#3 Is The New #1


Wildly dishonest rhetoric.

2010 is well behind 1998 and it would require a huge spike in temperatures to match 1998.  All these people have left in their arsenal is disinformation.



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to #3 Is The New #1

  1. PJB says:

    Just more of the Cancun confabulation. Timing is everything, ESPECIALLY in climate.

  2. Al Gored says:

    I’ve noticed that this ‘hottest year’ claim just isn’t getting the play it would have a year ago. On the BBC website their green parrot Richard Black did squawk out one of his usual cut and paste articles but on the BBC’s ‘America’ newscast they did not even mention it. That was probably a strategic move given that one of their big stories was the winter weather hitting them and the rest of western Europe. If they had made this claim in that scenario – and yes, weather is not climate – their credibility would have been blown even among the few clones who still believe what that network spouts.

  3. suyts says:

    But, but,……..2005 was the hottest ever! I remember! But wait! Yeh, well 1934 was hottest ever, but then they adjusted after 70 years, so it wasn’t really, but none of the years, 1998, 2005 or 2010, can match what used to be the hottest year ever, but maybe it was the hottest year never. Down the memory hole it goes! Conniving, manipulative bastages. Sadly, I don’t think they’ll be hunted down for crimes against humanity. They should be.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Every claim they make compounds their future problems.
      The statement:
      You can fool some of the people some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. That time is coming when more and more will see through the smoke screen the promoters have been blowing. That will leave the die hards to live with the results of public disgrace and in some cases legal action! It has just gone on to long and to far out of bounds to be forgiven!

      • Tony Duncan says:


        exactly. this is what I have been saying. Looking at Steve’s graph, anyone contending 2010 is hotter than 1998, would have to be engaging in outright fraud, and any scientist that accepted that would have to be also. That is the definition of conspiracy.
        When will the major scientific organizations come out and censure these people publicly?

      • Mike Davis says:

        The major scientific organizations are benefiting from proclamations made by the climatologists so it is their best interests to defend their funding source. The game is not really a conspiracy but a competition to see who can secure the most funding for future projects. The alarmism is a basis for that because no one wants to fund a non problem. The political side of the Chicken Little Brigade is taking uncertain reports and claiming certainty were none exists and no questions are asked as it would lead to questioning the entire Climatology industry.
        The scientific community had its chance to shine light on the problem but instead became a part of the problem.
        There are some claiming to be intermediaries between promoters and realists, but it looks like they are just putting a different shade of lipstick on the pig!
        It will take realists in the political arena to cut funding for wasteful research that produces guesses based on guesses that are getting further from reality with each new paper presented. That is because it is now a political issue rather than a scientific issue. Actually it probably has been a political issue for more than 20 years.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Sorry Mike,

        what you are describing is massive fraud and conspiracy. We are talking about complete knowing fraudulent misrepresentation of objective scientific measures. In ANY field of science that behavior is very quickly punished. If that is not the case here then there has to be a conspiracy. If this is the case all these guys are cutting their own throats by not saying anything about it, BECAUSE it has such consequences for policy and because there is a whole flock of people looking exactly for this type of thing, with a republican majority in the house which strongly opposes anything to do with ACC.

      • peter says:


        one thing you may consider is the trillions of dollars fed into ‘climate science’.

        banks, and large oil companies and corporations around them, stand to make more money than can be imagined through carbon tax and trading. they are throwing vast amounts of money behind climate alarmism. ‘climate science’ is basically a giant propaganda machine feeding the advertising campaign behind carbon tax and trade.

        for instance i was shocked to see in my recent alumni letter that my alma mater has 2 people publishing alarmist apologetics. who is funding these positions? what do these people do when they are not writing alarmist propaganda? the only staff hours available would be teaching logic to english majors too stupid to pass ordinary math. the money machine pervades that deep.

        a corollary is ‘globalism’- carbon tax and trade done at the international level is just another way to bypass national sovereignty. god knows the owning class despises being fettered by the rule of law. so that is a second motivation behind the colossal investment in ‘climate science’ alarmism.

        the vast majority of scientists don’t buy the climate alarmism narrative. but they have no voice, since the big money is behind alarmism. and the republican congress will do nothing. did anything change during 8 years of the bush administration?

        while your utopian view of science and academia is commendable, the real world just does not work that way. it’s about politics, and politics is about money.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I have no illusions about how science operates. I have heard first hand complaints about the jealousies and unscrupulous behaviors from a number scientists.

        Also where do you get this figure of trillions of dollars? You may be confusing it with the amount of money in the oil industry, which IS trillions of dollars. When you exaggerate something so easy to show is totally baseless you lose credibility with everyone except those that want to believe it.
        As I have said numerous times, I know climate scientists, and am quite sure they are not dishonest or gullible or stupid. Which does not mean they can;t be wrong, but portraying them in this light again just discredits your assertions, which you do not back up with actual facts.

        And again saying something like the vast majority of scientists do not “buy” climate alarmism. I may agree with you if you are saying that they don’t believe human civilization will end, and jellyfish will be the highest life form in the ocean. But if the majority of scientists did not buy CO2 forced Climate change, then it would be very very easy to undo this fraud. Just have these majorities vote out the conspirators in every field of science . I find it hard to believe that this majority is so apathetic as to not take immediate action to deal with such massive fraud that impacts almost every field of science.
        It is reassuring to me that conservatives have discovered that money corrupts politics. Rather convenient that it is focused, on this narrative of a political conspiracy of the elites to destroy our economies and subjugate the citizenry by corrupting the entire scientific establishment and concocting a false danger that is so obvious for people on this and other denier blogs to see, but everyone else is too stupid.

        It reminds me of the leftist conspiracy theorists who believed Bush just made up the whole WMD’s in Iraq just so that we could invade, and he somehow conned the dems and the media into believing it. They too said money was behind this ridiculous conspiracy theory. Of course this conspiracy is much bigger in that it includes the entire establishment of every field of science throughout the world

      • peter says:



        This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders:

        British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). “

      • peterhodges says:

        try this. now multiply that times about 30 years.

        cru was founded with oil money

  4. Andy Weiss says:

    The average from 1961-1990 reflects a widely acknowledged global cooling “Little Ice Age” which contained many cold years. If this year is less than a degree F above the normal for that cold period, it’s probably very close to the pre-1961 “normal” temperature. I can’t believe it would be anywhere near the top 10 warmest, even with all their messaging of the data.

    Steve, where do you think this year should rank?

    • I have no idea. The temperature record is so corrupted at this point that it is impossible to reach any meaningful conclusions. As far as I can tell, the only reason why 2010 is as high as it is, is because Greenland and Northern Canada were not as cold as normal last winter.

      • Mike Davis says:

        That is the answer I see also. Actually in spite of all the hype over ranking years that is the least important feature of climate. Of course I think GLOBAL is a hazardous research project as it diverts from the real regional weather conditions.
        None of us live on the entire globe, we each live in a region that is affected differently by our regional weather, not global weather!

      • Al Gored says:

        Indeed. And in the department of corrupted – “adjusted” – stats, isn’t there also some problem with the reduced number of weather stations in northern Canada, and the extrapolations made from them?

  5. Dave N says:

    Must be because of adjustments

  6. This is what “global warming” predicted would happen in each December before winter set in:

    2 Snowplows Stuck!


  7. This is what everyone can expect every December 2nd from global warming:

    A band of lake-effect snow….buried parts of Buffalo and its suburbs under 2 to 3 feet of snow…..Dozens of schools canceled classes.


    Just another global warming day.

  8. This is what the models predicted for pre–winter (still 3 weeks till winter starts) conditions:


  9. “Global warming” heads into more smooth sailing:

    Cancún…….Talks threatened with breakdown after forthright Japanese refusal to extend Kyoto emissions commitments


  10. 120 accidents from snow this morning in Berlin, airport closed in England, 100’s flights canceled, snow on Eiffel Tower—all a result of catastrophic global warming ;O)

    1 minute video:


  11. Atlanta, Georgia:

    Hundreds line up in the cold for help heating homes


  12. Keith says:

    Has anybody managed to get their hands on the WMO report in question? I find it somewhat incredible they have generate this much noise without making the actual report available..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s