How Arctic Ice Affects The Climate

In 1974, excess Arctic ice was blamed for drought and floods. In 2012, missing Arctic ice is blamed for drought and floods.

Our top climate scientists are snake oil salesman. They don’t understand jack about the causes of climate change, so they just make things up, scare people, and keep the money coming in.


About stevengoddard

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

55 Responses to How Arctic Ice Affects The Climate

  1. Billy Liar says:

    They’re consistent, if nothing else.

  2. scizzorbill says:

    I think they do understand, but saying there is no problem doesn’t stuff the pockets with grant money.

  3. Brian D says:

    Sea ice concentrations from Cryosphere are really not what they seem from there low res map. Here are the Canadian ice charts showing the actual concentrations for the Beaufort and Archipelago regions. Also have Hudson Bay.
    Cryosphere map

    Canadian maps
    Beaufort and Archipelago regions

    Hudson Bay

    Here’s an explanation of the Egg codes on the maps. Top number is total concentration for the zone.

    Cryosphere, like every year, over doing the lower numbers over the ice. They must be picking up melt water and showing it as sea water.

    Canadian ice home page.

  4. Andy DC says:

    The 1974 crop started off with a cold, wet spring that delayed planting.

    A hot, dry July with temps at high as 110 in Omaha further reduced corn crop.

    Augsust turned cold and wet. Then a devastating frost hit in September, spelling an early end to the growing season.

    1974 was a wild year for commodity speculators but not at all a good year for crops.
    Global Weirding was out of control!

  5. Andy DC says:

    Before greedy oil companies became involved, Arctic ice was the same every year, thus there were no droughts and no floods. Man and nature were in perect harmony. Also Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy always came exactly on time.

  6. LOL ..Did they really say Arctic ice caused droughts and floods? I’d like to read that.

  7. Whatever says:

    “Our top climate scientists are snake oil salesman. They don’t understand jack about the causes of climate change, so they just make things up, scare people, and keep the money coming in.”

    Why would that keep money coming in? Who — precisely — would benefit? How much would they benefit? And who would be benefiting them? I would like to see real names, actual numbers and referenced data.

    That is 4 questions Steven.

    • There are about 10,000 articles on this blog. Start reading

      • Whatever says:

        So no answer then? Just prattle. Accuse people of the very thing you are guilty of.

        To paraphrase you: “Steven Goddard is a snake oil salesman. He doesn’t understand jack about the causes of climate change, so he just make things up to keep the money coming in.”

      • LLAP says:


        Multiple choice: how much $ do you think Steve makes off this site? Is it:

        a) $0
        b) $5000/yr
        c) $10000/yr
        d) $100000/yr
        e) same as an oil company CEO

      • Whatever says:


        The questions are: How much do real climate scientists earn from promoting man-made global warming? What are their names? Why would they make money from peddling studies that seek to scare people? And who pays them to commit these transgressions?

        Simple and germane questions based directly on his Steven’s own accusations. His response? — evidence is contained in 1000 of his blogs. Well I have read some of his blogs and evidence is certainly not his strong suit. Why doesn’t he just save us all the effort of going through years of posts when he should have the answers at his fingertips?

        If he can’t or won’t respond, then he is coprolalia and should be subject to the very same unfounded accusations that he has made against others. Only fair.

        Remember Steven, if you do answer, be accurate.

      • LLAP says:

        @Whatever: You didn’t answer my question. It’s multiple choice … how hard could it be?

  8. Whatever says:

    Well it appears that Goddard can dish it out but he just can’t take it. He accuses climate scientists of very onerous crimes (2nd paragraph of article on top) and when he is asked for specifics, he tells me that it is contained in thousands of his blogs going back years (very helpful). When asked again for specifics, he tells me to cut the crap and look at another one of his own blogs.

    So lets be clear: Steven Goddard cannot name any scientist who has personally benefited from promoting what he/she knows to be false climate data or studies. Goddard can’t tell you how much money these scientists have personally taken for such alleged activities. Goddard can’t tell you how or why scientists would benefit from promoting false data or studies. And Goddard can’t tell you who would pay or even why they would pay these scientists for promoting false data or studies.

    But Goddard apparently has proof in thousands of places (blogs) to make his case. And although he is the creator of these blogs, he can’t produce a clear answer to any of my simple questions.

    I guess that Goddard doesn’t understand the principal that REAL SCIENCE is underpinned with reproducible evidence.

    • Me says:

      whatever…… 🙄


      The whole industry depends on the key players lying about it constantly.

      • Whatever says:

        You have a few simple questions in front of you Steven. “the whole industry”, “ten thousand blogs”, “30 years of scaring people” are not answers, they are evasions.

        You have made some serious allegations, I am only asking for verifiable details. Simple answers please — who precisely is benefiting, how much are they benefiting, why are they benefiting and who — precisely — pays them? Should be easy questions to answer for someone who has many years of evidence accumulated..

        Remember Steven, there are FOUR questions. Oh, and accuracy counts.

        • I hope you are joking.

          Hansen has made his living since 1988 by fearmongering.

          Hansen Warns Game Over For Climate If Tar Sands Continue

          President ‘has four years to save Earth’ US must take the lead to avert eco-disaster Read the full interview with James Hansen

      • Me says:

        whatever…… and accuracy counts. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA 🙄 :mrgreen:

    • suyts says:

      Are you kidding? Jim Hansen has personally made millions from this scam. Idiot. Heck Gleick got a get out of jail free card. NOAA is missing $millions. Speaking engagements, honorarium, positions in academia, and the government. What else do you want to know? Paid vacations to cool spots like Rio about twice a year….. $billions in grant money to do things as useful as studying cow farts. With out this scam they have no reason for existence.

    • Ivan says:

      Take you pick from this list.
      It’s the millions of dollars that the Australia Government pisses down the drain in grants to “climate scientists” and other charlatans.

  9. Whatever says:

    So after many years of scrupulous investigation we have learned that one scientist, James Hansen, has been “scaremongering”.

    However, we still don’t know how much money he got paid to scaremonger or why he was paid to scaremonger or who paid him to scaremonger.

    3 questions remain unanswered (really 31/2 because you did say there were more than one scientist at fault).

    Are you sure you have you looked through all 10,000 blogs?

  10. David says:

    Dear Whatever,

    It is said that it is wise to avoid letting your arrogance exceed your ignorance. I am afraid you have failed to avoid this….

    The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. senators in 2006.

    To put this $19 million over two decades into perspective, consider that one 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades.

    We now spend several billion per year, and we have spent well over 50 billion since 1990 for learning about farm odors, why frogs are bigger, why frogs are smaller etc add infinum. This is US only, and if the CAGW cannard is stopped, many thousands will lose employment. Money reveals corruption, not just in capitalist, but in human nature.

  11. Whatever says:

    Once again, Steven Goddard evades the questions in front of him. This time he points me to an article that is 11 years old, WHICH YET AGAIN, did not contain an answer to a single one of my questions. The article did not name any climate scientist or how they make money from corruption, how much money they make money from corruption, why they would be paid for their corruption and who paid for their corruption.

    Shall I remind readers of what Goddard began his post with: “Our top climate scientists are snake oil salesman. They don’t understand jack about the causes of climate change, SO THEY JUST MAKE THINGS UP, scare people, AND KEEP THE MONEY COMING IN.

    You say you have the evidence and I assume you understand that the most important principle in REAL SCIENCE is reproducible evidence, so where is the evidence!!!

  12. Me says:

    whatever…. 🙄

  13. Whatever says:

    So finally the information trickles out. One scientist, James Hansen, is paid for “making things up” by the US government with tax dollars. We still don’t know how much he was paid for making things up or why the US government would knowingly pay him to lie.

    When can we expect that information?

  14. Brian G Valentine says:

    “Steven Goddard cannot name any scientist who has personally benefited from promoting what he/she knows to be false climate data or studies.”

    I can. I wrote to Hansen and told him that his El Nino influence estimates compared with GHG forcing were way off, back in 1988, based on what he showed the Congress. I proved it to him.

    Hansen never revised what he said, and Hansen continued to benefit from what he knew to be false studies

    • LLAP says:

      @Brian: If I remember correctly, you posted a comment several months back stating you had asked Stephen Schneider about his switch from pushing global cooling to global warming and what he would do if it started to cool again ? If so, could you jog my memory? If I’m way off on this one, just chalk it up to being late and getting too much sun today ;).

  15. Brian G Valentine says:

    Schneider had the excuse of aerosol cooling to fall back on, which was his basis for an impending ice age. He had an out which ever way the wind blew.

    Until, IR temperature measurements from satellites made no correction to ground based temperature measurements for aerosols. I don’t know how he would explain cooling.

  16. Brian G Valentine says:

    De mortuis nihil nisi bonum …

    But I think of the time and money Schneider caused other people to waste, and I just get sick.

    His protege Cliff Mass could help make reparations for this damage – but Mass shows no inkling to do so

  17. Whatever says:

    Steven Goddard opens this blog with this statement: “Our top climate scientists are snake oil salesman. They don’t understand jack about the causes of climate change, SO THEY JUST MAKE THINGS UP, scare people, AND KEEP THE MONEY COMING IN.”

    However, Goddard can only name one climate scientist who makes things up, Hansen (although that in itself is debatable since all predictions are uncertain), and he says that the US government knowingly pays him to make things up. Why the government would do such a thing was never disclosed by Goddard even though he claims to have an incredible 10,000 blogs of supporting information. As well, Goddard never reveals how much money the US government paid Hansen to make things up.

    Now Goddard claims that I am leading HIM down the rabbit hole. Bizarre.

    You know, when I stumbled across a site called REAL SCIENCE, I expected hard science and cutting edge analysis by people with recognized climate qualifications. Instead I get baseless accusations and circular logic from unqualified people who reference other amateur blogs and out of date articles as their “evidence” in support of their arguments.

    I am disappointed.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s