Voting Open For Climate Denier Of The Decade

Given the failure of the prophesies about Manhattan drowning, ice caps melting, and temperatures rising, the church has come to rely on a select group of people who feel unbounded by history – and are willing to rewrite historical data to suit the needs of the church.

These brave and unselfish souls deserve recognition!

Nominee #1 NASA. Got rid of that nasty US cooling trend.

Nominee #2 NASA. Got rid of that nasty Northern Hemisphere cooling trend.

Nominee #3 Team Sea Level. Tripled sea level rise overnight.

Nominee #4 Michael Mann. Erased the Medieval Warm Period

Nominee #5 Phil Jones. Determined that the 1860s were cold, without any data for 90% of the planet.

Nominee #6 The Whole Team. They determined that extreme weather is increasing, without actually looking at any historical data.

screenhunter 01 jul 22 20 11

About stevengoddard

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

12 Responses to Voting Open For Climate Denier Of The Decade

  1. gator69 says:

    More like reality, and freedom deniers…

  2. Scott says:

    I nominate Ed Darrell. Specifically for writing a blog post about you comparing drought maps from two different sources and how horrible that was. In that same post, he then went on to show a “real comparison” (my terminology) and used two maps that were of different drought metrics! When I called him out on it, no apologies, corrections, etc. Instead, all I got was a comment about how I need to read Emily Post. What a hypocrite.

    In reality, Ed doesn’t compare to some of the stuff above, but I just wanted to nominate someone else. 😀


    • suyts says:

      Lol, I haven’t heard much out of Ed lately. Emily Post? lmao! Briffa should to be in there, too, but I think Mann would beat him out. I’m a bit disappointed about team stupid not being nominated… (Romm & McKibben) Or, Miss Katherine “you’re a bad Christian if you don’t believe lies” Hayhoe.

      Judith Curry deserves an honorable mention with her unnecessary, unwarranted, piece of spite attack on the Heartland Institute where she actually quoted fabricator extraordinaire, Mzzzzz. Goldenberg as a source of information. It harkens back to the time when she was shilling for the lunatics proclaiming hurricanes frequency was increasing…… too stupid to understand that technology advancements in identifying hurricanes would necessarily increase the number of occurrences. Ahh…. those were the days. I thought then, as I do today, that Curry has the IQ of a turnip.

      • Scott says:

        I disagree James. Although I certainly don’t agree with everything Dr. Curry says/does, I applaud her attempts at engaging skeptics and think that her stance is one of the most balanced out there. Take where she stood 3 years ago (before Climategate). Then choose just about anyone that had her stance at that time. Now, compare where she is now to where the others who were previously like her. See the difference? She’s willing to change her views and approach, probably costing her a lot in academia. Just look at how she gets badmouthed at Tamino’s site over and over again (by the commenters at least). While the others got worse and worse, she’s turned the ship around and is sailing in as close to neutral waters as you’re likely to find.

        Just my opinion,


      • suyts says:

        I agree that she’s changed her position. And, that she tries to present a balance on her blog. But, she hasn’t changed her M.O. It isn’t just that she’s criticized HI, but that she’s relied on faulty information and faulty sources in her criticism. Balance is fine, but, dang, learn from one’s mistakes. Especially since she all she had to do was contact HI and ask. Instead she relies on Goldenberg? Is she living in a cave and hasn’t seen the furor Goldenberg created when she falsified a story about the Israelis or more recently Gleick being cleared of forgery?

        The problem she has, like many, is that she tries to draw an imaginary line in climate issues between the questions of science and the politics and ideology. But, that’s impossible because the issue was never about science, and it was always about ideology.

  3. edcaryl says:

    It’s hard to decide between the persistant stealth revisionism of GHCN/GISS and the sheer chutzpah of Michael Mann and his hockey stick.

    • Scott says:

      Holy junk,

      I saw your name on the “recent comments” and at first glance thought Ed Darrell had come to sprawl! Too bad he didn’t.


      • I am headed up to the A on my bike. If you hurry up, you can catch me there!

      • Scott says:

        I was going to do a big bike ride this morning (well, big for me, probably average for you), but I decided to stay home and work. Enjoy the ride! The recent rains (in our permanent drought) should make things look really nice and green!


  4. I vote #6. It is a team effort and the entire team needs recognition for this rather remarkable collection of deception.

  5. Sundance says:

    #6 They are the Mafia of climate science out to destroy anyone that would dare challenge them. 🙂

  6. tckev says:

    I vote #6, worth every one of the 400,000 daily atom bombs.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s