NOAA says hot March weather in parts of US not due to global warming, official tries to cheer up AP reporter desperate to blame it on AGW

"Why wouldn't we embrace it as a darn good outcome," the NOAA official said, perhaps feeling the AP reporter needed cheering up after hearing he couldn't blame global warming.

4/2/12, "NOAA says record warmth _ ‘March madness’ _ was more freak occurrence than global warming," AP, via Washington Post

"Freak chance was mostly to blame for the record warm March weather that gripped two-thirds of the country, with man-made global warming providing only a tiny assist, a quick federal analysis shows....

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration analyzed the causes and chances of what it nicknamed “meteorological March madness.” Meteorologist Martin Hoerling said the main cause was a persistent warm wind sending toasty air north from the Gulf of Mexico. The study is not peer-reviewed and some outside scientists say it is short-sighted. “Climate change was certainly a factor, but it was certainly a minor factor,” Hoerling said.He said the bigger issue was wind patterns. Low pressure in the Pacific Northwest and high pressure in New England created a perfect funnel, like the gutter lane in a bowling alley, for warm air in the Gulf of Mexico to head north. That air is about 15 to 20 degrees warmer than the air in the Midwest. From time to time that air heads north, but what is unusual is that the wind pattern stayed that way for about two weeks.

“’’Why wouldn’t we embrace it as a darn good outcome,” Hoerling said. “This was not the wicked wind of the east. This was the good wind of the south.” ...

“It is a freak event that appeared to have perhaps a freak ancestor, 1910,” Hoerling said. In that year there was a similar heat wave....

Hoerling said a lot of people have worried that if March was this hot, what would June be like. But the March weather has little relation to what comes in summer, Hoerling said. “This is not the new reality,” he said."...via Tom Nelson

=================

Ed. note: Certain people might be out of a job if global warming didn't exist, or perhaps they're in a hurry to transfer billions of 'no strings' US tax dollars to their UN pals. UN personnel are legally free to use our money to decorate their summer homes or even throw it out the window (citations below). In other words, the UN is better than anything the Mafia ever dreamed of.

4/16/09, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian

(parag. 7), "That witness said the Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about $200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse. Witness names were withheld by USAID....

"UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit without permission in 2007...UNDP has yet to explain what happened to that money, the report says....

Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity,...

Commissioner Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon controller, asked Gambatesa whether the agencies have immunity "if they siphon (their U.S. grants) all off into Swiss banks? Is that accurate? They will be totally immune, no matter what they do with the money?"

"My understanding is, yes," Gambatesa replied."...(this item nr. end of article)

==================

Hillary Clinton in Copenhagen in 2009 promising billions of US tax dollars for non-existent global warming.

12/18/09, "US Pledges aid, urges developing nations to cut emissions," Wash. Post

====================

The 'science' is that carbon trading profits are used by European governments to pad budgets and sustain needless bureacracies. If they admitted AGW did not exist they would be broke. It's not a rumor, this article states where the money goes:

5/30/11, "Exclusive: EU energy plan threatens carbon billions," Reuters, Pete Harrison

"The Europe Union's carbon market could be flooded with excess pollution permits over the next decade, cutting prices in half and depriving governments of billions in budgeted revenues, EU sources say.

"There's a real concern of negative impacts on prices if the issue is not properly addressed," one EU source said on condition of anonymity. "Some of the studies imply that carbon prices will collapse."

It is not clear, however, whether European governments will support measures that would erode carbon prices, which would put a severe dent in budgeted government revenues in 2013-2020."...

=========================

7/6/11, "Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion," Fox News, Dan Gainor, commentary

.