earth's oceans. We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes. Studying these and other factors suggests that a cold, not warm, climate may be in our future.

He continues his discussion with classic skeptic stuff, including the pieces “Is Global Warming on the Wane? The Case for a Cool Climate” and “Is Global Warming on the Wane? How Solar Goes Polar”, the latter being a treatise on the abovementioned “sunspots cause global warming” theory.

Not surprisingly, Inhofe quoted D'Aleo in one of his rants on the Senate floor a year ago:

“If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D'Aleo wrote

Doubtless, the Farmer's Almanac occupies a prominent spot on Senator Inhofe's desk. And given who's writing for their global warming section, it's no surprise that Inhofe thinks the Almanac is a solid scientific source.

Who knows. Maybe on Inhofe's planet, it is.

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


“It’s a quaint publication, with a `top secret’ formula (and forecaster) used to predict long-term weather.”

Yeah, but it has testimonials! That’s rigorous science we can believe in… my friends.


Oh… and the “method” depends on a “top secret” formula and “top secret” data? If AGW proponents (such as Hansen or Mann or Wunsch) or were to even try that, I’ve no doubt that McIntyre and his acolytes would’ve shown up at their doorsteps carrying torches and pitchforks already.


And what about the common talking point that “we can’t even predict the weather, how can we predict the climate?”

Is there suddenly a special exception to this argument when the Farmer’s Almanac is discussed?


Yet it’s OK for the Farmers’ Almanac to use “top secret” formulae?

Again, the global warming “skeptics” are only skeptical of results they don’t like…


how about trusting neither one. Predicting the future is a great game but where are the scientific predictions of 30, 40 and 50 years ago? all over the map. They may as well start predicting the future with a pair of dice.

Whether or not climatologists are trustworthy, the fact is that inactivists are proven crapmongers.

A good read is The D-Squared Digest One Minute MBA – Avoiding Projects Pursued By Morons 101:


Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance. […] Since the tech companies’ point of view appeared to be that if they were ever forced to account honestly for their option grants, they would quickly stop making them, this offered decent prima facie evidence that they weren’t, really, all that fantastic.

Application to Iraq. The general principle that good ideas are not usually associated with lying like a rug about their true nature seems to have been pretty well confirmed. In particular, however, this principle sheds light on the now quite popular claim that `WMDs were only part of the story; the real priority was to liberate the Iraqis, which is something that every decent person would support’.”

“`If You Tell Lies A Lot, You Tend To Get A Reputation As A Liar’ ”

30 or 40 years ago we did not have near the technological capabilities to predict future climate. While it is obviously impossible to predict with 100% certainty, we are a race with a capacity to look forward and make decisions based on the best available information. On climate change (at least in North America) we are failing to take advantage of this amazing human capacity. 

30–40 years ago most scientists were correctly predicting global warming.

What was the Farmer’s Almanac predicting back then?


Talk to actual farmers, though. Ask them about what changes they have seen over the years. I only ever hear comments about the marked increase in winds, the shifting of seasons and precipitation, crops adversely affected by it all, and politicians getting ever more slippery.

If lunkheads like Inhofe can’t be brought to understand the meaning of the phrase global warming (that second word can be oh-so confusing), and new efforts to more accurately label it global climate destabilization can’t seep into their hermetically-sealed intellects, then they must be squelched entirely.

I’m utterly sick of this debate. Go ahead and deny it all, Jimmy et al, but stay the hell out of everyone else’s way.

“politicians getting ever more slippery.”

Must be those darn astrological cycles at work. :) :|


Farmers have been complaining about the weather for 3000 years.

Greg said ….”Talk to actual farmers, though. Ask them about what changes they have seen over the years.”

Farmers have always said things are changing, always. And they’re right because the climate always does change. Always has, always will.

They’re life experiences are 40 or 50 years in the fields and they notice that it is different than it used to be. Nothing new. Every farmer in history would say the same thing.

“Ask them about what changes they have seen over the years.” (emphasis mine)

You, Sir, are an idiot.


“Ask them about what changes they have seen over the years.” (emphasis mine)

You, Sir, are an idiot.


they’ve seen changes in the weather Frank. like always. Try to understand this Frank - weather and climate are not static. They always change.

Please consider upgrading your civility. It needs some work.
Calling a person an idiot is weak. I think you can do better.

Rick, who enjoyed the idea of “teasing” people, is now asking for civility? Man, I never… :)

But he’s still an idiot:

“Ask them about what changes they have seen over the years.”
(emphasis mine)

I still believe Frank can get over his great love for the the word idiot. Not today, not tomorrow, but someday.

Well, scientists haven’t been complaining about the weather for 3000 years, so by that rationale shall we heed their words and not the farmers? Oh, but there’s a lot of similarity nowadays. Boo-hoo, it’s too much for the average mind!

For extra laughs, put Inhofe’s statement together with this:

One set of astrological cycles against another set of astrological cycles. Which set of cycles will win?


What sheer and utter nonsence.
“sunspots and cosmic rays” theory of global warming has been conclusively disproved (multiple times)

Nothing, I mean NOTHING has be PROVEN about AGW for or against accept that there is a load of money to be made in grants.

Inhofe is one of the few Politicians that see thrugh the scam and is willing to forgo the obvious political benefits to speak the truth.

Others, Obomma, Dion etc see power and taxation and thats all.

“Inhofe is one of the few Politicians that see thrugh the scam and is willing to forgo the obvious political benefits to speak the truth.”



we’ve just been graced with yet another steaming pile from the rear end of a bull.

exusian, this is Gary “Anywhichway but Left” Williams we’re talking about.

He’s willing to peddle any crap, as long as it’s not leftist crap.


“It [Dunning-Kruger] explains the tendency of cranks not to care if other cranks (and denialists in general for that matter) have variations on their own crazy ideas, just as long as the other cranks are opposing the same perceived incorrect truth. Cranks and denialists aren’t honest brokers in a debate, they stand outside of it and just shovel horse manure into it to try to sow confusion and doubt about real science. They don’t care if some other crank or denialist comes along and challenges the prevailing theory by tossing cow manure, as long as what they’re shoveling stinks.”


Just the kind of crap that Gary “Anywhichway but Left” Williams will say.


Isn’t it strange that irony-challenged warmists are in a lather over a reference to the Almanac but continue to drool over the equally imaginative “An Inconvenient Truth”?

Powerpoint beats Almanac.
Almanac beats Science.
Science beats Powerpoint.

(key: FA = Farmers’ Almanac, AIT = An Inconvenient Truth)

AIT: Written by Al Gore.
FA: Written by a super-s3cr3t weatherman who sounds suspiciously similar to Joe d’Aleo.

AIT: Uses named scientific sources (well, sometimes erroneously).
FA: Uses a “top secret” formula which is suddenly OK for inactivists.

AIT: Has 9 errors.
FA: Has an unknown number of errors.

Final score: AIT 3, FA 0.

(Also, it’s not PowerPoint, it’s Keynote…)


In light of information provided by bigcitylib below, I must also make one correction:

The predictions aren’t made by Caleb Weatherbee, but by Robert Thomas’s secret forula (mixed with some modern science).


“I still believe Frank can get over his great love for the the word idiot. Not today, not tomorrow, but someday.”

Just keep in mind that the best way to figure out what makes a person tick is to observe what they say about others, it usually betrays their true insecurities and self-image…

Oh, the irony.


My understanding was that Aleo is the guy behind the new Almanac’s prediciton of “global cooling”…the guy that provided the content for that prediction.

d’Aleo? Not the super-secret Caleb Weatherbee? That’s the guy the weather predictions are supposed to have come from…


“We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes,” writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D’Aleo. “Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future.”

so at least it’s not a matter of throwing dice. It’s basically sun based and it’s not gospel. All you can do is wait and see how it pans out. I can respect that. It’s not like he’s offering a money back guarantee.

Once more: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

The credulity of these supposed “skeptics” is just amazing.


Have you looked in the mirror and seen how much of your guff is against the man with NO scientiic input whatsoever? In Philosophy 101 that is the logical error of argumentum ad hominem. You lose with every mouthful. Take a science course; the objectivity would stun you.

“Scientific input” to refute what? An invisible “top-secret” “method” used by a super-secret weatherman to model climate?


Bumper stickers for a large bumper.
The danger to the planet is an optical illusion. CO2 is de minimis. Prosperity, however, is being seriously threatened by NGO lobby groups with tunnel vision. It is not heavy industry at fault. It is cynical politicians fishing for constituencies using politically correct red herring for bait.
Eric Hoffer, 1951 – “The True Believer – Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements”
“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors , shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the actions that follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
And p.12
“People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worth-while purpose in self-advancement…Their innermost craving is for a new life – a rebirth – or failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by an identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them opportunities for both…” [ Is this Mr. Gore?]
and P. 13
“ It is true that in the early adherents of a mass movement there are also adventurers who join in the hope that that the movement will give a spin to their wheel of fortune and whirl them to fame and power.”

Eric Hoffer, 1979 – “Before the Sabbath”
p. 7
“ I am curious about Pechorin, a Russian intellectual of the mid-nineteenth century who wrote a poem on “How sweet it is to hate one’s native land and eagerly await its annihilation.”

“Have you looked in the mirror and seen how much of your guff is against the man with NO scientiic input whatsoever?”

Oh. The. Irony.


Good going Frank. Irony is a much better word than idiot. I’m glad you’ve moved on. I knew you could do it!

Minor Point. It’s “The Old Farmer’s Almanac”, not “The Farmer’s Almanac”. They are two seperate publications that look almost identical.