Steig Says Antarctic Summers Aren’t Quite As Hot As He Previously Claimed

ScreenHunter_1192 Jan. 01 20.09ScreenHunter_1193 Jan. 01 20.09

Twitter / ericsteig: Revised estimate of T change …

ScreenHunter_1195 Jan. 01 20.14

Animation using Javascript Animation Player


About stevengoddard

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

68 Responses to Steig Says Antarctic Summers Aren’t Quite As Hot As He Previously Claimed

  1. omanuel says:

    Reality has a way of letting the air out of inflated egos.

  2. Andy Oz says:

    Alarmists don’t have “cooling” in their vocabulary, do they? “Less warming”??!!
    What the hell does that even mean? How about less wet, less light, less height for dry, dark and flat? PR spin deserves to be insulted.

    SOT/ The attacks on Tony Abbott’s repeal of the carbon tax continue.

    • Dave N says:

      re the repeal: gotta love how alarmists frame a position as mutually exclusive e.g. if you don’t think human contribution to warming is catastrophic, you don’t care about the planet.

      Rational thinking is a thing of the past.

    • Andy Oz says:

      I’m not sure if this is for real. But apparently 33% of Americans don’t agree with evolution. I guess because of their religious beliefs. I would have thought that would be less than 10%, considering most religious people are well read or have watched David Attenborough on TV. It might be interesting to see the correlation between views on CAGW and evolution for certain demographics.

      • gator69 says:

        Evolution is only a theory, and has many holes. There is no ‘change of kind’ found in the geologic record. Part of that 33% may be better read than you think.

        • stewart pid says:

          gator what are you talking about … “no change of any kind” ? I think u need to take an introductory paleontology course.

        • gator69 says:

          I have gone way past elementary biology, and I have learned that ‘theory’ means ‘unproven’. Hard to ‘believe’ a skeptic could be so easily duped.

          Post modern science likes to tell the public they are certain about conjecture, and again, I would have thought any regular here would understand that by now. ‘Belief’ is for the religious. The following video demonstrates the holes in the theory of evolution, and the ‘faith’ required to ‘believe’ in it. Disregard the religious aspect, and watch what happens when the ‘experts’ are asked to explain themselves.

          ‘Evolution’ is OK as theories go, and possibly correct, but ‘belief’ in conjecture is not scientific.

        • gator69 says:

          PS – I did not say change of ‘any’ kind, I said ‘change of kind’. Big difference.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Stewart, “gator what are you talking about … “no change of any kind” ”

          I think what gator said is “no change of kind”, i.e., species can be modified somewhat in their characteristics, but you never have gross evolution that changes one species into a different species. (Correct me if I misstate your beliefs, gator.)

          Personally, yes, I am one of those who believe pretty much conventional evolutionary theories (with the caveat that no one has come up with a truly plausible explanation of the initial origin of life.) Still, it is a nebulous subject and I certainly think that there is plenty of room for discussion and even profound disagreement.

        • Jason Calley says:

          gator, I see you posted while I was still composing. I’ll step out and let you defend yourself! 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Jason! Yes, I think we agree. The theory of evolution is observable on the micro level, but not the macro. It is a good start at explanation of species, but we have much yet to learn and observe before it can be accepted as fact.

          As I indicated above, science has become religion for some. Many mainstream scientists need a large slice of humble pie, and to get over themselves and their pet theories.

        • Gamecock says:

          Many holes, eh?

          All that is necessary for evolution is:

          1. Reproduction,
          2. Inheritance of traits,
          3. Variability of traits.

          Evolution is a dirt simple theory. There are no competing theories.

        • gator69 says:

          Intelligent design is another theory, and obviously you did not watch the video. I am not saying the theory of evolution is incorrect, I am simply stating that as a driver of species, it is unproven and there is no observation of change of kind. Try thinking on your own.

          All that is needed for CAGW is increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Even more simple.

        • Nothing simple about “evolution” at all. Where did the first life come from?

        • Gamecock says:

          “Where did the first life come from?”

          Not an evolution question. Life had existed on earth for 2,500,000,000 before evolution kicked in in the Cambrian Explosion. Evolution hardly has to explain what happened 2.5 billion years before. Why not require it to explain gravity, too?

        • Gamecock says:

          Gator, I have a degree in biology. I was never taught “kind.” What, pray tell, do you mean?

        • gator69 says:

          Gamecock, watch the video, it explains much more than I can in this constant back and forth. Watch and learn.

        • Gamecock says:

          “Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.”

        • gator69 says:

          Who mentioned creationism? And BTW, that quote is an ‘opinion’.

        • stewart pid says:

          My bad on the kind but what about the evolution of the dinosaurs into birds? Does that not fit your change problem?

        • gator69 says:

          Watch. The. Video.

          This can all be explained without constantly interrupting my morning. I posted the video for a reason.

          Not meaning to be rude, but…

        • stewart pid says:

          I tried to watch the video but it is just too stupid to stick with … can you address the question of dinos / birds?

        • gator69 says:

          “stewart pid says:
          January 2, 2014 at 7:39 pm
          I tried to watch the video but it is just too stupid to stick with … can you address the question of dinos / birds?”

          According to the experts, it does not exist. You should have watched the ‘stupid’ video, and learned something.

        • Gamecock says:

          Like Steward pid, I tried to watch the video.

          Grand introductory music. That is not evolution or kind.

          Some yahoo sticking a microphone in people’s faces, asking questions, and getting some inane answers. That is not evolution or kind.

          I jumped to the middle. Guy with microphone asks man, “Do you believe in moral absolutes?” That isn’t about evolution or kind, either.

          I had wasted enough time, and exited.

        • gator69 says:

          You are making the same kind of nonargument that warmists used against “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Pathetic.

        • Gamecock says:

          You still haven’t told us what you mean by, “There is no ‘change of kind’ found in the geologic record.”

          The link you give explains nothing.

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry, I thought I was dealing with well educated skeptics, and I was wrong. If you want to argue intelligently, then you need to hear all sides, no matter who they are or your opinion of them. I explicitly said to disregard the God aspect and focus on ‘change of kind’, which is presented early in the video. If you had watched, you would have seen PhD’s of biology, heads of departments at major universities, are unable to give one single instance of change of species. This is not a ‘belief’, it is fact. And this fact is why evolution of species, one kind to another, is nothing more than a theory. Get over it. Maybe someday the change of kind will be found, but as of today, it has not. The producer of the video has a valid point to make, and demonstrates it well. The point is that anyone who ‘believes’ in the broader definition of the theory of evolution, changing of kind, does so based upon ‘faith’ and not science.

          Thanks for wasting my time.

        • Gamecock says:

          The “Where was the man when he jumped off the bridge argument.”

          BTW . . . should a qualifying “change of kind” be found, a new “fatal flaw” will be introduced.

        • gator69 says:

          Where was the man when he jumped off the bridge?

          Where is change of kind? Ever?

          If you watched the video you would see atheist scientists admitting that ‘belief’ in evolution is based upon faith. That was my point. Why is this concept so hard for some people to accept? Does it challenge your belief system?

          Gamecock, I consider you a fellow skeptic, most of the time. Drink less Kool-Aid.

        • omanuel says:

          Thanks, gator et al.

          Science and spirituality are compatible. Dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists are identical twins with over-inflated egos and little or no comprehension of science, reality or spirituality.

          The Sun’s pulsar core:
          1. Made our elements
          2. Birthed the solar system
          3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life, and
          4. Endowed mankind with intelligence and creativity to produce Mozart’s music, Shakespeare’s plays, Jefferson’s inalienable right to self govern.

          How can these conclusions from science be explained without a Higher Power, Father of Light, Spirit of the Universe or Intelligent Design?

          That is the unanswered question that is avoided like the plague by modern scientists.

          I do not know and have no right to know if the Higher Power has tits, tails, horns, wings, feathers, scales, names or personality quirks.

          But I am convinced that IT is the benevolent Creator and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system, and I suspect that another IT is at the core of every star in the cosmos.

        • Paul in Sweden says:

          Gator, that video Evolution Vs. God was particularly well done. Watching people as their minds almost literally implode brings a bit of smile to my face. -Paul

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Paul! Glad you enjoyed to video. It is fun to see the curtain pulled back on these smug know-it-alls. I would never presume to know the answers to the all of workings of our universe or planet, science is the pursuit of truth, and belief is for the religious. Evolution may well prove to be correct, but let’s be honest about the state of our knowledge, and quit lying to ourselves and to others.

          Watching university profs who are atheists admit they are accepting theory on faith: PRICELESS!

        • stewart pid says:

          so gator riddle me this … what do you believe in …. do you believe in the fossil record?

        • stewart pid says:

          gator you appear to be stuck at a point in time about 150 years ago and are ignoring a lot that Darwin sorted out has since been built upon for the last century and a half. I still don’t follow your line of argument that dinosaurs to birds are not a change of kind.

        • tom0mason says:

          Thanks for the video, hopefully it will help people think, and shake some of their faith.

          We, as individuals or as a group, can not know all things, not matter how strong the faith in our intelligence.
          The ‘how’ questions will always give ‘why’ questions and vice versa.

      • “Belief in evolution” is like “belief in global warming.” It is a very broad, meaningless statement which smears together a vast array of different ideas.

      • Andy Oz says:

        Yes. “Belief” is a slippery slope that I’ll stay away from. I shouldn’t have posted the drudge story in the first place. It distracts from the main post about Antarctic summers.

      • Gamecock says:

        “33% of Americans don’t agree with evolution.”

        40% of Americans believe Obama is doing a good job.

        • I’m guessing that there isn’t much overlap between those two sets of people.

        • Gamecock says:

          “I’m guessing that there isn’t much overlap between those two sets of people.”

          True. My point is that American people believing in something or not believing in something is not evidence.

        • gator69 says:


        • Caleb says:

          Interesting discussion. I have always liked the idea of evolution. There are fossil records that explain some wonders, such as horses running around on their middle fingers. (Try it some time, and see if you don’t appreciate horses more.)

          However there are other wonders that just make me wonder all the more. For example, those orchids that can only be fertilized by a single specific species of wasp, with flowers that look like the wasp and smell like the wasp. How did the Power that created us and the rest of the world pull that one off? I sure would like to see how evolution evolved that bloom and that wasp, in a step by step manner.

          Even then, I’d be filled with wonder.

  3. Check out this article by Stephen Murgatroyd:
    Climate change experts no more likely to be right than dart throwing monkeys

    Great information on the processes by which experts delude themselves.

  4. And, this one has a comment by Eric Steig!—-and-less—-ice-for-the-antarctic.html
    This article explains the “lessmore” phenomenon… LOL.

    • D. Self says:

      The nut job alarmists are picking up the pace of lies. A threat to their livelihood has arrived – Global Cooling.

  5. gator69 says:

    That must be a very old avatar Steig is using, he is skiing on a thing if the past.

  6. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    What!?!? Eric Steig admits that his (and Michael Mann’s) molestation of Antarctic temperature data was wrong!? I’m guessing he didn’t get a Christmas card from Mikey this year.

    Now that Steig has recanted, I expect the Journal ‘Nature’ to retract Steig, et al., 2009, and I expect Real Climate to post that O’Donnell et al., 2011 has been vindicated. But I’m not going to hold my breath…

  7. gator69 says:

    “stewart pid says:
    January 3, 2014 at 5:56 am
    so gator riddle me this … what do you believe in …. do you believe in the fossil record?”

    I do not ‘believe in’ science, I observe data and think. Belief is for religion.

  8. gator69 says:

    “stewart pid says:
    January 3, 2014 at 6:01 am
    gator you appear to be stuck at a point in time about 150 years ago and are ignoring a lot that Darwin sorted out has since been built upon for the last century and a half. I still don’t follow your line of argument that dinosaurs to birds are not a change of kind.”

    Darwin put forth a theory that as yet is unproven, it is a plausible theory, but still just a theory. What part if that to you not understand?

    The alleged dinosaur to bird connection has been debated for decades, and is still not accepted as fact, except amongst zealots. The head of Stanford’s biology department admitted they have NO RECORD of change of kind ever found, and is familiar with Archaeopteryx et al. But since you refused to watch the video, you kept pestering me with this nonsense. Why does your skepticism stop at the biology department door? Got agenda?

    The warmists will tell you they have ruled out natural variability as the cause of recent climate change, as it fits their world view, and advances their agenda. Why won’t you accept their explanation?

    You are acting like a religious zealot whose holy script has been questioned. Is your world so fragile that it cannot survive this?

    Evolution is a theory. Period.

    • Lou says:

      Yup. Evolution is just a theory that can’t really be replicated on a macro level.

      Giorgio Tsoukalos – Must be the aliens!

      Lol. Anyway, there is another fringe theory of where we came from… Lloyd Pye’s Intervention Theory. The creator is ETs. I guess if you replace certain words in the bible with something else, it’d sound more like ETs. Genesis 6:2 talked about sons of gods (ETs?) mating with daughters of Earth. Does this explain virgin Mary getting impregnated by ETs in the spaceship? Lol.

    • Gamecock says:

      The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

      Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
      Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
      Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
      Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

      Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

      The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

      Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

      If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

      • gator69 says:

        Nice hand waving. Evolution, as a theory has been around since Ancient Greece. Darwin identified one mechanism called ‘natural selection’, which even he admitted could not explain the complexities found in the world around us.

        “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.

        And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

        Gravity is observable, do not conflate the two, it makes you look stupid.

        • Gamecock says:

          I assure you whether or not evolution is “just a theory” is external to the scientific community. No university science department cares. Your Sunday school class is free to believe it is “just a theory,” but no one else cares.

        • gator69 says:

          Why do you take this so personally? Is someone attacking your religion? Please explain how species make leaps of evolution after millions of years of virtual stagnation. Evolution describes a gradual change, and not what we observe in the geologic record. Get over it already. Yes evolution is external to the scientific community, because it requires ‘faith’ to accept it.

          And I have not been a church member for decades, so stop with the ad homs, it makes it appear that you have no argument.

        • Gamecock says:

          Creationists are trying to get a seat at the table.

        • gator69 says:

          I’m not a creationist. Stop with ad homs. Why are you afraid to question the holy theory of evolution?

        • Gamecock says:

          You have provided no challenge it.

          Give us an alternative theory.

        • gator69 says:

          Well at least you now recognize evolution as ‘theory’. 😆

          I will ask again, why are you so Taliban over this theory? I have said repeatedly that it may be correct, but it certainly is not complete. Geesh!

        • Gamecock says:

          Why do you find it necessary that evolution be “complete?” Unless you have a better theory to explain the diversity of life on earth, you are just making noise. Evolution is not invalidated because you see some flaw, such as no “change of kind.” It can only be invalidated by a better theory. You got one?

          Regardless, if you must have a change of kind, whatever that means, here’s one that surely qualifies:

          Helacyton gartleri

          Why am I passionate about the science? The debate is not in a vacuum. Powerful forces are trying to force the teaching of creationism is public schools. Scientists should speak out.

        • gator69 says:

          Why do you find it necessary for CAGW to be complete? The Greenhouse theory has been well established for over a century. Skeptics might infiltrate our schools! 😆

          And better alert Stanford to your unique find.

          Who keeps bringing up Creationism? If it is wrong, aren’t your kids smart enough to choose? Fascism is ugly.

        • Lou says:

          Gamecock, what is your obsession with creationism? Most of us don’t even believe in creationism. We are simply questioning some things behind evolution theory. It is not perfect and far from complete esp when it comes to the origin of homo sapiens. We are different… We have every right to question it and come up with our own conclusions, not just because the experts said so. We’ve seen how that turns out in other stuff like saturated fat being bad for you (wrong), wheat flour based food in large quantity being ok for you (wrong), sun is bad for you (wrong), and it goes on. Give it up…

  9. omanuel says:


    After finally accepting local element synthesis in the star at the center of the solar system, . . .

    (about which there is little or no doubt for those who seriously consider the experimental data)

    The path from neutrons to hydrogen atoms =to=> carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, etc., =to=> planets =to=> simple forms of life =to=> you and me . . .

    Seems to require:
    1. Some form of evolution
    2. Some intelligent design

    Neither of which I understand. But perhaps I am not supposed to know, nor to pretend to know, everything.


    • gator69 says:

      On one thing we can certainly agree Oliver, we do not know it all, and neither does anyone else.

      Words by which I live:

      “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
      -Thomas Jefferson

      • tom0mason says:

        Thank-you for a good argument that has shown how faith is still so prevalent in this scientific world.

        • gator69 says:

          My pleasure Tom. Everyone should carefully examine their sacred cows from time to time, to avoid tracking BS into their homes.

  10. omanuel says:


    May you have the wisdom to help us identify, discuss, and solve the real problem plaguing mankind:

    Blaming others for the flaws that are in the very nature of mankind is NOT the solution.

    OUR flaws have prevented humans from advancing to the next stage of evolution.

    The turning point in mankind’s ability to use energy for the advancement of mankind was either:

    1. The atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945, or

    2. The 1,000 times more powerful Tsar bomb that the USSR exploded on 30 Oct 1961:

    Thank you, Steven, for having the courage to allow this information to be posted and discussed.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

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 )

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