Fundamental Scientific Fraud

Climate scientists claim that the deep oceans are heating due to CO2, despite the fact that the atmosphere isn’t.

The mechanism behind global warming theory is that CO2 in the atmosphere “traps heat” – warming the atmosphere. If the atmosphere isn’t warming, then this mechanism isn’t happening. Anyone who claims that CO2 is directly warming the deep oceans is either an idiot or a pathological liar.


About stevengoddard

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

63 Responses to Fundamental Scientific Fraud

  1. Password protected says:

    But a peer reviewed idiot, wait…to be the an idiot means…?

  2. Here is my layman analogy of the “missing heat”: I have a 10 inch penis but you can’t see 50% of it because it is hidden in my body.

  3. Shazaam says:

    ……idiot or pathological liar or criminally incompetent.

    Your forgot “criminally incompetent”.

    • Gail Combs says:

      There was no INCOMPETENT about it.

      It was straight out and out criminal. They KNOW exactly what they are doing but they are greedy. I have run into it several times in my career. (There are advantages to not drinking when with a bunch of criminal co-workers)

      in vino veritas

      No who is going to volunteer to go out to a bar and get …. drunk? (Tape recorder/video mandatory)

  4. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    But . . . 97% of scientists say it is true.

    Remember . . . 100% of Alchemists said they could turn lead into gold.

    Same science scam, different perpetrators.

  5. “. . . an idiot or a pathological liar.” Steve, highly unlikely that they’re idiots, likely that they are pathological liars; but, the real reason is they’re BO supporters.

  6. Anthony Bremner says:

    I think maybe they are referring to solar energy being buried directly by the natural Pacific Ocean PDO cooling cycle as it was during global cooling days 1945 to 1975 when there were strong sunspot cycles.
    What they do not like to mention is the reverse of that cycle that released heat from 1975 on causing a lot of the global warming, not Co2! That was on top of another 30 yrs of strong solar activity 1975 on. Also the removal of sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere coincided with that warming period.
    Currently Asia is releasing a large amount of sulfur dioxide that could be the equivalent of several large volcanoes and we know the cooling effect of that in 1992 with the Pinatubo eruption. None of these things were in their models, why?
    It would seem that global cooling is possible soon, or at least when the Atlantic cycle changes to cooling mode in about 7 yrs?

    • An Inquirer says:

      Yes, China and all of Asia are emitting huge amounts of sulfur dioxide, soot, and other particles. However, whether this pollution has a cooling effect via increased albedo is highly questionable. We have noticed that sulfur emissions from volcanoes do NOT have a cooling effect unless it is major volcanic eruption in the mid-latitudes. How major? Major enough to put the sulfur compounds into the stratosphere. However, Chinese pollution does reach the stratosphere. Moreover, when the soot gets deposited in the Arctic ice, it speeds up the melting of Arctic ice, and reduces albedo there. This action on the ice has been confirmed even by studies conducted by warmists who conclude that a huge portion of Arctic melt is due to soot from Asia.

  7. It’s quite simple, really. I take a glass of water out of my fridge, which is at 40°, having left the glass in long enough that it is at thermal equilibrium. I place the glass on the dining room table, the air in the room being 62°. Now, I’m pretty tired of this cold shit, so I turn the thermostat up to 68°. Isn’t it obvious to anybody with a degree in climatology, or a related field, that we have to warm the glass of water up to 68° before the room can start to warm? It Just Makes Sense®.

    • Bill says:

      They have been telling us for years that the atmosphere warms first and more and that this is a signature of global warming. As is the “canary in the coal mine” arctic and NH.
      But of course the MWP does not count because some studies say that it was more in the arctic and NH.

      So I would like to hear a stronger admission that they were wrong about a few things is the heat is now going into the ocean. What I want to know is if they were using a 2-layer model of the ocean to say the deeper levels do not mix and that is partly why the atmosphere warmed and oceans less so in the short term.

      Now if it is going into the deep ocean, doesn’t that mean the 2-layer model is not valid and now we have to include a much larger ocean volume for the heat to disperse in? And shouldn’t this change the kinetics of global warming? So that instead of it getting 2C warmer in 80 years it will now take 240 years? When I publish in the scientific literature I always try to present a fair case and give alternate explanations and explain why I believe my interpretation is correct.

      • There actually are places were warmer water goes under colder water (the salty, warm Mediterranean outflow into the Atlantic, for instance). I wonder if anybody has done any modelling to try to figure out how the heat gets into the Med in the first place, though.

  8. Ben says:


    Fundamental insurance fraud as well…

    Did you see KaiserHealthNews today? Colorado Insurance Commissioner Margeurite Salazar is about to get sued for approving the highest insurance rates in the country.

  9. R. Shearer says:

    Could be both!

  10. nomoregore says:

    I think it has been shown that during El Nino, oceans warm first, followed by the atmosphere. The kooks have also never explained how the heat suddenly decided to jump into the oceans, and swim down 600M to hide.

    Fill a bathtub with warm water, and it will warm the bathroom. Fill it with cool water, then turn the heat up in the bathroom, and see how long it takes to heat the water.

    • You’d need to be super careful about stepping in. The bottom layer of the tub might be literally boiling because of the insane amount of heat sequestered down there.

    • nomoregore, El Nino events are not caused by CO2. That’s the whole point. These liars are saying the deep ocean warming is caused by CO2.

      • nomoregore says:

        I know Mike. My point is that I believe El Nino begins with warmed oceans. I don’t believe the heat causing that comes from the atmosphere, or wind. I have a ten cent hypothesis of why El Nino occurs, and it has nothing to do with CO2.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          Go buy Bob Tisdale’s book “Who Turned on the Heat,” read it, and you will know precisely where the heat comes from and have a good understanding of the ENSO. Real knowledge trumps a “ten cent hypothesis” anytime.

  11. Reblogged to my own facebook.

  12. mf says:

    be careful making such strong statements please. I am not an agw kind of person, but must note that co2 could be indirectly reflecting some of the infrared back into the surface. A Co2 molecule absorbs infrared into molecular degrees of freedom, but it can also de-excite, now randomizing the direction of infrared photons.

    I would suggest that you do avoid such categorical statements like ‘ignorant’ or ‘fraud’ unless you thought the matter through.

  13. Robertv says:

    The Sun or not the Sun that is the question.

  14. If the earth was a greenhouse there would be no life here. Period. It is obviously a complex convection system with cosmological global and local variables at work. These quackitists should be in jail for fraud and stupidity.

  15. Aphan says:

    Stark…I can’t stop laughing! Thanks for the grins

  16. mogur2013 says:

    You guys. Climate scientists are all crooked or idiots. But what we have here on this site is reasoned interpretation of unbiased data. Yeah, that’s the ticket. No cherry picking here, no political bias, and certainly no uninformed rants. If it was warm in Duluth in 1939, there is no global warming to be seen here, move on. Clowns I tell ya, absolute, unfettered clown chatter, here.

    All kidding aside, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Hate Obama all you want, but trash scientists that worked their entire careers to bring you the best science that they know how, and you are at best called clowns. Big shoed, bulb nosed clowns. Yet, those guys that spent 22 years to get a degree in climatology are belittled here. YOU ARE THE CLOWNS, NOT THEM.

    • They are giving us the best science Obama pays them to give us, and threatens to fire them if they don’t. How much you get, mogur2013?

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…Yet, those guys that spent 22 years to get a degree in climatology are belittled here….”
      D@mn straight! I lost the rose colored glasses like you are wearing the first time a guy with a PhD asked me to fabricate data not a month after I left university. (I told him to do it himself, I don’t lie.)

      I used to run a chemistry Lab and you DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HE!! you are talking about. Trying to find someone actually willing to work much less honest is a major headache. And yes I am talking university graduates.

      Scientists are human and just as willing to keep their mouths shut, do as they are told and not rock the boat as the guy in production, if it means they get to keep paying the mortgage and get promoted. Heck the guys in production were a lot more honest and didn’t have the snotty attitudes.

    • Tel says:

      Can you list the people who spent 22 years getting a degree in Climatology?

      Who awarded them the degree? On what basis was the degree awarded?

      • “It only took me nine months to assemble this puzzle marked 4-6 years!”

      • In the 1980’s, PhD’s in climate science were being handed out like Hare Krishna flowers in an airport. They didn’t have to study any real hard science to get one. Just climate science, which is a branch of environmental science, which is a branch of political science, which is a branch of social science, which is a branch of liberal arts. So, they aren’t scientists, they are artists. Bullshit artists.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Excellent description.

          They do not even make it up to the level of biologists (If it is green or wiggles) we hired Bio majors by the truck load at barely above McDonald’s wages as lab techs.

          I always tell kids DON’T get a major in Bio. unless you plan to get a PhD in genetics.

        • Streetcred says:

          Ask Prof. Lindzen … none of his peers knows any any top students who chose to study “climate science” … they all did physics, math or chem … the thickies did climate science. Probably took then 22 years too to achieve their BSc’s and only because the Faculty got sick and tired of seeing those same faces in first year !!

        • Thanks Gail. I got my BS in bio as most pre-meds do but went to optometry school, got my O.D. and got sick of giving eye exams when I wanted to look at the the skies not eyes.

          Anyway, I added your cool graphs to my blog thanks:

      • Jimbo says:

        mogur2013 says Dr. Hansen, the man who studied physics and astronomy spent 22 years studying climatology. Very funny, next time put on the joke tag.

    • Andy Oz says:

      But seriously mogur, if you support the output of government climate scientists, then you will fully support carbon taxes as the only solution, just like James Hansen, Tim Flannery, Phil Jones et al do. Those guys may well be either “idiots or pathological liars” but I submit they are also puppets for which they should be derided. Anyone who dances to the tune of the carbon tax spruikers deserves derision.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      Do you mean the brilliant scientists who are being paid six figure salaries by the government to run models that don’t correlate with observed data and have the gall to claim that the false results obtained are the real data? The ones who say, based on that data, that we are all going to be dead in five years if we don’t hand over everything we own to the government so that the government can then fix that. SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR 30 YEARS. They have to know that what they are doing is fraudulent if they are scientists and not political hacks. How stupid do you think we are to place any faith in any government that can’t make a functioning website affecting the lives of millions in this country in three years, much less a bunch of Socialists masquerading as honest scientists?


  17. Aphan says:

    “be careful making such strong statements please. I am not an agw kind of person, but must note that co2 could be indirectly reflecting some of the infrared back into the surface”

    Maybe you need to be careful about misrepresenting strong statements in order to construct an argument you think you need to attack, and can defeat.

    SG actually said-
    “Anyone who claims that CO2 is DIRECTLY warming the deep oceans is either an idiot or a pathological liar.”

    Now, where I live, the words “indirectly” and “directly” are opposites (hint, they mean totally different things). But it really doesn’t matter does it? If the atmosphere is neither “indirectly” nor “directly” warming, the oceans cannot be gaining warmth from the atmosphere at all. End of story.

  18. Aphan says:


    “Yet, those guys that spent 22 years to get a degree in climatology are belittled here. ”

    I’ll admit that it sounds rude, and isn’t at all politically correct, but I WOULD absolutely belittle someone that spent 22 years trying to get a degree in climatology. Or brain surgery. Or rocket science. Yes. Yes indeedy. Anyone who needs to be in college for 22 years has a learning disability of some kind.

    Oh, and I’m prone to think the same thing about someone who thinks that using big words and adult speech covers up the fact that their entire response equates with “I know you are but what am I”.

    Now, sit here beside me and let’s examine the difference between idiots/pathological liars and “big shooed, bulb nosed clowns” because you just insulted the entire industry by comparing them to climate scientists.

  19. Gail Combs says:

    Mike Sanicola says:….
    Leaving out the tiny little piece of data about how much energy is in each wave band is lying by omission. I am not sure how accurate that first graph is but since I can stand on the ground at night without burning my feet off I am more inclined to believe it then the warmist artwork. Also it is from where Deliberty is the Chair of the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware. (Not that that is a guarantee as we all have found out the hard way.)

    Another lie of the Warmists is always talking about the amount of solar radiation at the earth’s surface as ~ 480 W m−2 @ 21 June insolation 65â—¦ N instead of 1366 W m−2, as if the energy at TOA just mysteriously disappears with out interacting with the atmosphere at all.

    The last is calling water a GHG and leaving out the phase change energies that are the real effect of water on the climate not to mention the fact that the oceans not only absorb sunlight they also absorb CO2 and chemically change it.

    I won’t get into what I think of the “CO2 is uniform through the atmosphere” super lie that the entire edifice depends on.

  20. gregole says:

    You left out insane:

    Jim (world’s greatest climatologist) Hansen and the boiling oceans video.

  21. Aphan says:

    I think it’s necessary (sadly) to point out to mogur and mf that the ONLY climate scientists we belittle are the ones who believe in CAGW, AGW, or the theory that CO2 drives the climate on this planet. You know, the CRAZY ones. The ones who have to “adjust” climate data in order to make it fit their studies. The ones who ignore or omit proxies that don’t agree with their theories. The ones who seem to believe that whatever has happened in “human history” never happened before humans, and won’t happen after humans.

    There are plenty of climate scientists who do not agree with AGW theory, or CAGW, who don’t appreciate idiots like Cook and Nuccitelli pretending to read their minds or speak for them. Smart and accomplished ones who aren’t afraid to speak out and refuse to fall in line with a completely NON scientific, and imaginary, consensus.

  22. Chewer says:

    Their working hypothesis calls for a positive feedback via clouds, to the tune of nearly a X3 amplification.
    Apparently these clouds form in the evening, stay around for the nighttime and then disappear during the daytime, world wide…

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