More On The Dana/Sinclair Fraud Journalism

Not only is everything else about the graph fraudulent,  but it turns out that Dana ‘s claimed Lindzen forecast is also a fake.

ScreenHunter_1691 Jan. 13 14.29

Does anyone have any idea where the curve attributed to me came from?  I don’t do forecasts.


About stevengoddard

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

13 Responses to More On The Dana/Sinclair Fraud Journalism

  1. Sundance says:

    Lindzen or his representative might want to consider contacting the Guardian and inform them that one of their columnists is misrepresenting Lindzen in public.

  2. Password protected says:

    It seems Dana just makes stuff up to support a never ending, never fallible stream of propaganda. Appears that he has no shame of lying because he so desperately believes he is correct.

  3. Les Johnson says:

    Pretty simple calculation. Dana simply made it up, based on a comment Lindzein made.

    In my extensive research into Richard Lindzen’s climate papers and talks, I’ve never been able to find an instance where he predicted how global temperatures would change in the future, other than to say in 1989,

    “I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,”

    Of course, Dana assumed a natural variation of only 0.2 or so per century. If he assumed 0.8, Dick would be right on the button.

    • It is not a “simple calculation” or a calculation at all. Phil Jones says that pre-1940 warming was due to the sun. According to GISS 1997, that is 2/3 of the warming in the record.

  4. Les Johnson says:

    The simplest calculation is always taking the number from the anal extraction tables. Which Dana did….

  5. Chuck L says:

    Nuccitelli is a lying piece of $hit disguised as a “scientist.”

  6. gator69 says:

    Dana doesn’t know Dick.

  7. philjourdan says:

    I think this calls for a libel case.

  8. Dave N says:

    Scenario A was the prediction for 1.5% increase per annum. The actual increase has been 2.5% per annum. Adjusting scenario B to match the observed CO2 increase is worse fraud than adjusting historical temperatures down.

  9. DGH says:

    In 1988 Lindzen said,

    “…I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,..”

    Dana Nucitelli should be congratulated and thanked for doing humanity a service by demonstrating that Lindzen was correct. Extending the observed plot from 2010 to 2012 and aligning Dana’s trend with the observations at 1988 reveals that there is little to distinguish greenhouse gas warming from natural variability. According to Dana’s data the difference is about 0.1 C.

    On the other hand, even with the benefit of the revisions to the scenario, Hansen is off by almost 0.4 Deg C in 2012.

  10. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Steven, I dug up a copy of the MIT Tech Talk of 1989, which reported Lindzen’s speech. It’s a fascinating and prescient speech … but there is absolutely nothing like the claimed “prediction” anywhere I can find.


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