Recap of the Historic El Nino Mega storm

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow


NASA Satellite shows clouds off the coast and heavy snow on land

Often in El Ninos, the winter gets off to a gentle start. December was that including record warm Christmas day. El Ninos like this one turn mean instead of green starting in late January, especially in the Mid Atlantic states.

Remember last year in a weaker El Nino, the green mild start ended abruptly with a big snow the last week of the month and 100 inches fell in the following 39 days. February was the coldest and snowiest on record here. January to March was the coldest ever for the northeast states since records began in 1895 according to NOAA. It followed what had been the 11th coldest winter in the northeast and 2nd coldest March on record here in this part of New England.

This year, arctic air invaded the central and east last week and met up with a classic El Nino storm moving through the south. Snow and ice developed in Arkansas east to Georgia and then the storm turned north. 36 hours of heavy snows set all time records in places. In most cities, more snow fell in one storm than usually occur in the entire season.

Central Park NYC recorded 26.8“, 2nd behind 26.9” in 2006. JFK airport had a record 30.5 inches. Philadelphia reported 22.4″, which was the 6th heaviest in a two-day period in records back to the 1870s.

Screen Shot 2016-01-31 at 5.39.42 AM

In the DC area, Reagan Airport had an unofficial (the snow board and ruler was lost in the snow) 19.4″ inches. second most behind the Knickerbocker storm of 1922 (which collapsed the Knickerbocker theatre).


Inside of the Knickerbocker Theatre after the collapse

The White House had 22 inches. Baltimore had 29.2″ the most ever for a single storm and Dulles had 29.3

The Wall Street Journal estimated the storm might produce $16Billion in lost output to the economy.

Predictably, there is talk this is the result of climate change, formerly known as global warming. They forget the UN, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (Environmentalists) that now control most universities in the northeast and NOAA in their reports for the EPA had all predicted snow are becoming increasingly rare in the major metropolitan areas. See this fact check by 14 PhD U.S and Canadian scientists on the UCS claims.

Instead, the major cities have been blitzed with heavy snows last few decades, especially the last 10 years. NOAA tracks major metropolitan snow events in the east since the 1950s. The last decade through last winter has amazed with 25 high impact storms (we obviously added a new one this year…and more are likely to follow).



The correlation between heavy snow winters and colder than normal temperatures is very high.

This December was warm and SNOWLESS. It turned much colder this month and the mega storm followed. In many El Ninos, the snows have a very sharp northern edge and indeed we had no snow even as areas to the south were hit hard. That may happen a few times but chances are we will see one or two events that impact us too.

But aren’t we dealing with the warmest year ever for the earth? No both surface based data and satellites showed no warming for over 18 years. This inconvenient fact sent scientists scurrying into panels at the annual professional society meetings the last two years, trying to explain why. If their theories fail, the $10s of billions in grant money could dry up. Though we have shown in peer review papers how natural variations in the oceans, solar and volcanic activity can explain all the bumps and changes the last 120 years, they don’t want to open up that Pandora’s box.

The solution instead was to have NOAA and NASA adjust the surface data they control, by adjusting old years colder.


They then called into question the independently derived satellite global temperatures, which both NOAA and NASA a decade ago said clearly were the most trustworthy. That is because the satellite and weather balloon data were exposing their models’ and theory’s obvious failures and their politically driven adjustments to land surface data.


Why don’t we hear that in the media? Environmental reporters in the media have an agenda, and their Society of Environmental Journalism even has a handbook that tells them to not tell you the whole story and how to attack and discredit any scientists who don’t agree with their view. It is a primer on global warming advocacy journalism.

Having been an environmentalist and conservationist myself, I attended their annual meeting in 2007 and was appalled at what I heard and saw. Dr. Patrick Moore, Ph.D ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace reacted the same way to radical activists that hijacked his organization. He left the organization. See a brief video here by Patrick Moore Nobel laureate Ivar Giaeve presents here

At Weatherbell, our 4300 clients include weather enthusiasts, energy and agriculture traders, winter weather related businesses, retail and transportation pay us to give them accurate short and long-term forecasts and don’t care what we believe about climate or politics (which these days are intertwined). Eisenhower warned about the risk of this kind of political control over science in his farewell address to the nation remembered for his military industrial complex concerns:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

We at Weatherbell correctly warned the 2013/14 winter would be historic near the Great Lakes 7 months in advance when the government forecasts even at the end of November were for a warm winter. Last year we warned the coldest and snowiest weather would shift to the northeast, where again the government forecast warmth. Mild weather will give way to cold again next week. We don’t expect a repeat of last year for extreme snow or cold here in the northeast, but more real winter is likely to return especially to our south.

Hayhoe : Northeast Winters Becoming Less Snowy

Posted on by

When Katharine Hayhoe isn’t lying about Texas drought, she is busy lying about snow in the Northeast.

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 11.06.24 AM-down


Mayors stupid enough to listen to Katharine Hayhoe are likely to end up unemployed.

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 11.19.58 AM

And how is her Texas drought working out?

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 11.15.09 AM


Colder Winters Mean More Snow

To anyone with a higher IQ than a turnip, it should be obvious that snow is associated with cold. But Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth apparently don’t.

Colder winters in New York tend to have more snow. Warmer winters tend to have less snow. All ten of New York’s snowiest winters had below normal or normal temperatures.

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 09.52.17 AM



There has been no decline in winter snows in winter but a dramatic increase in the number of high impact snowstorms. Of course, the warmists are trying to blame more snow now on global warming because warm air causes more moisture.

Climate Fables vs. Climate Facts

 #1) “Weather turning more extreme?   On the contrary, 2012/13/14 saw tornadoes dwindling, 2014 fewest-ever (annals from 1950), 2013 sank to fewest Atlantic hurricanes since 1983 ( & By contrast, past extremes include 1888, when NY City had a 2-foot blizzard (March) and a longest-ever 14-day heat wave (June) (, 1900 (Sept.), when a hurricane destroyed Galveston, Texas, killing 8,000 – the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, 1908 (Feb.), when Indian Lake (in NY’s Adirondack Mts.) – then as now free of Urban Heat Island asphalt, cars & tall buildings – plunged to its so far coldest -42F/-41.1C, 1911 (July), when Indian Lake soared to its so far hottest 103F/39.4C…while Painter, Wyoming crashed to a U.S. lowest-ever-in-July 10F/-12.2C, as well as 1913, when Death Valley, California sizzled to a world-record 134F/56.7C (

#2) “Polar ice shrinking?   Arctic ice rebounded in 2013 to ~160% of the cyclical low hit in 2012 as a result of the mostly warm phase of the Atlantic’s 15-20-year cycle, due to turn predominantly cold by ~ 2020. Antarctic ice keeps setting expansion records, as 99% of Antarctica (minus volcanic Palmer Peninsula) has for 30-plus years been chilling down, currently assisted by the Pacific, which in 2007 entered the cool phase of its 25-30-year cycle (Pacific = 167% Atlantic’s size).

In1912 explorer Mawson found Antarctic Commonwealth Bay ice-free ( /watch?v=k-9yJ6-6aEs). Antarctic ice has since grown massively…so Christmas Eve 2013 (Antarctic summer) a ship sent to showcase “disappearing” ice got ice-bound (below) in Commonwealth Bay


(…and even rescue icebreakers were trapped (

#3) “Snows diminishing?  No: We’ve already had more East Coast snowstorms this decade (2010’s) than in any before (annals since 1950’s), 4 of the 5 snowiest winters for the Northern Hemisphere hit from 2007/8 through 2013/14, 2012 saw first snow in 112 years freak Egypt’s camels (, 2013 had first-ever May snow down even to Arkansas (latitude of North African coast), in 2014 Japan doubled its old heaviest-ever (, Iran got its worst in 50 years (, on 9/11/2014 Rapid City, S.Dakota shov(el)ed 2 days forward its 1970 earliest-ever snow, Boston’s 110.6” for 2014/15 tops all [annals fr. 1871]). 2014/15’s New England blitz may have been worst since 1717 when folks could leave home only from 2nd floor lee side, implying depths up to 8′ or more. Feb. 2015 students were jumping from 2nd-floor windows into deep snow.” (

#4)   “U.S. & world warming”?   No, National Weather Service (NWS) confirms: Since 1994 Continental U.S. is trending colder in all climatic regions!   Boston’s 2015 Feb. was 2nd-coldest since 1871, Buffalo’s, Cleveland’s & Chicago’s were coldest-ever since 1884, ’71 & ’72. At Saranac Lake, Feb. & March have dished ~43% & ~68% of new cold records since just year 2000! Fewer U.S. heat records set since the 1930’s: 39 pre-1960, just 11 post-1960, but the ’30’s set 23 of our 50 state all-time-highs!   Midwest 90F+ heat is down for ~120 yrs and hit all-time low in 2014 ( 07/25/2014), all the while CO-2 has climbed and thus bared its irrelevance:


NWS books still flaunt a phantom Tucson, AZ ( 1990 “all-time high” of 117F/47.2C…which the NY Times revealed as artifact of a malfunctioning thermometer ( a case of Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” data-cooking.

Since the 1940’s, the U.S. has had more cold than heat records, as on Jan. 16, 2009: That day, an Arctic invasion set new all-time-lows in Maine (-50F/-45.6 vs. 1925’s -48F/-44.4C), reported by U.S. Geodetic Survey, then accepted by NWS, and in Illinois (-37F/-38.3C vs. 1999’s -36F/-37.8C), notched on an airport instrument certified just the day before…yet nixed by NWS, trashing science to spare an Illinoisian embarrassment on the eve of his Inauguration.

During an Alaska-wide 2012 record cold wave, a Jim River, AK observer’s battle-tested Vantage Pro2, rated to at least -40/F/C, gamely soldiered on in fast-plunging temps until at 6:34 p.m., with 14 sunless hours to go, its sensor surrendered at -79F/-60.6C. NWS nixed this cold record, too, dissed the thermometer as “not rated for temperature colder than 40 below”…yet its own official instrument at Prospect Creek, site of the 1971 U.S. all-time-low of -80F/-61.1C and just 0.9 miles from Jim River, is also rated to just -40F ( What justifies NWS use of taxpayer $$ for equipment sure to ensure Prospect Creek will never “officially” break the old -80F record?

Overseas, the events described in #3 above as well as, for example, Germany’s National Weather Service confirm temperatures are heading down.

White House, Greens target Atlantic fishing grounds

“The sacred cod.”  On March 17th, 1784, Mr. John Rowe of Boston arose from his seat in the Hall of Representatives at the Old State House, and offered the following motion: “That leave might be given to hang up the representation of a cod fish in the room where the House sit[s], as a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of the Commonwealth….”

A symbolic cod was placed in the hall, and was later moved to the new State House building in 1798. There it has remained ever since.

Fishermen and seafood-dependent communities in New England are Fishing fleetbattening down the hatches, fearing that an Obama administration move to create a giant Atlantic Marine Monument will spell the end to their way of life.

Led by Earthjustice, the Conservation Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Geographic Society, and the Pew Charitable Trust, environmentalists are urging the White House to use the 1906 Antiquities Act to designate a 6,000-square-mile area in the Gulf of Maine and off the coast of Massachusetts as a National Monument. The area is home to spectacular geological formations, including Cashes Ledge, an underwater mountain system, and the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts, an undersea chain of formations about 150 miles off the Massachusetts coast.

“We have an opportunity to permanently protect two of our nation’s greatest ocean treasures, right off our coast,” Priscilla Brooks, the Conservation Law Foundation’s director of ocean conservation, told the Associated Press (September 13, 2015).

National monument designations come with severe land- and, Gloucester fishermanin this case, sea-use restrictions. For over four hundred years, the area targeted by green activists and the Obama administration has been one of the richest fishing grounds in North America.. The region’s fishermen fear that the monument could spell the end of their industry and they suspect that this is the ultimate goal of environmentalists, in and out of government.

“Excluding Commercial Fishing Activity from Certain Segments of the Ocean”

This view is shared by Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R). “These National Marine Monuments serve only one purpose – excluding commercial fishing activity from certain segments of the ocean,” he wrote in a letter to Obama in August. Fishermen are particularly concerned about being denied access to the seafood-rich Cashes Ledge. Robert Vanasse, executive director of the fishing advocacy group Saving Seafood, told the AP that the monument proposal ignores protections already in place in Cashes Ledge, including a prohibition on dredging and bottom trawling.

Marine monuments – there are currently four in the Pacific, and none in the Atlantic – are under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA typically bans commercial fishing, mining, and dredging in marine monuments.

Every bit as troubling as the monument designation itself is the use of the Antiquities Act to bring it about. Originally crafted to protect Native American sites of historical and cultural significance, the Antiquities Act has been used by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations to declare an area a National Monument for environmental reason via executive action, with little if any local input. “There shouldn’t be a couple of people sitting around a table in the West Wing deciding this kind of thing,” Saving Seafood’s Vanasse told the AP.

A decision on the monument designation is expected in early 2016. Entering his last year in office, and determined to leave behind an environmental “legacy” to augment his unilateral, anti-fossil fuel action on climate change, Obama can be counted on to give NOAA the go ahead to designate the Atlantic Marine Monument.

– See more at:

Whither global food shortage predictions?

By E. Calvin Beisner
Originally Published in the Washington Times

Less than two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which wants us to trust its prognostications about conditions a century from now enough to bet trillions on them, warned that global warming threatened global food supplies.

But last week The New Indian Express reported, “International food prices dipped by 19 percent in the last year, the fourth consecutive annual fall .”

Stop and think about that for a moment.

In 2014 the IPCC’s Working Group II warned that global warming threatened food supplies. Less than two years later, global news was of a glut of food supplies sufficient to suppress prices by a fifth.

And food prices have been falling for four years — two years before the panel’s warning.

Can the IPCC claim its warnings were about the distant future, so what has happened in the two years since is irrelevant?

No — not gauging from the reactions of numerous prominent climate professionals:
“The important nuance [in the 2014 warning],” reported CBS, “is how climate change is interacting and exacerbating problems people face today, says Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist .”

“It’s not far-off in the future and it’s not exotic creatures — it’s us and now,” CBS quoted Penn State paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, primary author of the debunked “hockey stick” graph that purported to eliminate evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, commenting on the 2014 report.

The Guardian reported, “Climate change has already cut into the global food supply according to a report from the U.N.’s climate science panel.”

“It’s about people now,” said Virginia Burkett, the chief scientist for global change at the U.S. Geological Survey and one of the report’s authors. “It’s more relevant to the man on the street. It’s more relevant to communities because the impacts are directly affecting people — not just butterflies and sea ice.”

“The impacts are already evident in many places in the world. It is not something that is [only] going to happen in the future,” said David Lobell, a professor at Stanford University’s Center for Food Security and the Environment, who devised the models [behind the IPCC report].

“Almost everywhere you see the warming effects have a negative affect [sic] on wheat and there is a similar story for corn as well. These are not yet enormous effects but they show clearly that the trends are big enough to be important,” Mr. Lobell said.

Six months later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a synthesis report reiterating the same message. Justin Gillis (with whom I have a little personal experience) reported on it for The New York Times:

“The gathering risks of climate change are so profound that they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger the global situation is becoming more acute . Failure to reduce [carbon-dioxide] emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages .

“The report contained the group’s most explicit warning yet about the food supply, saying that climate change had already become a small drag on overall global production, and could become a far larger one if emissions continued unchecked.

“Under the worst-case scenarios, factors like high food prices and intensified weather disasters would most likely leave poor people worse off. In fact, the report said, that has already happened to a degree.”

But Bloomberg reported on Jan. 10 that “Stockpiles of corn and soybeans in the U.S., the world’s largest grower, probably were the biggest ever on Dec. 1, and wheat inventories were the highest in five years .”

Well, maybe that’s just in the United States — an anomaly? No. American stockpile growth was driven partly by a strong dollar but also by “rising production by other suppliers.”

Instead of declining, as the IPCC’s reports led us to expect, world grain (which provides 65 percent of human caloric intake) production rose by 10 percent from the 2008-09 harvest year to the 2014-15 harvest year.

This is no big surprise to those who note that, contrary to the IPCC’s computer climate models’ predictions, satellite global temperature data (the most reliable we have) show no global warming for at least the 18 years and eight months — from May 1997 through December 2015.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to stop the war on fossil fuels, the developing world’s best source of the abundant, affordable, reliable energy essential to rising and staying out of poverty.

E. Calvin Beisner is founder and national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

“Almost everywhere you see the warming effects have a negative affect [sic] on wheat and there is a similar story for corn as well. These are not yet enormous effects but they show clearly that the trends are big enough to be important,” Mr. Lobell said.

Six months later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a synthesis report reiterating the same message. Justin Gillis (with whom I have a little personal experience) reported on it for The New York Times:

“The gathering risks of climate change are so profound that they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger the global situation is becoming more acute . Failure to reduce [carbon-dioxide] emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages .

“The report contained the group’s most explicit warning yet about the food supply, saying that climate change had already become a small drag on overall global production, and could become a far larger one if emissions continued unchecked.

“Under the worst-case scenarios, factors like high food prices and intensified weather disasters would most likely leave poor people worse off. In fact, the report said, that has already happened to a degree.”

But Bloomberg reported on Jan. 10 that “Stockpiles of corn and soybeans in the U.S., the world’s largest grower, probably were the biggest ever on Dec. 1, and wheat inventories were the highest in five years .”

Well, maybe that’s just in the United States — an anomaly? No. American stockpile growth was driven partly by a strong dollar but also by “rising production by other suppliers.”

Instead of declining, as the IPCC’s reports led us to expect, world grain (which provides 65 percent of human caloric intake) production rose by 10 percent from the 2008-09 harvest year to the 2014-15 harvest year.

This is no big surprise to those who note that, contrary to the IPCC’s computer climate models’ predictions, satellite global temperature data (the most reliable we have) show no global warming for at least the 18 years and eight months — from May 1997 through December 2015.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to stop the war on fossil fuels, the developing world’s best source of the abundant, affordable, reliable energy essential to rising and staying out of poverty.

E. Calvin Beisner is founder and national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Temperature Trends: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2

Note: This post by Anthony Watts in 2008 reviewed a paper I had posted on which did a comparative analysis of CO2 versus other natural factors and temperatures. Other follow up papers have been done, peer reviewed  and published since then and another set is under review for an upcoming book for Elsevier. They show natural factors drive climate changes.

Anthony Watts / January 25, 2008

Note: This is my analysis of a paper by Joe D’Aleo, I’ve tried to simplify and explain certain terms where possible so that  it can reach the broadest audience of readers. You can read the entire paper here.  See updated paper on Academic EDU here (note this too has been updated for the new volume).

Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one matched better.

It’s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2  correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.

Understanding R2correlation
R2Coefficient Match between data trends
1.0 Perfect
.90 Good
.50 Fair
.25 Poor
 0 or negative no match at all

If CO2 is the main driver of climate change this last century, it stands to reason that the trend of surface temperatures would follow the trend of CO2, and thus the Rcorrelation between the two trends would be high. Since NCDC has recently released the new USHCN2 data set for surface temperatures, which promises improved detection and removal of false trends introduced by change points in the data, such as station moves, it seemed like an opportune time to test the correlation.

At the same time,  Rcorrelation tests were run on other possible drivers of climate; Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

First lets look at the surface temperature record. Here we see the familiar plot of temperature over the last century as it has been plotted by NASA GISS:


The temperature trend is unmistakably upwards, and the change over the last century is about +0.8°C.

Now lets look at the familiar carbon dioxide graph, known as the Keeling Curve, which plots atmospheric CO2 concentration measure at the Mauna Loa Observatory:


CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Oak Ridge National Lab) also has a data set for this that includes CO2 data back to the last century (1895) extracted from ice core samples.  That CO2 data set was plotted against the new USHCN2 surface temperature data as shown below:


A comparison of the 11year running mean of the USHCN version 2 annual mean temperatures with the running mean of CO2 from CDIAC. An r-squared of 0.44 was found.

The results were striking to say the least. An Rcorrelation of only 0.44 was determined, placing it between fair and poor in the fit between the two data sets.

Now lets look at other potential drivers of climate,  TSI and PDO.

Scafetta and West (2007) have suggested that the total solar irradiance (TSI) is a good proxy for the total solar effect which may be responsible for at least 50% of the warming since 1900. To test it, again the same Rcorrelation was run on the two data sets.


In this case, the correlation of TSI to the surface temperature record is better than with CO2, producing an Rcorrelation of 0.57 which is between fair and good.

Finally. Joe ran the Rcorrelation test on PDO, the Pacfic Decadal Oscillation. He writes

We know both the Pacific and Atlantic undergo multidecadal cycles the order of 50 to 70 years. In the Pacific this cycle is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas (in both cases a frequency difference of close to a factor of 2). Since El Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in North America.

 This PDO and TSI to surface temperature connection has also been pointed out in a previous post I made here, for former California State Climatologist, Jim Goodridge. PDO affects the USA more than the Atlantic cycle (AMO) because we have prevailing westerly wind flow.

Globally both the PDO and AMO warm phases lead to more global warmth while the cold phases a cooler globe both on an annual basis.


Here is how Joe did the data correlation:

Since the warm modes of the PDO and AMO both favor warming and their cold modes cooling, I thought the sum of the two might provide a useful index of ocean induced warming/cooling for the hemisphere (and US). I standardized the two data bases and summed them and correlated with the USHCN data, again using a 11 point smoothing as with the CO2 and TSI.


This was the jackpot correlation with the highest value of r-squared (0.83!!!). An Rcorrelation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied together than CO2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2.

But he didn’t stop there. He also looked at the last decade where it has been commonly opined that the Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years to see how well the correlation was in the last decade:


Since temperatures have stabilized in the last decade, we looked at the correlation of the CO2 with HCSN data. Greenhouse theory and models predict an accelerated warming with the increasing carbon dioxide.

Instead, a negative correlation between USHCN and CO2 was found in the last decade with an R or Pearson Coefficient of -0.14, yielding an r-squared of 0.02.

According to CO2 theory, we should see long term rise of mean temperatures, and while there may be yearly patterns of weather that diminish the effect of the short term, one would expect to see some sort of correlation over a decade. But it appears that with an Rcorrelation of only 0.02, there isn’t any match over the past ten years.

As another test, this analysis was also done on Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) data and MSU’s (John Christy) satellite temperature data:

To ensure that was not just an artifact of the United States data, we did a similar correlation of the CO2 with the CRU global and MSU lower tropospheric monthlies over the same period. We found a similar non-existent correlation of just 0.02 for CRU and 0.01 for the MSU over troposphere.


So with Rcorrelations of .01 and .02 what this shows is that the rising CO2 trend does not match the satellite data either.

Here are the different test correlations in a summary table:


And his conclusion:

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.

 While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as anything I’ve seen. Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening.

Note: Another wildcard in the climate is volcanism.

High levels of stratospheric aerosols from major low latitude eruptions that reach high into the stratosphere have been observed to cause a global cooling of up to 0.5C for several years. High latitude volcanoes are usually less powerful but since the stratosphere is lower there, they can have effect on weather including cooling in winters from enhanced polar blocking high pressure (the negative Arctic Oscillation). A low aerosol count in quiet volcanic periods conversely allows more radiation through and supports warming the order of 0.1 to 0.2C. The major eruptions of the early 1980s (Mt. St. Helens and El Chichon) and the early 1990s (Pinatubo and Cerro Hudson can be seen to have caused cooling. After the atmospheric aerosols precipitated out and a strong El Nino occurred, a step change up occurred and was maintained at a higher level by lack of major eruptions.



US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895 , Joeseph D’Aleo, 2008

Multidecadal tendencies in ENSO and Global Temperatures Related to Multidecadal Oscillations, Elsevier, Evidence Based Climate Science, 2014

Persistence in California Weather Patterns,  Jim Goodridge, 2007

Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600  Scafetta and West, 2007

The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset, National Climatic Data Center, 2007


The heat is on!

Why should Volkswagen be investigated for emission deception, but not government agencies?

Paul Driessen

The heat is on! Not the unusual winter warmth in much of the United States – but the unrelenting heat generated by propaganda and pressure campaigns that the White House, EPA, Big Green and news media are unleashing in the wake of the Paris climate agreement … and as a prelude to the 2016 elections.

A recent Washington Post editorial laid out the strategy. The long-term warming trend is “concerning.” Maybe we can’t blame this year’s strong El Niño “squarely on climate change,” but “one paper” says the number of strong El Niño years could double. Obama’s “landmark” carbon dioxide regulations “played a key role” in securing an “unprecedented” international climate deal that could eventually compel all nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, to “avoid serious risks” of climate catastrophes.

Above all, we must “build on 2015’s climate progress.” There must be no backpedalling on the Paris accord, EPA regulations, or replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Above all, no “fishing expeditions designed to personally discredit scientists and undermine peer-reviewed research” that supports the elimination of carbon-based fuels. Republican claims are mere “bluster” and “buffoonery.”

Never mind that White House and EPA events, the Paris climate conference, the Vatican climate summit and even Science magazine have offered virtually no forum for numerous scientists who contest claims that humans are causing “dangerous manmade climate change” to present their case or debate alarmist witnesses and officials. Never mind that climate chaos claims look increasingly flimsy.

A fundamental principle is at stake here: policies and rules that affect our lives, livelihoods and living standards must be based on honesty, accountability and verifiable scientific evidence.

The Justice Department has sued Volkswagen on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. They want up to $18 billion dollars in penalties, because VW installed special software that caused its diesel cars to emit fewer pollutants during tests used to ensure compliance with emission regulations. The falsified tests allegedly duped American consumers into purchasing 580,000 diesel-powered vehicles.

Federal prosecutors are also conducting criminal probes of Volkswagen and its executives. Countless other civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions have companies and citizens in their crosshairs. Such actions are often warranted, even if the draconian incarceration and monetary penalties are not.

No one should be victimized by fraud or other criminal activities, by private companies – or by government agencies and bureaucrats, or third parties they hire and use to validate their policies.

Equally important, no one forces us to buy a VW or any other car. But when it comes to laws and regulations, we have no choice. Submit, or else. If those rules are based on dishonesty – on emission deception at massive, unprecedented levels in the case of climate – we pay a huge, unacceptable price:

Our taxes support science that may be manipulated and fabricated. More taxes fund regulatory behemoths that target energy producers and energy-dependent industries, while giving billions in subsidies to crony-corporatist allies. Still more tax money is transferred to alarmists like Michael Mannand Jagedish Shukla, who launch vicious attacks on skeptics. And the resulting regulations inflict soaring energy costs that kill jobs and hammer families, companies, hospitals, schools and communities, for few or no benefits.

Congress has every right to investigate this. Indeed, legislators are duty-bound to ferret out fraud and abuse. These are not “fishing expeditions.” They seek to determine the reliability and integrity of data and studies presented to support enormously expensive policies, and ascertain the veracity of government officials and tax-supported scientists who want more power and too often refuse to answer questions.

EPA and Justice Department investigators demand full disclosure and tolerate no obstruction, obfuscation or misleading information. This is fitting and proper. But why should we and our elected representatives have to tolerate such actions by heavy-handed regulators who want to control every aspect of our lives, but routinely hide their data and methodologies, and refuse to be held accountable?

There are good reasons to doubt their climate chaos assertions, and even their integrity. What little warming our planet has experienced in the past 19 years is measured in hundredths of a degree, especially when adjusted for the El Niño effect that transfers warm surface Pacific Ocean temperatures to the atmosphere. The warming that has the Post, Mr. Obama and EPA in a tizzy began around 1850, as Earth emerged from a 500-year-long Little Ice Age – which by happy coincidence for climate alarmists also marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that they blame for most warming in recent decades.

Hurricanes and tornadoes, storms, droughts, polar ice and sea levels are all within the realm of historic experience. There is nothing “unprecedented” about them, and certainly nothing to justify shutting down our carbon-based energy system, restructuring our economy, or redistributing our hard-earned wealth to countries that are not bound by any energy and emission reductions agreed to in Paris.

The fracking revolution proves we are not running out of oil or natural gas. That means we have a century or more to develop affordable, reliable replacement energy technologies. It means environmental radicals now have only climate cataclysm hysteria to justify demands that we abandon hydrocarbons. It explains why they’ve concocted the fairytale that CO2 is “acidifying” oceans that are and will remain firmly alkaline, and why they have been in regulatory hyperdrive during Obama’s final years in office.

However, as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in Paris, even if all the industrialized nations’ CO2 emissions declined to zero, “it wouldn’t be enough [to prevent alleged climate disaster], not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” Even assuming that carbon dioxide does drive climate change, all the costly, job-killing regulations that EPA is imposing would prevent an undetectable 0.018 degrees Celsius (0.032 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.

Earth’s climate fluctuates regularly. What actual evidence do climate alarmists have that recent changes are dangerous, unprecedented, and due to fossil fuel use? That any warming above 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F) would be catastrophic? (A cooler planet would be much worse for wildlife, people and agriculture.)

What actual evidence do they have that government can control climate and weather by limiting the amount of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere? That justifies letting anti-energy activists and bureaucrats “fundamentally transform” our entire energy and economic system?

Why do they refuse to present their asserted evidence for all to see – amid robust debate and cross-examination – and try to defend their “97% consensus” science? Why do some of them think “climate deniers” are mentally ill for questioning the manmade climate Armageddon mantra?

President Obama insists that climate change is the biggest problem facing America. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seem to agree. They all think Bigger Government is the answer.

The citizenry fundamentally disagrees. One recent Gallup poll found that Americans view our already huge government, the economy, jobs and terrorism as the biggest threats facing our nation. Pollution came in at #23; global warming didn’t even register among 48 listed issues. Another Gallup study found that 69% of all Americans (88% of Republicans) say Big Government is the most serious threat we face.

That is what this year’s elections are all about.

How much bigger (or smaller) will our government become? Who gets to rule your lives: We the People, or another dictatorial president and her army of faceless, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats? What will the future hold for our lives, liberties, livelihoods and living standards?

Get informed. Get involved. Get to the polls. Better yet, take a page out of the Democrats’ playbook: get to the polls early, vote often, and make sure your dead friends and relatives vote too.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Why should Volkswagen be investigated for emission deception, but not government agencies?

Paul Driessen


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Union of Concerned Scientists at UNH Fail Big Time

Reference: UNH reports warn of drastic climate change – April 4, 2014, Fosters Democrat


This report details the nine most relevant claims in the 2014 UNH press release and ‘report’ and provides factual data to refute the basis for those claims.

The authors of the UNH study, while making unfounded statements about the climate, weather, long-term trends and forecasting, do not provide substantial data beyond the flawed forecasts of climate models that have been shown to have failed over the past 20 years.

The data provided in this document refutes these groundless claims are from a variety of scientifically recognized sources and can be accessed through the source references directly.

Here are two responses to claims made about winter warming and decreased snowfall.

CLAIM #6: Extreme cold temperatures may occur less frequently, and extreme cold days may be warmer than in the past.


In the northeast, winters have cooled at a rate of 1.5°F/decade in the last 20 years.

uc1                Source: NCDC Climate at a Glance

Longer term, the winter mean temperatures in Concord, NH shows no trend at all since 1868/69, just the natural cycles associated with ocean cycles (annual temperatures in red with 5 year running mean black dash).


                             Source: NWS Portland, Maine

New England’s coldest temperature -50°F was equaled in Maine in 2009. 2013/14 was the 4th coldest winter in New Hampshire since 1970 and 2nd coldest March since 1895.


Source: NOAA NCDC Month in Review March State Rankings

January to March 2015 was even more extreme. In the northeast (10 northeast states plus DC, it tied for the coldest January to March since 1895 with 1904.



The Union of Concerned Scientists projected that New Hampshire climate would become like North Carolina. This is VERY FAR from the reality. The changes suggest our winters are becoming more like southern Quebec.

  • CLAIM #7:

Warming winters will reduce opportunities for snow- and ice-related recreation (and related economic activity).


The UCS had a special presentation in the late summer of 2007 on Mt. Washington promising a dire future for the winter sports and maple sugar industry due to warming.

That winter all time seasonal snow records were set for snowfall in the northeast from Concord to Caribou (and all through the western US up to Alaska).


Along the east coast we have seen record setting snow years and 16 major impact snowstorms just 5 years into this decade making this the snowiest decade on record back to the 1950s and beating out the memorable 1960s and the 2000s, which had 10. For the decade ending 2014/15, we had 25 major impact winter storms affecting the heavily populated areas of the east.

UC7                                         NOAA NESIS High Impact Snowstorms

That has not stopped UNH to continue to travel to the state capitol to warn of warming disaster for the ski industry. They did so early last winter I am told after the winter got off a warm, slow snow start.

But then starting in late January, 2014/15 set records for snowfall in Boston (back to1872) and many other locations in the northeast into southeastern Canada.


In Boston it helped nudge the 10 year running mean of seasonal snow to the highest in the entire record back to the 1880s.


In Boston, the huge snow piles (some of which lasted to July!) were throwbacks to the historic winter of 1717. Historian David Ludlum wrote “That year, snows had reached five feet in December with drifts of 25 feet in January before one great last assault in late February into early March of 40 to 60 more inches. “The snow was so deep that people could only leave their houses from the second floor, implying actual snow depths of as much as 8 feet or more.”


“Entire houses were covered over, identifiable only by a thin curl of smoke coming out of a hole in the snow,” the New England Historical Society noted. “In Hampton, N.H., search parties went out after the storms hunting for widows and elderly people at risk of freezing to death.” Sometimes snow would pile so high people would burn “their furniture because they couldn’t get to the woodshed.”

“It wasn’t uncommon for them to lose their bearings and not be able to find the houses,” the society wrote in its account of winter 1717. “People maintained tunnels and paths through the snow from house to house.”

In the Northern Hemisphere from 1967, 4 of the top 5 snowiest years have occurred since 2007/08, and 5 of the top 6 since 2002/03.

           NOAA Winter Snowcover Extent (Rutgers)

If you look at snowstorms in the last decade versus the prior 5 decades, you see an amazing increase in high impact snows. We have had 25 high population center impact snow events in the last decade compared to 5 to 8 in the prior five ten-year periods. Many of events uncharacteristically have had very high snow to liquid water content with very low temperatures; the opposite of what the UCS, NOAA and UN had indicated would be the case in the era of global warming.


Environmentalists, like those from the Union of Concerned Scientists at UNH and elsewhere clearly have no skill at predicting the future.


Private Property Ownership – the First American Right To Die Under Barack Obama’s Tyranny

By Tom DeWeese

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can…” John Lennon wrote these words for a fantasy song to glorify his understanding of the road to peace. John may not have understood the true origins of his thoughts, but we know it as Communism. Barack Obama knows that too and is determined to make sure you understand the consequences of “no possessions.” In government-speak it’s called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.” (AFFH) Once it becomes a reality you will be able to fully appreciate John’s statement – imagine no possessions.” For if AFFH is allowed to stand, the concept of private property is about to die in America.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule is federal enforcement of Sustainable Development Smart Growth Cities. Until now there was at least a pretense that Smart Growth development was a local process. That, of course, is what the American Planning Association (APA), Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and your city council have assured citizens. Now, through the revelation of AFFH, it is clear that such development is a top-down dictatorship, overseen by the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Announced July 16, 2015 by HUD Secretary Julian Castro, the excuse for the 377 page ruling is to promote and assure discrimination and achieve balanced and integrated living patterns for all citizens. To achieve that goal, AFFH is specifically designed to move people out of rural areas into mega cities and tightly control who may stay in reduced suburbs. Exactly as we’ve been warning about Smart Growth policy.

To achieve its goals, AFFH requires agencies and communities that apply for HUD grants to detail income levels, religion, color, and national origin of every single person living in every neighborhood of the community. They will then determine any imbalances and, if necessary, force a massive shift of people into such neighborhoods to achieve the desired balance. This is nothing less than social engineering!

Worse, the AFFH rule will effectively eliminate local government rule over development. Where once there was at least the pretense of local communities making their own decisions and could spend the HUD grants as they determined best for their communities, now, under AFFH, HUD will control those decisions to its satisfaction. And the local governments will be forced to comply. The result is the destruction of local representative rule. Communities must supply updates to HUD on the break down of its communities every five years to check on and assure progress.

So what does this mean to average American citizens – in plain English? It means the destruction of neighborhoods, loss of control of their own property and loss of property values. If government funded high rise apartment buildings are forced into neighborhoods of single family homes, the value of the properties will fall. It’s possible that, should a neighborhood find itself in a shortage of residents representing certain ethnic backgrounds or income levels, then a homeowner trying to sell their home may find they can only sell to someone representing that imbalance. Imagine the affect that will have on the already depressed real estate market.

For those who live in ethnic neighborhoods of their own choosing, being close to family and friends that share traditions and outlooks, it means being forced into neighborhoods where they are not wanted and where they do not want to be. It means a loss of freedom of choice and loss of the right to be secure in their home. In this day of constant accusations of racism for nearly every act, does no one see the irony of the built- in racism in a regulation that assumes those of certain ethnic origin or economic level are oppressed and unhappy simply because they live in a different kind of environment from that of the enforcers? What could make them feel more lost and hopeless than to be forced into living in government controlled housing in a neighborhood where they are shunned and resented?

This past September the United Nations made a big deal out of its new 2030 Agenda as it vows to eliminate poverty by 2030. Of course the only remedy to poverty offered in any UN policy is redistribution of wealth. That means taking from those who created their wealth (wealth translates to whatever amount you may have in your pocket or bank account at the time) and give a portion to someone who has failed to create their own wealth. However, the missing ingredient in these so-called solutions is a plan to actually help people build their own wealth. Take just a small amount today to feed someone in need and tomorrow they will need more. Again and again and again.

Taking from a producer time and again will cause two results. First, the producer eventually loses their wealth. If government takes enough then the person who once had wealth will have none and will in fact need assistances themselves. Result = more poor, not less. Second, the producer will finally learn that it is a waste of time to keep trying to produce and will stop producing. Result = again, more poor, fewer opportunities. No solution to get people out of the poverty cycle. Moving them into your neighborhood will not stop poverty. It will make you poorer as your property values decrease.

The fact is, America became the wealthiest nation on earth in a very short time precisely because of the ability of every American to own and control their own property. Ownership produces equity – that is a process to build wealth. 60% of small businesses in America were financed by the equity in the owner’s private property. And eventually 60% of Americans were employed by companies that were financed in that manner. Private property ownership is the path to building wealth and eliminating poverty.

However there is no mention of such a plan in the UN’s Agenda 2030. Instead we see quotes like this one from the National Audubon Society’s Peter Berle: “We reject the idea of private property.” Those promoting these policies tell us that private property ownership is a social injustice because not everyone owns private property. So, they plan to make it impossible for anyone to own property – just to keep us all equal.

Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University explained the goal best when he said, “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Ehrlich, by the way, is the father of the discredited population explosion theory that drives much of today’s environmental movement.

As a result of current Smart Growth policies, federal subsidized low income housing is taking the place of single family homes, thus eliminating the ability of low income Americans to buy their own property and achieve their own wealth – what was once called the American Dream.

According to, which reports on trends in the building industry, homebuilders are no longer planning to build starter homes for young families or low income buyers. They only plan to build single family homes for the rich and federally subsidized apartment buildings for the rest of us. Why? Because the housing industry is being taken over by the federal government through plans such as AFFH. It is setting the standard for the future of housing.

In cities around the nation, such as Portland, Oregon, Boston, Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington, their Smart Growth plans are forcing them to end the availability of single family homes. In July, 2015, Seattle mayor Ed Murray and the City Council called on community leaders to develop a Housing Affordability and Living Agenda for the city. One of the main recommendations was to get rid of single family homes. Smart Growth forces an artificial line around the city outside of which no growth may take place. As the population grows, density grows. Eventually the city has no where to grow but up – into pack and stack high-rise apartment buildings. That is what has happened to Seattle. Now home owners will begin to see Eminent Domain used to take their single family home and replace it with the high-rises. It is the end of private property in Seattle.

One of the great outrages coming from the enforcement of such policy is the National Association of Realtors (NAR). This is the national organization that has set itself up as the champion of private property ownership and the idea that home ownership is the root of the American Dream. Yet, the NAR has sold its soul for a few grants and it is now a major promoter of Smart Growth policy. Every realtor in the nation should rise up against the NAR and threaten to leave it if it doesn’t stop promoting Smart Growth policy. If realtors continue to be cowed by the NAR they will soon wake up to learn they will have no product (homes) to sell. The future of every realtor in the nation is at stake. They could and should be a powerful voice in stopping this destruction of property rights. But today they remain silent and ignorant of their own organization’s actions, to their own peril and that of every homeowner in the nation. The NAR and its member realtors take a walk of shame everyday that they let this outrage go forward.

However, some members of Congress are trying to stop AFFH. Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona introduced a bill in July to ban funding for AFFH. His bill passed the House 229 – 193. Then Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced the “Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act (S.1909). His bill has six co-sponsors including Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. The plan was to get both bills passed in their respective houses, then merge them together in a conference committee and add the final version to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill (THUD). That bill was considered to be “must –pass” legislation making it more likely that Obama would have to sign it or see HUD shut down.

Unfortunately the plan didn’t work. House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell once again betrayed efforts to reign in the Obama juggernaut by eliminating the language from the massive trillion dollar omnibus spending bill passed in December. In fact, the final spending bill actually increased HUD’s budget by $2.6 billion, assuring it has plenty to enforce AFFH.

However, in a conversation I had with Lee’s legislative director, he assured me that S.1909 is still alive and that the Senator is determined to stop AFFH. It is vital that Americans who see the danger in AFFH take action now to stop it. We must flood Capitol Hill with calls supporting S.1909 and express our strong opposition to AFFH.

The American Policy Center has also prepared a petition addressed to Senator Lee to encourage him to continue the fight. With thousands of signatures he can use the petition to show other members of the Senate that he has strong support for S.1909. Readers can sign the petition here. If American private property rights are to be saved then we must stop AFFH!

Clearly HUD’s plan to enforce the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule is a major tool for killing private property and de-developing the United States. It is the enforcement of social justice. It is pure social engineering designed to reorganize human society, just as was promised with Agenda 21.

The one growth industry coming from Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, and the AFFH rule is government. It is getting bigger with each new rule and grant. The obvious result of such massive growth is corruption at all levels of government. When people have no say in how their lives are being engineered government rushes in to fill the void and dictate the rules. It’s a pretty hopeless feeling to stand alone against such a behemoth.

For twenty years the warnings have been issued. We warned that Agenda 21 is the reorganization of human society. That local planning is the enforcement of Agenda 21. That Smart Growth will force people off their land and into cities of stack and pack high-rise tombs. That Sustainable Development will control your food and water; transportation choices; family size. And that shortages and misery are your future.

We warned that our American form of representative government will be replaced by non-elected regional councils and dictated to by a central government. That Free Enterprise will be replaced with fascist-style public private partnerships as international corporations will use their influence with government to stomp out mom and pop stores; government agents will join in group hugs with Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporate presidents as they carve up the goods of our once free society.

I’ve delivered all of these warnings for more than 20 years. And frankly I’m weary of it. I’ve been laughed at by elected officials and ignored by national news shows. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist and a liar. As we tried to warn Americans of these dire consequences, they have been easily diverted and maneuvered with the chosen issue of the day; totally engrossed in a presidential election that is a year away; sniping at who said what; who offended whom… Meanwhile, the real issue of the complete destruction of our society, our values and our way of life are ALL encompassed in Agenda 21. And it moves forward almost unabated, as Americans would rather think about something else.

Well America, get ready to receive your due! Barack Obama has just nationalized your home. Along with that, he has put your local government in chains and he and his central government will now make the rules in your local community. If you do nothing now then it won’t matter whom you elect to city council or county commission. It won’t matter how loud you scream. Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can! Ignore this warning to take action today or you’re going to learn.

Click here to sign our petition now


America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

Posted: 04 Jan 2016 08:23 AM PST

America’s mass shooting capital isn’t somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It’s in Obama’s own hometown.

Chicago is America’s mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.

2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #Black Lives Matter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they’re all run by the party of gun control which somehow can’t seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.

The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country’s murder capital.

These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.

Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

Chicago’s murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.

But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.

Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent.

New Orleans lags behind with a 39.6 murder rate. Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among Republican voters rushing to stock up on rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.

(A version of this article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine.)