Moron Of The Day Award Goes Out Early Today

ScreenHunter_555 Jun. 19 07.43

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/high-low-temps-figure1-2014.png

June 19, 2014 at 11:39 am

About stevengoddard

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

414 Responses to Moron Of The Day Award Goes Out Early Today

  1. philjourdan says:

    The new “deniers” – Conspiracy theorists. They want people to believe that the skeptics are kooks, so they play that card constantly. I have to educate them that a bank robber is not a conspiracy, just a crime. That usually shuts them up, but not always as they are kooks.

  2. Eliza says:

    I would say this person is about 13 or 14 years old male.

    • _Jim says:

      Concur; or at least the mental equivalent thereof. Some of today’s uni grads can really be so, well, I would use the term retarded in some areas developmentally too …

  3. Edmonton Al says:

    It is difficult not to lose patience with biased, ignorant, people who claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Jayden Smith fits that category.
    Good work Steven.

    • _Jim says:

      God Syndrome; one sees it with new grads especially. Engineers can be the worst, too. Know so much and (often) have done so little on the practical level.

      • Gail Combs says:

        +1
        Science major new grads are just as bad. That is why I preferred hiring those over thirty.

        • Charles Koch says:

          I do the same. Not out of choice, but just because young people seem more willing to accept new ideas than older conservative people, and are easily brainwashed into believing “science,” which makes them much less likely to work for the fossil fuel industry anymore.

  4. Sundance says:

    I like Jayden’s response in the original thread where it becomes evident that science is hard and the concept of heat wave index escapes him. If you don’t want to take the time to read the original thread, I have provided a visual of how Jayden’s arguments turned out in that original thread.

  5. geran says:

    “Dr.” SG: Thanks for allowing the alarmist trolls to comment here. We need constant reminders that the war is not over. There are still numerous “useful idiots” out there that frolic in their constant confusion.

    Keep up the great effort.

    • Jayden Smith says:

      If there’s a war, climate denialists are on the side of the Nazi’s. The majority of people just go along with you because they’re following the herd, thinking they’re doing the right thing, but are completely ignorant of what is really going on.

      • geran says:

        (Don’t you just love it when he tries to sound so authoritative. He’s so clueless, yet is so sure he is right–an endless supply of humor.)

      • jimash1 says:

        What do you think is going on ?
        It isn’t hotter anywhere than it has ever been.
        The sea is not encroaching on any place that wasn’t below sea level to begin with.
        Food production is higher than ever in history.
        Actual science shows as much ice and snow as ever.
        Tornadoes are down.
        Hurricanes are down.
        So what is going on ?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I don’t know where you’re getting your information from jimash1, but I’m pretty sure it’s not peer-reviewed scientific journals…

        • jimash1 says:

          I don’t need peer reviewed scientific journals .
          You know why ?
          Because all of these things are tracked by publicly funded record keeping.
          And except for the records that have been deliberately altered, they indicate that nothing is going on.
          If you would rather believe “peer reviewed” speculation and predictions based on incomplete and badly designed computer models, that will be your problem as you find out how wrong those are.

        • jimash1 says:

          Here’s a question that has come up recently , that I’d like you to think about.
          With the Earth having opposite seasons in opposite hemispheres and temperatures in different places varying by about 200ºF every day, and local temperatures changing ( just here in New Jersey for instance ) 20-30º in the course of a day, do YOU think it is possible to calculate a yearly average temperature of the entire Earth down to the hundredth of a degree and have that be a meaningful or useful number on which to base
          ruining economies and denying people ( not you of course) energy with which they do things ( like keeping warm/cool and going places ) ?

        • philjourdan says:

          “So what is going on ?”
          Reality – and they cannot deal with it.

      • Justa Joe says:

        If this is Will Smith’s son, Jaden, you’re perhaps too young to know that heat waves have been around since recorded history (pre-Biblical) times.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Oh, I didn’t realise that. I thought the weather we’re experiencing now is brand new and has never happened before. I thought it was some kind of Christmas, but for weather! Oh, wait, no, not that. I just listen to legitimate scientific sources which say that heat waves will become hotter and last longer as a result of a warming globe.

        • philjourdan says:

          And stompy feet returns again. Proving she is a liar and ignorant. I wonder if her handlers have to water her as well.

        • Send Al to the Pole says:

          Your answer here says it all: …. “I just listen to legitimate scientific sources which say that heat waves will become hotter and last longer as a result of a warming globe.”

          That’s just the problem Jayden. Your conviction is not based on something that IS happening, or HAS happened, but on something someone IMAGINES will happen. FACTS are based upon things that really DID happen.

        • Olaf Koenders says:

          Like all CAGWists, Jayden’s account of the weather started with his birth, meaning that the warming from 1860 to 1900 and 1920 to 1940 where man’s influence couldn’t have been the cause didn’t happen. I’ll bet he doesn’t even know of the cooling and resultant “pal-reviewed” and so-called “scientific” panic of a coming ice age in the 1970’s (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html). Now who’s the “denier”?

          He says he only reads peer reviewed scientific journals, but fails to mention he’s just reading what the SKS Kidz cobble together. Your reply to him Steven was very accurate and succinctly put. Nice one.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, this is my niece’s name. It’s a Girl.

      • _Jim says:

        Your mother must be so proud of you Jayden!

        Trying to debate on the ‘adult’ forums vs the smaller ‘kids’ forums …

        .

      • Latitude says:

        on the side of the Nazi’s….
        I didn’t realize their position was don’t wreck the entire planet over something that looks like it’s not true

      • You’re just indicting yourself. Goddard has presented that heat index graph any number of times, yet you first jump in as if you never bothered to check the facts, and now you continue to deny having seen it this time around too (and project your own failings onto the sceptic side; as a previous commenter noted above, this reveals you to be only a juvenile agitator, exercising childish emotions, not good, logical reasoning). The global warming alarmism is an incompetent scientific lie and a tyrannical political lie, so IT is the “Nazi” side, and YOU are following the “science by authority, not evidence” herd in proclaiming it–falsely, as everyone on your side is doing, especially the “experts”.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Yes, you’re right Harry. I am incapable of logical reasoning. That’s why I decided to come here to be with my own kind. I believe that the entire scientific community is fudging data and making up their own ‘evidence’ in some giant conspiracy to perpetuate a global warming agenda. And I don’t see any logical error in that statement. Oh wait, maybe there’s one so giant that it’s simply escaping me because I’m someone idiotic enough to believe the nonsense that Steven Goddard writes.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, your kind only exists in your childish fantasy.

        • stewart pid says:

          What is really amusing is greentards such as Jayden are trying to dodge the reality of the pause / hiatus, which even the IPCC acknowledges, by babbling endlessly about extreme weather as though there never were out of the ordinary weather events in the past.
          Back to the daycare Jayden … it is nap time 😉

        • philjourdan says:

          More rubbish from an alarmist rag. Where’s the peer review child?

        • Latitude says:

          the planet is not a closed system…………

        • ccglea says:

          Since when is the Guardian a source for science? I guess it’s a peer revived journal now?

        • V. Uil says:

          Jaden, instead of quoting the Guardian, a very poor source of data on GW (it is full of liberal arts journalists who would know a statistical distribution if it bit them in the rear) why not go to a scientific publication regarding the warming hiatus.

          Here is an article in Nature – yes, the peer reviewed science journal. It is very clear there has been a warming hiatus – scientists are puzzled and are looking for the missing heat. But the fact remains: THERE HAS BEEN A WARMING HIATUS FOR 16 YEARS whether the Gaurdian agrees or not.

          http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

      • darwin says:

        Hahahahaha … good grief. Project much there champ? What a clueless moron.

        Hey brainiac … list all the predictions made by the climate fanatics that have come true … you know, like more hurricanes and stuff.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I’d like to see you laughing at Hurricane Katrina and Typhoon Haiyan.

        • philjourdan says:

          I bet you laughed at the Galveston Hurricane. That was before AGW, so it is just a unicorn, right?

        • darwin says:

          Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit. I’m still waiting for the list of predictions that have come true.

        • philjourdan says:

          It was also not the last Cat 3 to hit, but do not try telling that to the she child. It would explode their brain.

        • darwin says:

          Look champ, if anyone is a “denier” it’s you. These people have been screaming disaster for 40 years now and not one prediction has come true. Yet you keep believing every word they say while denying reality.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          And I’m still waiting for a logical reason to believe that the entire scientific community is wrong. Just because you’ve read a bunch of right-wing propaganda which claims that none of the predictions have come true. It doesn’t mean it’s true. The predictions are coming true. The globe is warming, sea levels are rising, the ocean is becoming more acidic. I don’t need to prove these things to you, just look at the science (not to ridiculous pseudo-science that Steven Goddard writes).

        • philjourdan says:

          False premise. We have already shown you the only thing wrong is your statement.

          Opinions are not facts child.

        • darwin says:

          Apparently you’re having a hard time with that list. Secondly, stop saying the ENTIRE scientific community … that’s not true.

          Again, nothing predicted has come true … including the grand daddy prediction of all, that the temperature will increase as CO2 increases. Global temps have remained relatively flat for almost twenty years yet CO2 has risen. Your entire argument is dead.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          It’s going to be impossible to have an intelligent debate when we completely disagree on the basic facts. Everything you have just said isn’t true.

        • philjourdan says:

          You have yet to state a single fact. So your ignorance of “basic facts” is well known. Keep your promise. use your stompy feet, leave and learn. I doubt you will do the latter. You already “know it all”.

        • darwin says:

          Prove it.

        • Latitude says:

          which claims that none of the predictions have come true…

          Which predictions have come true?

        • D. Self says:

          Jayden, You need to quit listening to propaganda. There is ZERO statistical evidence that Hurricanes and Typhoons are getting stronger and more frequent. Look up Cyclone ACE. Quit listening to the White House and Al Gore.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          The science proves it. Study a climate change subject at university, read science journals. The science and evidence is all there.

        • philjourdan says:

          Science does not “prove” anything. Science can only disprove. Your ignorance of that fact shows you really do know nothing.

        • Latitude says:

          You said “the predictions are coming true”….

          Which predictions are coming true?

          ….name just one

        • Tel says:

          Secondly, stop saying the ENTIRE scientific community … that’s not true.

          Why should he stop saying something just because it isn’t true?

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          And I’m still waiting for a logical reason to believe that the entire scientific community is wrong.

          The entire scientific community is not wrong. I am a scientist. I maintain based on data and analysis, supported by many peer reviewed science papers, that CAGW is precluded by real world data.

          My credentials are 30+ years as a research scientist, 20+ years of modelling (thermodynamic, iterative and statistical), stats qualifications and a PhD in Chemistry.

          Try looking at the data youself, Jayden. Check the claims. Goddard provides data in the form of graphs and gives links. Track down the original, graph it up yourself and interpret it. If you can find anything to support the IPCC’s high sensitivity hypothesis I’ll be very surprised.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          I don’t really understand why you guys all respond to these trolls when they show up to stir the pot with the arrogance of their closed minds. She obviously has had her mind sucked out by her looney college professors, assuming she is old enough to have sat under one.

          She reminds me of the looney that dropped in during the dead of winter to tell us that the Arctic was scorching hot at 25 degrees C below zero.

          And, Jayden, our present climate has been pretty benign. In the past, California has seen 200 and 100 year long droughts. It has also seen catastrophic flooding of a magnitude not seen in U.S. during the last 100 years. In the 1850’s one forth of Colorado was burned in a single forest fire. We have a long way to go, temperature wise, before we see trees growing in Greenland, as happened during the Viking era. Etc.

      • michael palmer says:

        Nazis not Nazi’s

      • Donna K. Becker says:

        The same can be said about the warmists.
        We so-called “deniers” oppose increasing government’s ability to revoke our freedoms and control the economy. Your camp, Mr. Smith, ardently supports such actions–which is definitely comparable to Nazi ideology.
        To date, “the herd” has been following the dictates of those promulgating global warming/climate change/climate disruption.

      • Olaf Koenders says:

        What’s really going on Jayden, is that you believe Gerbil Worming will negatively impact tooth fairies. Stick the pillow OVER your face next time..

      • philjourdan says:

        God jayden! You are like a bad relative! You did your stompy feet and said you were leaving a dozen posts ago. So leave! Or stop lying. You are such a child.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        If there’s a war, climate denialists are on the side of the Nazi’s.

        And Godwin’s Law prevails again, in a most impressive and truly ironic fashion.

        Thanks for playing.

      • sunsettommy says:

        No evidence to back your featured comment Steve posted as his blog post.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          No evidence of heat waves? Are you kidding me? There’s plenty of evidence. The problem is that no matter what evidence is presented to conspiracy theorists such as yourself, you’ll find some ridiculous conspiracy theory reason to not believe it. This is because your belief isn’t based on science, it’s based on ‘feeling’, it’s based on ideology.

        • philjourdan says:

          RIF – you still fail. The original discussion was about heat waves. So your “featured” comment was not about the existence of heat waves, but the fact they are more frequent now.

          Again, engage brain before being stupid.

        • Chicalina says:

          Notice how he keeps using the very claims against the alarmist scammers? Calls everyone else lemmings, politicized, avoiders, bla bla bla… the very same thing I read on all their rags. When they get caught in something, they claim everyone else is doing it, not them..

  6. ccglea says:

    The problem is your questioning their “religion”. They want to believe it so bad they have to change the data to fit their beliefs. Who are the real denier’s?

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      Denier is?

    • Dmh says:

      They are the real deniers, who cannot think with their own minds but rather with their pockets- or the pockets of their teachers.
      They don’t see the great corruption of science that has happened by politically motivated agenda that’s weakening the entire society.
      Their irrational, nearly religious belief on what the mainstream climatology (and other areas) says is perhaps the very source of the great mess that official science has turned into today.

  7. ACR says:

    “Most of Earth’s history averaged 10-12C warmer than the present”

    My understanding is that we’re currently enjoying a relatively short term interglacial period. Most of earth’s history is as a chunk of ice.

    • Statements about the temperature in past “geological eras” are purely speculative models, no better than the models being followed by climate scientists (the dogma involved is just a religious–unquestioning–belief in present interpretations of deep ice cores, as that in climate science is the religious belief in the alarmist “greenhouse effect”). I don’t believe graphs of the global mean surface temperature (which, again, are speculative reconstructions, not bonafide measurements) beyond about 10,000 years ago; and in that last 10,000 years the temperature has been stable, varying only about half a degree to either side of the long-term mean (and my Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison shows why it is stable, subject to neither runaway warming NOR cooling).

      • stewart pid says:

        Harry whenever u verge off into geology you show yourself to be ignorant beyond belief. Go take some courses and do some reading and then get back to us.

      • Dmh says:

        Harry, are you ready to test your hypothesis in the next few years if the present trend of solar cycles (grand minimum) confirms?
        What if the (average) temperatures fall by 0.5 C or even more until the end of 2020’s, would you still keep what you’re saying now?
        I believe you’re forgetting the Sun (variable star, solar cycles, multi-decadal length, centennial length, etc.) in your analysis.

    • Morgan says:

      ACR you are completely wrong. Most of Earth’s history was warmer than now. Here is the last 65 million years:

      the green line is temperatures. When you go farther back it’s warmer still.

  8. geran says:

    Jayden, we don’t want you to run short of material, so here are some simple questions to get you really fired up.

    1) What is Earth’s temperature right now, today? (Please show your work.)
    2) What was Earth’s temperature this same date, 100 years ago? (Please show your work.)

    Now, with those two values, if we are warmer today by a statistically meaningful amount, say two standard deviations, then the Earth has warmed. (Which, is not the case.)

    But, if it had warmed, your next task would be to determine the cause of the warming. Was it longer-term climate cycles, solar activity, volcanoes, man-made, or something else.

    The above process would be a scientific approach. This approach was never taken by “climate scientists”. They bent the science to indicate “man-made”. The temperatures were not rising to suit their models, so they fabricated/altered temperatures to support their false science.

    Now, more humor, please.

    • Jayden Smith says:

      Yes, I believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories too.

      • geran says:

        Yup, that is exactly what AGW is.

      • JL says:

        JS-“the globe is warming, the seas rising, the ocean is becoming more acidic…” And all theses things have happened before. Even if you believe All the BS the climate astrologers put out, that’s still no proof that the sole cause is man. In other words, how could you prove that these things wouldn’t have happened anyway without additional CO2? You know, because there’s that pesky little fact that the globe has warmed, the seas risen and oceans became more acidic for….over 4 billion years now.

  9. Pathway says:

    When you’re losing the argument pull out the Nazi word or say your opponent is a racist. Pretty much shows your degree of intellect.

    • Jayden Smith says:

      I didn’t realise that having the entire scientific community on my side constitutes as losing? Weird.

      • darwin says:

        Really? The ENTIRE scientific community?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Pretty much. There’s always some fringe people with ‘alternative’ ideas. But every legitimate scientific organisation world-wide accepts the science.

        • philjourdan says:

          Again a lie. Not every one does. And none have done any of the science. So their opinions are worthless.

          Just a childish appeal to authority. But then that is what children do.

        • darwin says:

          Oh … how scientific. “Pretty much”. Seems you don’t have a handle on anything and have a tendency to exaggerate just like the climate fanatics.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Oh … how scientific. Find a tiny uncertainty and use it to discredit the entire argument. Well, I guess that’s all that guys like you do. It’s the only way you can stay in denial.

        • philjourdan says:

          The Null Hypothesis is not a “tiny uncertainty”. It is the very foundation of science. You demonstrate supreme ignorance once again.

        • darwin says:

          Tiny uncertainty? Nothing predicted has come true. That seems like a certainty to me.

          Again, it is you that are denying reality. Why do you insist on believing a theory where nothing predicted has come to pass?

          Do you not see a problem when the proponents of AGW won’t release their data? Or want people who question their work censored or fired … or jailed … or in some cases executed? If their science is sound they should want it examined, double and triple checked to be sure they’re right. All science should be challenged. Why should AGW not be challenged? What is there to hide?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          And I would say the same about you. You’re being informed by an op-ed pseudo-science ‘reality’, and I’m being informed by a peer-reviewed scientific journal ‘reality’. When the two realities collide, there’s sure to be disputes.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, we are informed by the science and the data. I understand those words are too big for you at your stage of development.

        • darwin says:

          Do you ever answer questions?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I don’t answer questions that are based on false information.

        • philjourdan says:

          idiot! You supplied the information! Or the lie as it turns out. Stompy feet scores her own goal again.

        • In other words, you are reciting hearsay and have no facts.

        • Latitude says:

          I don’t answer questions that are based on false information….

          You said “the predictions are coming true”….

          Which predictions are coming true?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Yes, refusing to answer non-sensical questions means that the person who refuses to answer has no knowledge what-so-ever. Or, it means they know enough to not answer such a stupid question.

        • philjourdan says:

          So your refusal to answer any questions so far posed to you is your admission you have no knowledge whatsoever. Nice going, you just scored another goal for the other team. You called yourself an idiot.

        • Latitude says:

          You said “the predictions are coming true”….

          Which predictions are coming true?

        • Dmh says:

          At least Reggie and Snow White (oops) presented some facts and links… this Jayden guy presents just *nothing*.
          It’s not funny! 😦

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          As I said upthread I’m a scientist. Here in Australia the local geologists are split right down the middle. In the US only about half of meteorologists toe the IPCC line.

          And given how politicised the argument is, I do suspect many scientists on the Left maintain CAGW because they would be uncomfortable breaking with the political doctrine of ‘their side’ no matter their private thoughts.

          The real world data does not support a high sensitivity for CO2. It appears to be around 0.5 C/doubling, which is completely harmless – and explains why the Earth hasn’t ever fried during the billions of years where pCO2 was well above 1500 ppmV.

      • Not having the clear and simple truth (that heat index graph, above–remember?) constitutes losing, to any honest and competent scientist (indeed, to any competent, reasoning mind–focus on the graph, keep your eyes on the graph, as you vainly try to deny what it puts in front of you).

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Showing that heatwaves have happened in the past does not discredit global warming. That’s like saying “my car has only gotten up to 150km/h in the past, and won’t go any faster” when your mechanic is telling you that the nitro you just put in the tank is going to make it go faster.

        • Send Al to the Pole says:

          Hysterical. Climate Nitro! That’s what it is!

          Jayden, There are thousands of peer reviewed papers that refute the climate cult. Don’t be fooled by propaganda. It’s quite clear from your comments that you’ve never read any of the peer reviewed nonsense you so fervently trust. You have no expertise on this issue. You’re trusting nitwit celebrities and media.

        • jimash1 says:

          ” That’s like saying “my car has only gotten up to 150km/h in the past, and won’t go any faster” when your mechanic is telling you that the nitro you just put in the tank is going to make it go faster.”

          Well, the reality is the car went 150 with less “nitro” in the tank in the 1930s.
          The mechanics, who are all crooked are getting paid to tell us that more nitro will make it go 175. But regardless of the “nitro” it only goes 130. The car was faster in the 1930s.
          This is the reality. It is what the record of observations says,

      • Leon says:

        Jayden- There is a whole other world out there, and it is not populated by conspiracy theorists, Nazis or Deniers. I would encourage you, as I do everyone, to take a look at it, determine if is what you have been told, and then make up your own mind.

        The following is a mere glimpse (and there is much, much, much more):

        Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis. ‘Only 36% of geoscientists & engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe nature is primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.’

        Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2. A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecast.

        In 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor.

        More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.’s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate. The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

        More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This update from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

        Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has AUTHORED MORE THAN 125 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, SPECIALIZES IN THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF PREHISTORIC CLIMATE CHANGE: “Dr. Maruyama said yesterday there was WIDESPREAD SKEPTICISM AMONG HIS COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE UN IPCC’S FOURTH AND LATEST ASSESSMENT report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’ When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.’”

        Mike Hulme: Professor of Climate Change, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by ONLY A FEW DOZEN experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies.”

        Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change: The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister (of Great Britain) (and the President of the United States) should cite it. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 (pre-climate gate) world of climate change discourse.

        UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody. I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that’s in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.’

        Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report and one of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists on June 1, 2001 said: The “most egregious” problem with the IPCC’s forthcoming report “is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on.”

        “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….AS A SCIENTIST I REMAIN SKEPTICAL…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “AMONG THE MOST PREEMINENT SCIENTISTS OF THE LAST 100 YEARS.”

        Dr. David Legates, Professor of Climatology, testimony to the U.S. Senate: “Young scientists quickly learn to ‘do what is expected of them’ or at least remain quiet, lest they lose their career before it begins.” “A healthy scientific debate is being compromised.” “When scientific views come under political attack, so too does independent thinking and good policy-making because all require rational thought to be effective.”

        James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, predicted in 2006 that: “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Antarctic where climate remains tolerable.” More recently, however, he admitted to MSNBC: “We don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books …mine included…because it looked clear cut…but it hasn’t happened.” “The climate is doing its usual tricks…there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” “Yet the temperature has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising…carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.”

        Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace testifies before Congrses: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

        Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

        Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech: …at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

        Senate testimony of Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications on how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

        Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” Landsea added.

        “ANY REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS MUST CONCLUDE THE BASIC THEORY WRONG.” – NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

        U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA: “IT IS A BLATANT LIE PUT FORTH…THAT MAKES IT SEEM THERE IS ONLY A FRINGE OF SCIENTISTS WHO DON’T BUY INTO ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.”

        Mathematician Dr. Muriel Newman: “It remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly not settled.”

        UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist: “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” –

        Dr. Richard Lindzen: “The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”

        Award-Winning Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’

        Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. “There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink…’ They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging,” Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting “dogma” and clinging to the “religious importance” of the IPCC’s claims. “They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them,” Curry lamented.

        Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology discusses the heavy price paid by scientists who publicly question the CAGW dogma: “I’ve often thought if I had to do it again I wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Until you have experienced, like some are having with the IRS attacking them in the U.S., you cannot relate to other people exactly what it’s like when you are sitting in your little condo and you’ve spent all of your savings on legal fees. And (when there’s) a knock on the door at 4 o’clock on a Friday and your wife starts crying because she’s afraid it’s the sheriff delivering a legal summons. People have no idea what that’s like. I’m not sure that I would do it again. I’m almost at the point where if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. I’m not going to fight for it again.

        “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

        “We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority” – Dr. Kenneth Green, a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

        “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”– Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

        “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

        “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

        Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton: “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship….new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies.

        UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’”

        Dr. John Nicol, Chairman of the Australia Climate Science Coalition and a former Senior Lecturer of Physics at James Cook University: “The claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man- made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.”

        Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen: “[climate skepticism] is the dominant view in professional science circles. I know lots of people in universities and so on and quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it’s so frowned upon- Any dissension is like a heresy. People are stamped on so they can’t be heard.”

        Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. PATTERSON SAYS HIS CONVERSION “PROBABLY COST ME A LOT OF GRANT MONEY. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,”

        “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”

        “The whole thing is a fraud.” – Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.

        “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University

        Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, slammed the UN IPCC as “the biggest ever scientific fraud”. “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

        Dr. Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both herein Australia and around the world.”

        “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded… it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

        “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel prize winner for physics, Ivar Giaever.

        “Real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, AUTHOR OF 200 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS and former Greenpeace member.

        “Predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

        Atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, a former adjunct professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Michigan and has authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies in the fields of ozone, sulfates and
        Aerosols: “For too many in the (Climate Science) field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained.”

        “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino

        UN IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch: ‘Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth… By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust.”

        Climate researcher Willis Eschenbach, who has published climate studies in Energy and Environment journal and had comments published in the journal Nature: “I am definitely a critic of the IPCC, they are doing their job abysmally poorly. Rather than advance the cause of climate science, they impede it through their reliance on bad statistics, bad economics, and bad data”.

        Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, WHO HAS PUBLISHED OVER 200 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences: “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”

        Consulting Chemist and Forensic Scientist Dr. Jim Sprott of Auckland, NZ: “The much-vaunted IPCC scenarios are patently wrong. The manmade climate change proposition fails”.

        Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling “Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”
        Astrophysicist Dr. Dennis Hollars: “What I’d do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that’s all it’s worth.”

        Dr. Roger W. Cohen, an American Physical Society (APS) fellow: “I was…appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC.”

        Analytical Chemist Michael J. Myers, who specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing: “…man-made global warming is ‘junk’ science.”

        Dutch meteorological institute KNMI: We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.

        “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

        UN IPCC’s Eduardo Zorita: ‘I really do not see how the IPCC can help policy makers’. ‘The Summary for Policy Makers is co-written by government officials & scientists, & thus it seems that it is result of some type of obscure negotiations. This leads to all sorts of wrong incentives, also for scientists. In some countries, a criterion for promotion is whether your work has been cited by IPCC, this gives already an idea about how IPCC reports are misused for goals totally alien to intended purpose’

        Renowned Norwegian solar expert warns temps may ‘actually fall in the course of a 50-year period’ – [ By Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth and served as a referee for scientific journals. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”

        Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. Bryson was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

        Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.”

        Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

        Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe. “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

        Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown”.

        Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
        Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”

        Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”

        Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind.”

        In a September 2005 Discovery Magazine article, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University Dr. William Gray (a former president of the American Meteorological Association), was asked if the funding problems that he was experiencing were due to his skepticism of man-made global warming. His response: “I had NOAA money for 30 years, and then (because of skepticism) I was cut off. I couldn’t get any money from NOAA. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.” Thus Gray – one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world – was cut off from NOAA funding because he had been skeptical of global warming.

        Not part of the IPCC “consensus”, Yury Izrael (Director of the Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President, for RIA Novosti) [http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050623/40748412.html] disagrees with the IPCC that he is a part of: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. This problem is overshadowed by many fallacies and misconceptions that often form the basis for important political decisions”

        Celebrated Physicist Pierre Darriulat Calls UN IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’. Darriulat: ‘The way the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case.” Darriulat adds: ‘The main point to appreciate’ is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it ‘cannot be a scientific document.’

        • jimash1 says:

          Leon…Epic post.

        • Dmh says:

          Thanks for your comment, Leon. I’m a little surprised by the comments of Judith Curry, I thought she was an IPCC follower.
          I’d suggest that Steve should perhaps re-post it as an independent thread.

        • tom0mason says:

          Wow, epic piece, well said, I wish I could buy you a beer after that!
          However I may well be borrowing large chucks of it to throw at others.
          Thanks you again.

      • JL says:

        JS-“I have the entire scientific community on my side….” Jayden- sorry to burst your bubble, but the only thing one “needs on his side” is the data, which your side doesn’t have.

      • philjourdan says:

        The entire community? McIntyre, McKittrick, Spencer, Pielke Jr, Pielke Sr., Tol, Lindzen, and another 31,000 http://www.petitionproject.org/

        Apparently you have not learned math yet.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          You mean the petition filled with just about zero names of people who are qualified to comment on the science? Seems legit.

        • philjourdan says:

          How many people have degrees in “Climatology”? I’ll give you a hint – less than 100. So what does Mann, Jones, Pachauri, Trenberth, Briffa, Cook, Lewandowsky have degrees in?

          Here’s clue #2 – all 31000 of those names are as qualified as anyone you know of. Because you do not know of ANYONE with a degree in Climatology.

        • philjourdan says:

          BTW: all 31,000 are scientists. And that means regardless of your ignorance, they are all qualified to discuss the subject. Just as equally as a train engineer (Pachauri).

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Oh yes, I’m ignorant. I don’t even realise that different areas of expertise exist. That’s why I go to my mechanic to ask him for a second opinion after my doctor has diagnosed me with cancer. What does a doctor know anyway? When a dentist tells me I need a filling, I go straight to the butcher who tells me my teeth look fine. And that’s also why when I hear that the globe is warming, I go straight to engineers, geologists, the mining industry, who all tell me that it isn’t happening. See, I’m just like you guys!

        • philjourdan says:

          Again, wishful thinking. You are nothing like us. If we each had a lobotomy, you would be like us. But until then you are merely ignorant and stupid.

          I just proved you wrong on one of the few declarative statements you made. And it went right over your head. But that is not hard. most things go over a little girls head.

      • sunsettommy says:

        No evidence presented to back up your thumper.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          No evidence? The evidence is there. You simply need to look at reputable science journals. Not the internets blog of someone who doesn’t even have a degree in the thing that his followers are worshipping as gospel. Sing it brother!

        • philjourdan says:

          RIF little girl. The statement was “evidence presented”. Not “evidence available”.

          learn to read.

  10. jesse says:

    Jayden doesn t need to study data, he has the Guardian. Then claims he bases his beliefs on scientific papers. I doubt Jayden has ever read a scientific journal. He waits for Rachel Maddow to tell him what to think. He says he is capable of logical reasoning, but proves otherwise.

  11. Justa Joe says:

    Did you believe the “experts” like Stephen Schneider when they predicted that we were going into an ice age? Lots of “experts” make a lot of predictions. Seldom ever do they come true. Such is the nature of predictions. Heat waves vary in intensity and duration. How will you know when you have one of those hotter longer Mann made ones?

    Funny the weather/climate is naturally guaranteed to be very pleasant and accomodating unless man inadvertantly interferes with it. Sounds like Garden of Eden stuff only less plausible.

    • Jayden Smith says:

      I like choosing one discredited theory and using that to discredit the rest of the science as much as the rest of you. Only in the case of global warming, all of the predictions are coming true. Of course there’s some uncertainty, and some predictions that turn out to be slightly off, but that doesn’t discredit that we are observing global warming and its impacts.

      • Latitude says:

        all of the predictions are coming true….

        Which predictions are coming true?

      • stewart pid says:

        Jayden would you care to speak about the models … all of which are running hot and address that issue in the context of “settled science”.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Instead of asking me, I’d refer you to one of the many climatologists who could speak about how solid the science is.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, little girl – they are not here. They did not make the claims. YOU DID. Put up or shut up.

        • stewart pid says:

          So u are totally ignorant about the failed sensitivities of the GCM … somehow that isn’t at all surprising 😉
          Jayden’s mind is made up and he doesn’t want to be confused with facts.

        • Tel says:

          Like the climatologist who predicted there would be no ice on the North Pole last year? Or the famous “Snowfall will be a thing of the past” prediction?

          We should listen to those guys huh?

          But we do listen to them, we just don’t see any reason to believe them, when they get so many things wrong.

      • Latitude says:

        all of the predictions are coming true. Of course there’s some uncertainty, and some predictions that turn out to be slightly off, but that doesn’t discredit that we are observing global warming and its impacts……

        But it’s that super secret kind of global warming……that doesn’t show up on any temperature record and hides in the deep ocean…..

        If the heat can hide in the deep ocean, so can the cold…..it mush be all that cold coming out of hiding that stopped temps from rising

        • philjourdan says:

          all of the predictions are coming true. Of course there’s some uncertainty, and some predictions that turn out to be slightly off,

          Number 1 is that time is no longer a constant. So the (almost) 9 years since a Cat 3 strike is really only 6 months under NewTime. And of course you are comparing the ACE from a year in the past to a couple months in the present. Same for Tornadoes.

      • Justa Joe says:

        CAGW introducing your next soon to be “discredited theory.” It’s pop-“science” run amok. It’s a more comprehensive version of Paul Ehrlich’s “Popualtion Bomb,” which turned out to be bunk.

        Jayden, If as you state certain theories end up being discredited does it not suggest to you that believing that the current crop of alarmists are nearly infallible as you do is ill-advised especially considering that the alarmists of the previous generation were stating the exact opposite crisis and proven wrong? The alarmist some of whom are the same people. (i.e. Steven Schneider) ?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Yep, I bet gravity ends up being just pop-“science” too. That seems like a crock of shit. I mean, I can throw a ball up in the air. Take that gravity! Jayden = 1, Science of gravity = 0.

        • philjourdan says:

          Gravity is science – although even Newton did not get it right the first time.

          Null Hypothesis child. We are still waiting.

      • philjourdan says:

        Apparently all you know is discredited. You do not even know the difference between a supposition, hypothesis and theory as your ignorant statement attests to.

      • sunsettommy says:

        You made another thumper post with zero evidence to support it.

  12. darwin says:

    I nominate Jayden Smith for Moron of the Year.

    • Jayden Smith says:

      An honour I will wear gladly. Believing ‘facts’ and ‘science’ is a pretty moronic thing to do.

      • darwin says:

        Facts … like more hurricanes, more tornados, more droughts, more floods, more fires, ever increasing temperatures, polar bear decimation, ice free Arctic, and whatever else the climate criminals predicted that never came true or was an outright lie.

        Yes, you go right ahead and never challenge the people who hide their work and attack those who question it.

        You will no doubt win not only Moron of the Year but Useful Idiot of the year as well.

        Whatever you do, don’t ever ask any questions, you may be attacked. Keep your head buried and computer off. Stay away from anyone who thinks as well … just to be safe.

        Oh … I would like to be the first to congratulate on your sure wins. May I call you Useful Moron?

        • _Jim says:

          re: darwin June 19, 2014 at 3:13 pm
          Yes, you go right ahead and never challenge the people who hide their work and attack those who question it.

          Jaydee (or whatever his name is) is the model ‘mushroom’ for this administration; kept in the dark and fed BS by the truckload, and he has no complaints …

          More BS is fine by him. What a way to live!

          “Feed me Seymore”

          .

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Firstly, those predictions are coming true. Extreme weather is becoming more often and severe, and the arctic is losing ice. What planet are you living on if you think they’re lies?

          I’m fine with challenging authority, but this is just ridiculous. This is the equivalent of being told by your father that you need to eat to grow up to become a man, then yelling at him that you’ll go back to being a baby if you eat food. There’s a difference between blindly following authority and trusting another person’s authority because you realise that they know more than you. Climate scientists have shown us the science. You’d have to be moronic conspiracy theorist to think that we’re just blindly following authority by accepting that global warming is happening. Yes, always question. But don’t make up stories and cherry-pick tiny little uncertainties and inaccuracies to discredit the science. That’s like throwing away a new car because it got a scratch on it. But the scratch can be polished off. The state of climate denial is no more than “I don’t want it to be true so I’ll believe any nonsense that pops up that discredits it, at all, even if it contradicts something else that I believe.”

          But thanks for nominating me for these awards. It means a lot to me to be considered worthy of such prestigious accolades.

        • philjourdan says:

          If “those things are true”, you have no problem in proving them. Since you have already demonstrated your propensity to lie, you will have to excuse us if we do not take your word for it.

          Prove it. Show us the increased catastrophic weather. Show us the disappearance of Sea ice.

          In short, put up or shut up. We are tired of your childishness.

        • There isn’t any evidence that extreme weather is getting more frequent or more severe. Your entire belief system is based on hearsay, folklore and superstition.

        • Latitude says:

          Extreme weather is becoming more often and severe…

          over a fraction of a degree?

          Temperatures have fluctuated a lot more than that in the past…
          ….why didn’t it increase “extreme weather” then?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Steven, your entire belief system is based on the opposite of an X-Files poster “I don’t want to believe” …so I’ll make up a bunch of illogical nonsense.

        • philjourdan says:

          Little girl – the only facts presented so far have been by everyone else. You have presented NONE. So your petty tirades accurately describe your behavior.

        • Les Johnson says:

          Jayden: Do you read the IPCC? They state that there has been no global trend in severe storms (including hurricanes, tornadoes and thunder storms), and no global trend in droughts or floods.

          http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

        • philjourdan says:

          According to jayden, the IPCC is a right wing op ed site.

      • Deda Eda says:

        And here is the problem. Science is not an ideology. Science does not need believers. It is a fact finding mission to explain the world. The only way we progress is that we change our views as we gain new insights. I don’t know what the hell you believe in, but it isn’t science. There is no such thing as “Debate is over” in science. If you knew what science is, you would be aware that it is not the first itime in history when 97% of “scientists” are wrong. Happens all the time. It is called progress.

        • _Jim says:

          You didn’t belong to the science club or the chess club like Jadee Schmidt did, otherwise you might think differently. They (Jaydee and friends) were out to save the world (and us, from ourselves then) then as now … it’s just that, well, we won’t let him and he thinks we’re crazy as a result.

          He needs to save somebody today, right now, as soon as possible to get that ‘I feel right’ sensation in his brain …

          .

        • philjourdan says:

          “out to save the world” – or kill everyone who gets in their way doing it.

      • Andy DC says:

        Jayden,

        You seem like a well intentioned guy, but my question is, have you ever bothered to check the actual data? I have and it appears you have not. You are just blindly accepting prefabricated propaganda that you are being spoon fed. I know you are a good boy, believing everything you are hearing and doing what mommy and daddy are telling you, but you should now be at an age where you should question authority, delve into the situation and formulate you own opinions. There are a lot of skeptical sites out there run by highly respectable scientists and you should access them..
        Just as a starter, here are a few facts.

        Worldwide sea ice is ABOVE the long term average.
        We are now in the longest period without a major (CAT 3 or higher) landfalling hurricane in US history, going on 9 years.
        Three straight below average tornado seasons
        No warming for US stations away from cities since at least the 1930’s.
        Most deadly US hurricanes was in 1900
        Most intense US hurricane was in 1935
        Second most intense was in 1969
        7 landfalling hurricanes, 3 major striking the US coast between NC and New England between 1953 and 1955.
        By far most deadly US tornado was in 1925
        2nd most deadly was in 1840
        3rd most deadly was in 1896
        Most deadly fire US was in 1871
        By far largest fire (incuding Maine and New Brunswick) was in 1825
        By far the most widespread and intense US heat wave was in 1936
        The most intense and widespread cold wave was in 1899
        By far the deadliest flood was in 1889
        Worst US drought by far was during the 1930’s, 2nd worse was in the 1950’s
        Deadliest US blizzard was in 1888

        These are the facts. If you don’t believe me, you can easily check it out yourself.
        Now doesn’t all of this make you a little skeptical about our weather/climate being any worse than it has been for a very long time?

      • glenncz says:

        Jayden, accept that we are talking about 1 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere changing from something to CO2 since 1900. It’s complicated. I know it’s hard to believe that most scientists, just about all scientific institutions and schools could be wrong. It’s hard to believe that Obama and his cronies don’t mean well. What you have to do is find out what they really mean. Do you know the EPA who is behind these CO2 regs, (strong arm tactic since Congress wouldn’t do it) states the new regs will only decrease global temp by .01C in 100 yrs! That’s a fact – it’s right in the Congressional record. All of this worry about global warming is going to cost a lot of money. Who is going to pay that money? Me and You! Who is going to get the money. Not me or you. What are we going to get? A decrease in temp of .01C in 100 yrs or nothing. It’s nothing. They are WRONG. They are LIARS. They are CROOKS. The world is full of very EVIL PEOPLE. Accept the fact. The people you think are good people are are are people. Simple but true.

      • philjourdan says:

        To someone whose sole argument is one from authority, yes, I can see where you would think that facts and science are moronic.

      • sunsettommy says:

        You have yet to post any facts to this point in the thread.

    • stewart pid says:

      Jayden is more of a village idiot type IMHO.

      • Aphan says:

        He is just exhibiting the well known and established characteristics of Groupthink. It’s a psychological condition that those suffering from it do not recognize or accept as applicable to them. It’s very sad.

        • Aphan says:

          I actually look forward to his future replies as they will obviously match the determining characteristics of Groupthink. Of course, he may not reply again for that very reason.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          *Doesn’t recognise that listening to experts is nothing more than groupthink. While listening to the fossil fuel industry and fringe right-wing no-body’s like Steven Goddard is just listening thinking for yourself!*

        • Morgan says:

          Doesn’t realize than nobodies has no hyphen or apostrophe

        • Aphan says:

          *Doesn’t recognise that listening to experts is nothing more than groupthink. While listening to the fossil fuel industry and fringe right-wing no-body’s like Steven Goddard is just listening thinking for yourself!*

          Silly boy, Groupthink has nothing to do with the expertise or knowledge of the people being followed or “listened to”. It has to do with a specific, and predictable set of behavior patterns demonstrated by people who gravitate towards consensus. Listening to people who have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that they are indeed “expert” at something is fine, as long as we both defining an “expert” with the same criteria. Listening to people who claim to be experts, or people who others have told you are experts-without verifying their expertise for yourself is blind sheep laziness…along with a characteristic of GroupThinkers.

          So, which “experts”, specifically, are you listening to Jayden? Which peer reviewed papers published by “experts” have you actually, personally read Jayden? It would be very helpful if you would define what you believe makes someone an expert in climate science, and give us some names of people who fit that description.

          I actually have no idea who to listen to in the “fossil fuel industry”-is there an expert you would recommend? And I don’t listen to Steven Goddard. I read his blog and then evaluate whatever he’s posted for myself to see whether or not I agree with him on any certain topic. If I disagree with him, I’ll say so. I don’t consider him to be an ‘expert’ on anything I can think of.

      • Andy DC says:

        Jayden,

        If Steve Goddard and other skeptics are “fringe right wing no-bodies”, why are you wasting so much of your time attacking them? Obviously, they have done some damage to your cause and thus are anything but “no-bodies” to you and others to your ilk. When all else fails, just pretend you are superior rather than argue the facts. That is the obvious alarmist strategy. People are seeing thru that and it is failing.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          My intention is not to attack. This isn’t me thinking “oh, these guys are hurting our global warming agenda, I need to attack them.” This is me thinking, these guys are making hilariously ridiculous arguments, I need to read this nonsense. This is all fun and games to me Andy. I think it’s hilarious.

        • philjourdan says:

          You even fail in your intentions. All you have done is attack. No data, no facts, just juvenile ad hominems and infantile insults.

          Probably the story of your life. YOu never accomplished anything you set out to do.

    • Dmh says:

      He’s too “simple”, what about Snow White?
      (I’ve not seen Reggie here this year)

    • philjourdan says:

      She is campaigning hard.

  13. Truth E. Ness says:

    Wasn’t the question about overall heat waves? And the graph shown was a historical index for the US. Is there a comparable graph for the larger globe, as we know, the US is just a small fraction of the planet and what happens here shouldn’t be extrapolated to the entire planet. Is there a global heatwave index graph? Thanks.

  14. geran says:

    (Wow, Jayden is on fire. We got us a live one folks. I can’t wait until he gets to the polar bear jokes….)

  15. Deda Eda says:

    Obviously Jaden is just as ignorant about Nacizm as he is about climate. Jarden, I lived under Nazis and Communists. People who use their own enquiring mind and critical thinking and come their own conclusions contradicting the accepted sacred truth are absolute opposite of Nazis or any other ideology. We are not the ones clamoring for aresting and prosecuting people for using their own brain.

  16. Edmonton Al says:

    Give up Jayden.
    Just give him a sandwich board with “THE END IS NEAR” and send him out onto the street.

  17. Edmonton Al says:

    Sorry Give up ON Jayden

  18. Jayden, is this a school assigned project?

  19. jimash1 says:

    Jayden suggests we read this
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change

    Perhaps it would be instructive to point out the inaccuracies, admissions of ignorance, and omissions of the obvious, in this biased badly written article.
    Like what ?
    “Closed system”
    As Lat points out the Earth is not a closed system. It is open to Space, receives energy from
    “The Sun”, and sheds heat directly to space.
    Then there is the admission that climate models were inadequately programmed to account for the wind. WIND. They can’t get the WIND right !
    The claim that the wind transports heat 100-300 meters below the surface of the waters ( dubious)
    The claims of how much various glacial masses are sheddding, with no mention of how much it is normal for them to shed, or how much they also pick up from getting snowed upon or the waters around them freezing..
    The usual comparison to 1850, widely acknowledged to be a date when the Earth was still in a LOW TEMPERATURE situation called the Little Ice Age.
    Etc.

  20. Mark Lokowich says:

    Punk troll with lots of free time

  21. Aphan says:

    http://dereksorensen.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/ninety-seven-percent/
    On the off chance that Jayden can comprehend the linked article, perhaps he would be willing to then discuss how it reflects on “the entire climate science community” and the accuracy with which peer reviewed papers are read and reported on?

  22. Aphan says:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/

    Or perhaps this one Jayden? Peer reviewed scientists advocating VERY non-scientific behavior. It cannot be defined as a conspiracy when it happens openly and publicly.

  23. Jason Calley says:

    Maybe GISS has copied a computer program and renamed it “Jayden Smith”.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/computer-passes-turing-test-eugene-goostman_n_5470107.html

  24. Cheshirered says:

    There’s been an awful lot of (polite) requests for Jayden to offer evidence to support his assertions of ‘more storms, hurricanes, extreme weather’ etc.
    Sadly Jayden hasn’t offered up any such evidence – bar a Guardian article. The Guardian! That’s Green Central here in the UK. ‘Biased’ would be an understatement.
    Hey ho. Business as usual in Green la-la land.

  25. Jayden

    Can I suggest that, if you are interested in this stuff, you do what many of us have done and find out how to check the facts for yourself.

    Perhaps you might start by looking into how you can access the original US climate records since 1895. These will confirm that summer temperatures across most of the US were much higher than anything recently.

    This is an honestly given piece of advice, which I hope you will take in the manner it was given and use to discover the real facts yourself.

    BTW You may have nothing better to do than try to get the last word in, but I do. So I say again, this is something you really need to do if you want to understand the facts.

    Paul

    • Latitude says:

      and don’t quote Guardian articles….that quote papers…that the author says the earth is a closed system

      It is for most things…..except for two things that are pertinent to this discussion

      heat and cold

  26. An Inquirer says:

    Jayden,
    i do believe name calling is unproductive. I understand the frustration, but name calling is unproductive.
    You mentioned two items when challenged on what predictions are coming true. First, “extreme weather is becoming more common and more severe.” The facts show the opposite. I realize that the National Climate Assessment — a political document — does assert more extreme weather, but plenty of scientists have testified to Congress that this assertion is wrong. Moreover, it is contradicted by the Scientific part of the IPCC report. And most importantly, the facts says otherwise. I urge you to look at the facts before spreading politically-motivated rumors.
    Second, “the arctic is losing ice.” That is a very cherry-picked assertion. Yes, the Arctic has lost ice from its high point in the 1979, but there are plenty of documents which show that the Arctic had low points before 1979. Also, global sea ice is above the average in the record-keeping era — to chose just the Arctic is more cherry-picking. In addition, scientific journals have examined and shown the link between decreaed Arctic ice and increased pollution from China. There have been no scientific articles that have proven or demonstrated the causal link between increased CO2 and the Arctic ice loss — speculation, yes, and statistical games, yes, but not scientific research. An irony is that govenment action — spurred by global warming concerns — has shifted industrial production to China, increasing its pollution, and decreasing the Arctic. It is doubtful that all of the Arctic ice loss is due to Chinese pollution; however, scientists even from the global warming camp believe that is at least 50%.

  27. Robertv says:

    Confirming what music fans have thought since they got their first Walkman, it takes just seconds for headphones to tangle inside a bag or pocket.

    Using computer simulations, a team of physicists have unravelled exactly why the wires get so tangled, so quickly – and it’s all to do with coils.

    When shaken up, the wires form coils and the loose end weaves though the other strands, creating the annoying knots.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2662681/Mystery-unravelled-Headphones-form-complex-knots-pocket-loose-ends-weave-coiled-strands.html

    • Corey says:

      Jayden,

      The climate has always changed naturally and will continue to do so. You need to look towards real world observations. We have had a positive global sea ice anonally for several years now. There has been no warming trend for over 17 years now in spite of continuing rising CO2 emissions. The fact of the matter CO2 is not a climate driver. Even are position in the Milky Way effects the temperature here on earth (cosmic rays). In addition the IPCC specifically states there is no correlation between rising C02 and stronger/more frequent storms. If climate change where happening it would have more positive effects then negative effects. A warm earth is much better then a cold one. I wish more scientific papers would talk about the positive effects. And yes I have two science degrees from nationally accredited universities.

      • Jayden Smith says:

        Oh, I didn’t realise that all of those bat-shit crazy things you said are actually facts. They don’t seem to appear in any scientific literature though. Hmmm, must be me missing something, because all I can find is information that completely discredits everything you just said.

        • Andy DC says:

          Jayden,

          Over the last several years, Mr. Goddard has presented literally thousands of data sets from reliable sources showing that warming, if any, is far from catastrophic and has been greatly overstated by global warming alarmists. I strongly suggest that you actually read and try to contradict what has been presented rather than making the stale, old rants about “right wing, tin hat nut cases”, which absolutely proves nothing and “consensus” which does not exist. Insults are not going to win the debate or make us go away. And you just saying there is no debate does not make it so. In fact so far, you have not even been willing to debate.

        • philjourdan says:

          Another lie. You cannot find anything. So far you have posted nothing except a couple of opinion pieces. No data, no facts, not even a measly peer reviewed paper.

        • Aphan says:

          OHHHH! I LOVE scientific literature don’t you?

          http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

          “The case of the missing heat-Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.”

          And FACTS? Oh yes, let’s discuss some actual data given to us by the EXPERTS-

          NASA’s Global Temperatures briefing from January 2014

          Click to access NOAA_NASA_2013_Global_Temperatures_Joint_Briefing.pdf

          Slide #3
          Shows NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in temperatures (less than 0.1C) since 1997. 2013-1997=16 years of no global warming increase from both NASA and NOAA data used in NASA’s own report.

          Slide #8-
          Labeled “NOAA/NASA Top Ten Years on Record”
          (From Slide #2 we learned that NASA has determined the 20th century average temperature anomaly to be 0.63C and uses a 1951-1980 baseline average of 0.60C as well. NOAA plots the same 20th Century average at 0.62C, and the 51-80 baseline at 0.58C)

          SO, of the TOP TEN YEARS on record, according to NASA
          -only SIX of them were higher than the baseline 51-80 average of 0.60C and NONE of them were higher by more than 7/100ths of a degree. (AMAZING how we can calculate the whole world’s temperatures to within a 100th of a degree these days!)
          According to NOAA-
          -only THREE are higher than the baseline 51-80 average of 0.58C, and again, NONE of them were higher by more than 4/100ths of a degree C.

          If we instead use NASA and NOAA’s 20th Century averages for the 100 years between 1901 and 2000- Of the Top Ten Years on Record-
          NASA-Only TWO years (2)- 2005 and 2010-are ABOVE the 20th Century average
          NOAA-ZERO….NONE of them are above the 20th Century average

          Surely you and I can’t deny this information from the EXPERTS can we?

        • sunsettommy says:

          Information you somehow fail to present here,what a surprise!

  28. Morgan says:

    Jayden, 97% of the climate scientists say blah blah blah.

    Check the math. For every 100 college students who go into climate science, 3 are gifted scientifically, with a knack for math and science, and get A’s. The other 97 spots are filled by political activists who get C and D averages in science but whose mommies and daddies say they have to pick a career. They drink and party all the way through school and decide they want to save the rain forest where all their coke and opium is grown, and graduate with a degree in “environmental consensus.” They campaign for the liberal politicians on the platform that they get free housing and won’t have to repay their student loans.

    The 3 smart ones go on to become engineers, MD’s, or go into nanotech, the 97 stoners get government jobs in climate research and data tampering, or on rare occasion, they pull the joint out of their mouth long enough to become the first Kenyan president of the United States.

  29. darrylb says:

    I was wondering why there were over 100 posts here.
    I have to say that I would like to have Jayden with me as a fellow soldier, he would not run away from a fight even when we are being over run.
    Again, as another person with a scientific background I would like to categorically challenge Jayden regarding each of his challenges, but that would take too much time.
    I will note two items. 1) Yes, sea level has been rising, somewhat consistently at the rate of about 7 inches per century, however it has shown signs of slowing down. It has been rising at that rate for centuries, since the little ice age, well before significant CO2 emissions. Sea level rise is very inconsistent because of rising and falling land masses and a little human cause – local land use.
    2) The oceans may be getting a little more acidic, but only slightly if at all. The pH is about 8.1-
    Rainwater is acidic about 5.1 or a little higher, always has been. Too many measurements have been made in estuaries, where there is significant run-off. Any Climate Change has nothing to do with ocean acidity.
    You might note, Jayden, that the world has become more green because of additional CO2
    Satellite pictures show this is most prevalent in semi-arid regions, which is be expected because a highere CO2 concentration enables C3 plants (over 95%) to conserve more water

    Now Jayden, choose one item to challenge, but accept the current scientific literature regarding that item.
    Also, please, please do not pay attention to the Guardian the Haven of Dana and Cook, I think they have had one to many scrimmages with the Aborigines.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      Haha.. considering the height of Aboriginal technology was the humpy (for those unfamiliar – look it up).

      Jayden also needs to understand why ancient man made tools and tree stumps have been found under retreating glaciers, the ones that are retreating anyway.

      The fact he thinks CO2 is such a powerful thing I’m surprised he doesn’t hold his breath indefinitely so he can save the planet.

      • Morgan says:

        Medieval Norse graves are found in Greenland permafrost with roots grown into the graves, where there are no trees today. The ladies are dressed in summery dress. The reason it was so warm then was the CO2 and methane from Hannibal’s elephant farts.

        Genius climate liars say the MWP was just weather, not climate. Yep, because that’s how weather works. Warm every year for hundreds of years in a row, and never cold, that’s how heat waves work.

        Or just local climate, local to Greenland and northern Europe, not global. Yeah, because that’s how climate works. Climate can become much warmer in one region of the world, every year for hundreds of years in a row, and never cold, but not the rest of the world. Because the earth warms one spot of a time, it doesn’t rotate, and there are no water or air currents to spread heat around the world. Yeah, that’s how climate works.

        Or, there was no MWP at all. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

        • philjourdan says:

          The reason it was so warm then was the CO2 and methane from Hannibal’s elephant farts.

          Damn that Hannibal! His actions did indeed have world wide implications!

      • What could possibly go wrong? says:

        This is called “Inevitability”. Consequences are for others. Other exremist cults like vegans also use that as an excuse for not living the logical consequences of their idiocies.

  30. Aphan says:

    64 papers out of 11,994 papers, openly endorsed the AGW theory and quantified it as humans causing 50% or more of the climate change/global warming. SIXTY FOUR out of “all the papers written by climate experts in the past 20 years”. The authors of those papers, Jayden, is how many people you have “on your side”.

  31. Justa Joe says:

    “I have to say that I would like to have Jayden with me as a fellow soldier, he would not run away from a fight even when we are being over run.” – D

    Seems more like someone that trash talks the enemy, but when they have to actually engage in battle runs away. You’ll notice that not a single fact response has been offered by Jay for any of the dozens of questions unless you count dumb inappropriate analogies as facts.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      Exactly. I was expecting Jayden to constantly refer us to pages on realclimate or skepticalscience, instead he gives us exactly what he’s got – all lip and no evidence.

      • Morgan says:

        He never said we had Dunning-Kruger’s. Never mentioned that we deny tobacco causes cancer. Never even said we take money from big oil or the Koch brothers. This guy’s good.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Thanks Morgan. Honestly, I’ve argued with so many climate deniers that I know it’s impossible for you guys to take off your tin-foil hats. So I just like talking to people like you because it’s hilarious to hear the non-sensical rationales you come up with to justify your bat-shit crazy opinions.

        • philjourdan says:

          No one is justifying your opinions. Try SS for that.

        • In other words, you have nothing intelligent to say, and repeatedly resort to ad hom attacks to mask your insecurity.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Oh, please don’t insult me Steven Goddard. I’m just so insecure. I can’t help that I don’t understand complicated arguments like “there’s been weather before, therefore anthropogenic climate change is wrong.” It’s just too complicated for my little 14 year old brain to understand that all of the arguments on this blog that don’t make any sense, and often contradict one another, are somehow actually factual.

          I also like how you’ve been censoring my comments whenever I do get serious and post something that doesn’t fit with your conspiracy theory narrative.

        • philjourdan says:

          Try learning. That helps with your disability.

        • Please post your evidence that weather is getting more extreme.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Please post your evidence that anthropogenic global warming isn’t happening.

        • philjourdan says:

          The null hypothesis is the proof. You have to disprove it first.

          I am glad you are still a child. You will learn such stuff when you take a science course.

        • Morgan says:

          Steven posted his evidence here:
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com

          you might want to read it.

        • I never said that AGW wasn’t happening. I have posted many times radiative transfer models which show that the effect is minimal. Your straw man approach to debate makes you look like an idiot.

          Please post the data showing that extreme weather is getting more common or severe.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Ah, the science is in, and it says that Steven Goddard’s “evidence” is just a bunch of right-wing rants about getting government off our backs! It’s political ideology, not science.

        • philjourdan says:

          Geez, more ad hominems. You are such an immature child. If you cannot support your beliefs, then stop pretending. Then we will know you are just an altar boy at the shrine of the PSU.

        • Morgan says:

          You’re right. Because the government funded scientists have no interested in finding what the government pays them to find. Also, the government has nothing to do with politics. *cough*

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Please post your evidence that you’re not a right-wing nut-bag who isn’t afraid of government wearing a tin-foil hat.

        • philjourdan says:

          Post your evidence that you are not a cross dressing pedophile that is mad at being arrested for child porn.

          2 can play that childish game. Now we know about you.

        • I present huge amounts of data here. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what data looks like.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I post a huge amount of denialist right-wing rants and call it data too.

        • philjourdan says:

          You have posted only lies. But yea, you can call that data. That merely demonstrates your ignorance of the subject.

        • Essentially all of the data I post is from NOAA, NASA and the EPA. Do you consider them to be right wing nutters?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          No, I consider you one. For cherry-picking their science and coming up with your own delusional conclusions.

        • philjourdan says:

          The data is not cherry picked. You just do not like what it is saying. You do not even know what cherry picking is. Moron.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          I’ve argued with so many climate deniers…

          You have no more of a clue what argumentation is than you do regarding what science is.

          You are but a case study in logical fallacy, and a distraction from adult discussion.

      • darwin says:

        You could clear all this up by showing us all the predictions that have come true.

  32. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    I wonder what “Jayden” does for a living?

    • Jayden Smith says:

      Wonder no more Jimmy! I’m paid by big government science funders who are all salivating at the thought of taxing you all and ruining the economy so that we can solve an issue that no-one here believes in. They pay me to keep an eye on those who are “exposing the truth” like Steven Goddard. That’s right, this is NSA infiltration right here. I’m trying to convince you all of the big scam that is global warming so that we can tax the shit out of you. *coughs*

      • Morgan says:

        You better work on that cough. Probably caused by asthma due to deadly 400 ppm outdoor CO2 levels (when indoor levels have been ~1000 ppm for centuries and of course are much lower now that people don’t heat their houses with wood……never mind the fact that CO2 is not pathognomonic for asthma in the first place).

      • tom0mason says:

        I believe you, and your asthmatic cough. Thank-you for confirming it so clearly, now everyone knows.
        I will try to ensure that as many people as possible hear your message.

      • JL says:

        Ok, Jayden! We won’t wonder anymore! Isn’t it fun using exclamation marks in lieu of an actual rebuttal!?

        • Morgan says:

          Caps are next, and *this thing*, and links to skeptical science and real climate, and I’m still waiting for Dunning-Kruger.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Isn’t it fun being on a conspiracy theorists website that censors anything that doesn’t fit his conspiracy theory narrative?

        • philjourdan says:

          And a drama queen to boot.

        • Aphan says:

          Jayden, please address the NASA/NOAA data. Are they part of some conspiracy or does their data show-1)no significant warming in the past 16+ years 2) no significant change from the 20th Century average.

          Let’s apply some logic Jayden. Let’s say that your responses that include links ARE being censored. (I wouldn’t have any way to prove that they are, or are not, but let’s assume you are correct.) Clearly I can see with my own eyes that your responses that are NOT being censored are immature, illogical, irrational, and paranoid.

          I have two logical points of view I can take based on the evidence YOU continue to provide:
          1) I can assume that ALL of your responses are identical in tone and content that is immature, illogical, irrational, and paranoid-it’s just that some of them contain links that are being censored for that reason or some other.
          2) Some of your responses are mature, logical, rational, and reasonable–and ALL of those are the ones that also contain links/evidence/proof and they are being censored for whatever reason.

          Based on those choices, my questions to you are:
          1) Are all of your responses the same in tone and content as the ones that are not being censored? If so, then clearly no reasonable person would want to debate or discuss anything with you anyway.
          2) If all of your “censored” comments are indeed mature, logical, rational, and reasonable, then why do you not behave consistently so that Stephen cannot publish any comments from you that make you look petulant, devoid of reason, and exactly in the manner you are making fun of?

          I mean, from reason’s point of view, either way, you are making yourself look foolish, inconsistent, and completely deserving of public mockery and distrust. And the more you respond in that manner, the more evidence you provide in that regard.

      • philjourdan says:

        Sorry, I do not buy that lie. Even the UK has child labor laws. Try something more believable next time.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I don’t really care what you buy Phil! That’s the great thing about not giving a f*#k about ridiculous conspiracy theorists.

        • philjourdan says:

          I have offered no theories, conspiratorial or not. And you lied again. If you did not care, you would not resort to your infantile insults.

          Such a little liar.

      • sunsettommy says:

        It appears by now that your amazing inability to present a coherent counterpoint is something you never tried because you have no idea how to make rational comments.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          You’re right Sunset Tommy. I was never taught how to make rational comments. They didn’t teach me that at the “how to make comments on a fringe irrational nut job internets blog” school.

        • philjourdan says:

          They need to teach you to read first.

    • philjourdan says:

      Goes to school and acts up.

  33. Latitude says:

    …and they don’t even realize they sound like insane ranting loons

  34. _Jim says:

    Lest we forget where his ‘madness’ is derived:

    The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness
    – by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. , M.D.
    – – – – – – –
    Are Liberals Out of Their Minds? Why do modern liberals think and act as they do? The radical left’s politics and its destructive effects on our basic freedoms have provoked many to speculate on what makes these people tick. The Liberal Mind answers the question.

    This book is the first systematic analysis of the political madness that now threatens to destroy the West’s greatest achievement: the American dream of civilized liberty.

    In his penetrating analysis, Dr. Rossiter reveals modern liberalism’s assaults on:
    – The freedom of adults to make good lives for themselves by cooperating with others,
    – The ability of families to raise children to be self-reliant and mutual, and
    – The morals, rights and laws that protect our freedoms.
    – – – – – – – –

    http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203271380&sr=1-1

    • B says:

      It’s mind control. It starts in the schools when we are children. It’s an intentionally created condition so the few can rule and exploit the many.

      • _Jim says:

        Not everyone is built the same ‘internally’. Ultimate Mental Capacity (or ‘fully possible mental capacity’) is separate from full development into what turns out to be Available Mental Capability. Again, these are two different different things: 1) capacity and 2) capability. Environment (home, school, job) can affect the amount of ‘development’ towards the Ultimate Mental Capacity.

        Learned or ‘conditioned’ responses to stimuli reinforced by reward and/or punishment put most people into particular ‘groove’ from which they never ‘escape’. Escape is possible, however, since we have minds. I don’t give ‘most people’ very good odds of ‘escaping’, though, for lack of training in how to (so-called) escape – or lack of capability to recognize any other avenues of existence (belief systems et al), since most people are so heavily ‘trained’ (conditioned that is) in one groove only.

        The name of the game would seem to be able to achieve the ability to ‘see the world’ beyond one’s own confined viewpoint; I know, right off the bat, this sounds like a contradiction, but I think its what we are trying to do here on this website.

        .

        • B says:

          Of course not everyone is the same, but they get and keep most people through the institutions (schools, media, etc). Then the others know they have to go along to get along. But of course not everyone does that. Those who remain are then subjected to social correction and if they are children in the schools, drugs. Few people take the social and economic consequences of open resistance.

          As to people’s condition, they have been deliberately dumbed down. The methods of schooling were designed to do that. To create compliant human resources for corporations, government, and military.

        • _Jim says:

          But, “B”, this does not explain the nasty little piece of work that Jaydee/Jaylee/twerp has turned out to be. Is it possible that rationality will never appear in a nasty little piece of work such as that?

          Back in school, during my uni-days, I worked at a ‘state hospital’ where the uneducable (idiots) were placed for the balance of their lives … yes, ‘warehousing’ of the mentally unfit and ‘ill’ … but that’s not the point of this post. The point is, notwithstanding possible mental shortcomings, how does a nasty little piece of work like Jaydee/Jaylee get ‘turned out’? Is “it” the product of system that also turns out naturally nasty pieces of work?

  35. Les Johnson says:

    Jayden: Even the IPCC says, in two different reports, that there is no global trend in severe storms, droughts or floods.

    To continue to claim otherwise only reinforces your hold on moron of the day.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

  36. Les Johnson says:

    Jayden: This is what the National Climate Assesment had to say:

    “”when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes””

    “”lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”” (hurricanes)

    “”Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain””

    “”There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″”

    “the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001–10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s.”

  37. An Inquirer says:

    Jayden: You have dished out barbs and kept up with name calling — no one can say that you finish a distant second in those areas. And I regret when individuals from either side focus on such exchanges. However, you have repeatedly been asked — often by people with sincere desires for constructive exchange — for facts that back up your assertions of dangerous, human-caused climate change. You have offered a couple of examples that have turned out to be wrong and / or cherry-picked to be misleading. Highly unfortunate — this level of exchange is common even among scientists in the climate science debate.

    • _Jim says:

      Nice bit of Monday-morning quarterbacking, but the ‘white-wash’ comes off with the least little bit of water. Maybe you didn’t see the original article where the offender is less than gracious in accusing our host of impropriety, fabricating data, not understanding the data and all manner of malfeasance when it comes to data … did you miss all this? All the while the offender presents the symptoms of an adolescent … yeah, he’s to be ‘praised’ for being stalwart alright. Some of us approached the subject on an even keel initially, but insolence in return means ‘game on’.

      Maybe you’re used to working a ‘slower’ room or something.

      To quote Denzel Washington from Training Day: ” this shit is chess it ain’t checkers”.

      .

    • Jayden Smith says:

      Actually, every time I post something that isn’t just a stupid comment, that contains facts, evidence, and links to sources, my comment magically doesn’t appear on this site. So that’s why I’m not even bothering to post information any more, and am now just enjoying listening to the non-sensical arguments. They’re great!

      • Les Johnson says:

        Nope. When I post, it shows up immediately. If I have more than 3(?) URLs, it needs to be moderated.

        Your excuse is just a variation of the “dog ate my homework”.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Oh look, I’m wearing a tin foil hat like everyone else here, and don’t realise that someone who isn’t wearing a tin foil hat might get treated differently.

        • Aphan says:

          Jayden.

          Focus. I’m more than happy to post the scientific data here myself so you don’t have to worry about being censored. So I await your responses based on the NASA/NOAA scientific data I posted earlier.

          Do you agree that according to the experts, there has been no significant global warming for 16+ years? (If not, please explain why the experts are wrong)
          Do you agree that according to the experts, current temperatures are nearly identical to the 20th Century average anomaly? (If not, please explain why the experts are wrong)

        • philjourdan says:

          More delusions. She thinks she can see us through a blog. I bet she sees black helicopters as well.

        • Les Johnson says:

          Jayden: Lets try one more time to get a direct answer.

          I have given quotes from the NCA and the IPCC, that there is no trends in severe weather, either globally or in the US.

          Do you disbelieve the IPCC and the NCA?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I can cherry pick tiny little bits of data and refuse to see the whole picture, then come to ridiculous conclusions too. That’s why I’m here with you guys!

          Look, I just found evidence that Obama is actually a Lizard creature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyTnC0n8tPs

          I fit right in! Woo!

        • philjourdan says:

          We know you cherry pick tiny bits of data and come to erroneous conclusions. Now answer the questions posed to you.

          With as few ad hominems as possible.

        • Aphan says:

          Jayden just accused NASA and NOAA of cherry picking tiny little bits of data and refusing to see the whole picture! That makes him/her/it an expert denier!

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I am a denier! I don’t believe the science that is told to me by so-called ‘experts’ because I’m a stubborn right-wing conservative that thinks I know better than everyone else. Even though I’m not a climatologist or have any idea what I’m talking about, and everyone who does know what they’re talking about thinks I’m a nut case and easily refutes the stupid reasons I give to dismiss their ‘scientific’ claims. That’s why I’m here with guys. I fit right in here! Thanks for making me feel so welcome!

        • philjourdan says:

          I don’t believe

          Yes, that makes you a denier. You have no knowledge, only belief. Belief is for religion, not science.

        • Morgan says:

          We are ready to discuss the science as soon as you are, Jaydy baby. I’ve read almost 100 of your posts here, and you have never said a single thing that demonstrates that you know any of the science. Not one single thing.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Says the guy who censors my posts.

          You have failed to make a logical argument.

        • philjourdan says:

          The only one censoring your comments is you. Did you ever have an original thought? You are a poster child for idiots.

        • Jayden do you just want to dance around here and offer nothing of any significance. Are you enjoying the attention?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Yeah, it’s great knowing that just a small amount of my time is wasting the time of dozens of climate deniers.

        • philjourdan says:

          The only denier here is you – so you now think you are dozens. Typical delusions of grandeur.

        • Morgan says:

          “Jayden Smith says:
          June 21, 2014 at 9:46 am
          Says the guy who censors my posts.”

          Really? I censor your posts?

          Paranoia big destroyer.

        • Andy DC says:

          Jayden,

          You haven’t wasted our time at all. You have re-enforced our belief that all alarmists can do is blow smoke, fling insults and make a bogus claim of moral and intellectual superiority, when they are the ones telling blatant lies. I don’t see one decent factual argument that you have been presented. Meantime, the skeptics have presented many great arguments that blow huge holes into the alarmists’ contentions.

          You have been a great sparring parter, getting the rust off for when we have to debate an actual opponent. It has been great fun, even if it was like taking candy from a baby.

        • Andy DC says:

          “been” should not be there. should say “…that you have presented”.

      • JL says:

        My, the climate astrologers are getting desperate-meaning, more than they already have been. JS-kudos to your debate teacher who taught you that repeating the mantra “you guys in your tin foil hats” or some such wording is some sort of rebuttal in lieu of facts. So, to recap J’s brilliant rebuttal of what Steven puts forth is, first “we have more guys on our side! We have more guys on our side! And they publish papers!” To, “you guys in tinfoil hats! You guys wear tin foil hats!”

        • Morgan says:

          I think most of us wear baseball caps or no headwear at all, don’t know about the tinfoil. Can somebody explain why anybody would wear a metallic hat?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          It’s a defensive mechanism to keep the government from controlling your brains. I need one too, I’m sick of the government brain-washing me into believing rock-solid science!

        • philjourdan says:

          There’s that word belief again. You have become an acolyte to the shysters. But please keep it up. We do not get brain dead posters often.

        • You have failed to make any attempt to discuss science.

        • B.C. says:

          “Yeah, it’s great knowing that just a small amount of my time is wasting the time of dozens of climate deniers.” — Mikey Mann’s Sockpuppet

          And that, my friends, is the entirety of Jayden’s raison d’etre— wasting everyone’s time. He/She/It isn’t here to debate— only to throw a steaming pile of feces into the room and then act like a “victim” when everyone voices their disagreement and displeasure at said fecal matter stinking up the place. No amount of logic, facts (with links to sources) or reasoned rhetoric is going to get through his/her/its well-indoctrinated skull.

          So, as the saying goes: “Please, don’t feed the trolls!”

        • Andy DC says:

          The whole notion of “rock hard science” is a falicy. Even Newton’s and Einstien’s conclusions have been subjected to re-evaluation. Thus, I would not tend to believe that drivel espoused by 3rd rate climate scientists to arrive at a predetermined conclusion is exactly rock hard science!

      • sunsettommy says:

        Now the lies flow freely after first unimpressing us with your zero quality comments,and then pretend she was posting many of them earlier in the thread,but never complains until now.

        This is a liberal alright.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Thankfully science doesn’t take sides. But if I am a ‘liberal’ (depending on what is even meant by that word — it used to with different meanings all the time), then at least I am on the side of science.

        • philjourdan says:

          Oxymoron – remember? Science does not take sides.

          Do you ever engage brain before penning stupid statements?

        • _Jim says:

          What a load of crap.

      • philjourdan says:

        You are such a liar! I doubt you know the truth.

  38. Lou says:

    Jayden Smith is a funny person. She reminds me of my good ol days of dealing with idiots over nutrition stuff. They always claimed that saturated fat is bad for your heart. Over the years, I never could find anything definitive yet like CAWG, she “feels” that we’re doomed and should do whatever possible to ban saturated fat or severely limit the amount of saturated fat. Turns out, they were completely wrong on everything. They got it backward. Idiots.

  39. Aphan says:

    Maybe Jayden is using words that don’t mean what he thinks they mean? For example he says:

    “Actually, every time I post something that isn’t just a stupid comment, that contains facts, evidence, and links to sources, my comment magically doesn’t appear on your site.”

    What if he doesn’t understand that in order for either side to argue for or against a “fact”, both sides must first agree that the thing in question is, indeed, a fact or factual. The same thing goes for “evidence”. In order to argue for (or say that someone is arguing against) “the evidence”, whatever is being disputed must indeed FIRST be accepted as actual evidence by all involved. Maybe Jayden doesn’t know that arguing like something has been accepted by all sides, when it has not been established, leads to all kinds of logical fallacies and assumptions and insinuations that completely undermines his integrity and the ability of others to actually believe anything he says.

    Or maybe he doesn’t realize that links can lead to anyone and anything under the sun, so the credibility of any source must be carefully questioned and examined, as well as anything reported by those sources. Even experts like to give their own mere opinions in ways that make those opinions sound like scientific fact, and since some people (like those with Groupthink tendencies) cannot tell the difference, it’s’ best to make sure sources are as unbiased and objective as possible.

    Real, honest debate can only happen within the guidelines and rules of real, honest debate. And knowledge of those rules makes it incredibly, brilliantly obvious when someone attempts to engage outside of them.

    • Lou says:

      It looks like Jayden was using Saul Alkinsky’s tactics from his book “Rules for Radicals” . Much like Hillary Clinton, she never really answers questions and always give you talking points or whatever.

  40. _Jim says:

    Maybe this is where we went wrong …

    – – – – – – –

    How to Fight (Girls) – The 12 steps to success
    Edited by ColbyIsMyn, Teresa, Kimmy, June and 77 others

    Boys aren’t the only ones who get in fights: girls fight too! If you know you’re going to have to fight another girl and you’re scared, let wikiHow help. It’s always better to try and find a peaceful solution to the problem but if you can’t then you need to be able to defend yourself. Just get started with Step 1 below to find out how.

    1. Try to find a different solution first. You should always talk to a parent or teacher before fighting. Try to find another way to solve your problems that doesn’t include violence. We know that you don’t want to seem lame to the other girls, but if the other girls only like you for being tough then they don’t really like you at all. They aren’t your true friends and they never could be.

    o Fighting can have lots of bad consequences for you. If you really, seriously hurt the other girl, even if she started the fight, you could go to jail or get in trouble with the police. This can happen even on accident, so it’s better to steer away if you can.

    11. Let her tire herself out. Dodge as many hits as you can. Let her move and keep her moving. This will make her tired and help end the fight sooner.

    12. Use a disabling move. You want to get her on the ground and not fighting but not actually do too much damage. The best way to do this is to use her own body against her. Grab her pinky, and pull it back towards her elbow. Her arm will follow. Guide the arm so that it goes behind her back and then push her down to the ground. Place your knee at the center of her back and hold her arm in place until she calms down.

    – – – – – –

    /sarc

  41. _Jim says:

    Maybe this is where we went wrong …

    – – – – – – –

    How to Fight (Girls) – The 12 steps to success
    Edited by ColbyIsMyn, Teresa, Kimmy, June and 77 others

    Boys aren’t the only ones who get in fights: girls fight too! If you know you’re going to have to fight another girl and you’re scared, let wikiHow help. It’s always better to try and find a peaceful solution to the problem but if you can’t then you need to be able to defend yourself. Just get started with Step 1 below to find out how.

    1. Try to find a different solution first. You should always talk to a parent or teacher before fighting. Try to find another way to solve your problems that doesn’t include violence. We know that you don’t want to seem lame to the other girls, but if the other girls only like you for being tough then they don’t really like you at all. They aren’t your true friends and they never could be.

    o Fighting can have lots of bad consequences for you. If you really, seriously hurt the other girl, even if she started the fight, you could go to jail or get in trouble with the police. This can happen even on accident, so it’s better to steer away if you can.

    11. Let her tire herself out. Dodge as many hits as you can. Let her move and keep her moving. This will make her tired and help end the fight sooner.

    12. Use a disabling move. You want to get her on the ground and not fighting but not actually do too much damage. The best way to do this is to use her own body against her. Grab her pinky, and pull it back towards her elbow. Her arm will follow. Guide the arm so that it goes behind her back and then push her down to the ground. Place your knee at the center of her back and hold her arm in place until she calms down.

    – – – – – –

    /sarc

    • Aphan says:

      I find a rolled up newspaper is often all it takes. 🙂

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually I found grabbing the hands in one hand and holding them above the head worked well. You can not even kick hard in that position because you lose your balance.

      Most girl bullies back down real fast when you corner them alone off school property and offer to work things out “physically” (Most bullies are cowards when away from the pack but watch out for the sociopath who likes to pick fights so he can hurt people.)

    • philjourdan says:

      #11 is called Rope-a-dope. made famous by Mohammed Ali.

  42. Aphan says:

    Steven-(Just in case)

    Please stop allegedly censoring all of Jayden’s intelligent, cogent, mature, and completely logical responses to my questions and only letting through his/her wacky, immature, inane, and hysterical ones. I know, I know, it’s hilarious and only makes him/her look more and more idiotic as time goes on, and it has driven this thread to what could be some kind of record on Real Science (congrats by the way if that’s true!). But come on. At some point it just gets sad.

    🙂

  43. Jones says:

    Hey all. Great work. The commentor “Jayleen” is a troll by the way and will disagree with you for fun. That’s all. Have a great day and thank you SG for all your hard work.

  44. Gail Combs says:

    Jayden Smith says: @ June 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    And I’m still waiting for a logical reason to believe that the entire scientific community is wrong….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    MONEY and POWER

    Straight from the IPCC:
    Even if they were presented with cast iron proof that CAGW was non-existent, none of those involved with the IPCC would be prepared to be the first to stand up and say CAGW did not exist.

    The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

    This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    Near its beginning that document says:

    ROLE
    2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
    The IPCC exists to provide:
    (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
    and
    (b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

    Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

    The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions. This is further confirmed in an answer recently given to a skeptic by the IPCC. The order in which the report is written is:
    (a) Draft Science Report
    (b) The Summary for Policy Makers is agreed upon line by line by the politicians.
    (c) The ‘Science Report’ is ‘adjusted’ to agree with the Summary for Policy Makers.

    This is what Dr. Richard Tol was complaining about recently and he is not a ‘Skeptic’

    …By way of background, I have always been convinced that the IPCC was created by bureaucrats to achieve specific policy ends. I was even told so by one of those bureaucrats, Bob Watson, back in the early 1990s. Not that there aren’t ‘true believers’ in the movement. In my experience, the vast majority of the scientists and politicians involved in the IPCC process appear to really believe they are doing what is right for humanity by supporting restrictions on fossil fuel use…. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/a-turning-point-for-the-ipcc-and-humanity/

    Bob Watson worked for the World Bank while he was the IPCC chair and now is in the UK at Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs… http://blogs.worldbank.org/team/robert-watson

    • _Jim says:

      Jadee/Jayleen/twerp is missing an important part of its education, to wit, Hans Christian Andersen’s “Keiserens nye Klæder” (The Emperor’s New Clothes). So, it would seem, the so-called ‘educated’ are not all that well educated after all (not surprising to many of us.)
      – – – – – – – –
      Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, “The King’s in council,” here they always said. “The Emperor’s in his dressing room.”

      In the great city where he lived, life was always gay. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.

      “Those would be just the clothes for me,” thought the Emperor. “If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools. Yes, I certainly must get some of the stuff woven for me right away.” He paid the two swindlers a large sum of money to start work at once.

      They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night.

      “I’d like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth,” the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn’t have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he’d rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth’s peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were.

      “I’ll send my honest old minister to the weavers,” the Emperor decided. “He’ll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he’s a sensible man and no one does his duty better.”

      So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.

      “Heaven help me,” he thought as his eyes flew wide open, “I can’t see anything at all”. But he did not say so.

      Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colors. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there was nothing to see. “Heaven have mercy,” he thought. “Can it be that I’m a fool? I’d have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can’t see the cloth.”

      “Don’t hesitate to tell us what you think of it,” said one of the weavers.

      “Oh, it’s beautiful -it’s enchanting.” The old minister peered through his spectacles. “Such a pattern, what colors!” I’ll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it.”

      “We’re pleased to hear that,” the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colors and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did.

      The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever.

      The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn’t see anything.

      “Isn’t it a beautiful piece of goods?” the swindlers asked him, as they displayed and described their imaginary pattern.

      “I know I’m not stupid,” the man thought, “so it must be that I’m unworthy of my good office. That’s strange. I mustn’t let anyone find it out, though.” So he praised the material he did not see. He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colors and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, “It held me spellbound.”

      All the town was talking of this splendid cloth, and the Emperor wanted to see it for himself while it was still in the looms. Attended by a band of chosen men, among whom were his two old trusted officials-the ones who had been to the weavers-he set out to see the two swindlers. He found them weaving with might and main, but without a thread in their looms.

      “Magnificent,” said the two officials already duped. “Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What a design!” They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the stuff.

      “What’s this?” thought the Emperor. “I can’t see anything. This is terrible!

      Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people! – Oh! It’s very pretty,” he said. “It has my highest approval.” And he nodded approbation at the empty loom. Nothing could make him say that he couldn’t see anything.

      His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, “Oh! It’s very pretty,” and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead. “Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!” were bandied from mouth to mouth, and everyone did his best to seem well pleased. The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of “Sir Weaver.”

      Before the procession the swindlers sat up all night and burned more than six candles, to show how busy they were finishing the Emperor’s new clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom. They made cuts in the air with huge scissors. And at last they said, “Now the Emperor’s new clothes are ready for him.”

      Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said, “These are the trousers, here’s the coat, and this is the mantle,” naming each garment. “All of them are as light as a spider web. One would almost think he had nothing on, but that’s what makes them so fine.”

      “Exactly,” all the noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing, for there was nothing to see.

      “If Your Imperial Majesty will condescend to take your clothes off,” said the swindlers, “we will help you on with your new ones here in front of the long mirror.”

      The Emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put his new clothes on him, one garment after another. They took him around the waist and seemed to be fastening something – that was his train-as the Emperor turned round and round before the looking glass.

      “How well Your Majesty’s new clothes look. Aren’t they becoming!” He heard on all sides, “That pattern, so perfect! Those colors, so suitable! It is a magnificent outfit.”

      Then the minister of public processions announced: “Your Majesty’s canopy is waiting outside.”

      “Well, I’m supposed to be ready,” the Emperor said, and turned again for one last look in the mirror. “It is a remarkable fit, isn’t it?” He seemed to regard his costume with the greatest interest.

      The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn’t dare admit they had nothing to hold.

      So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

      “But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

      “Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

      “But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

      The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.

      – – – – – – – – –

  45. Gail Combs says:

    As far as the Climate Models ability to forecast goes the IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:

    …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible…

    IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

    In other words there is no way in Hades the Climate models can forecast more than a few days out and the IPCC scientists are very well aware of that fact and have been for over a decade.

    • JL says:

      Jayden is banging his head on a desk right now chanting “I still believe, I still believe, I still….”

    • Jayden Smith says:

      “IPCC scientists are very well” – Gail Combs

      That’s nice to hear Gail, I’m glad they’re doing well.

      See, I can cherry pick quotes to take them out of context too!

      • Aphan says:

        OH OH!!! MYTURN!!!

        “I refuse to see the whole picture, then come to ridiculous conclusions!”-Jayden Smith

        Your way is of course wrong, dishonest, and irrelevant, but it’s sure a lot of fun! More more!

        • Jayden Smith says:

          That isn’t a direct quote, and it wasn’t misrepresenting the point of what was being said. You’ve runied the joke Aphan 😦 I’m not inviting you to my climate conspiracy party anymore.

        • Aphan says:

          Oh my broken heart! How shall I go on now?
          Everything you’ve posted here is a joke, but none of is truly funny. Its sad, desperate, and any onlooker can see how you treat actual scientific data. You ignore it, mock it, misrepresent it. The irony is thick and shiney because the only one denying it here, is you.

        • philjourdan says:

          You ruined it with your tin foil helmet.

        • Morgan says:

          You keep ridiculing the fact that we think it’s a conspiracy, as if only paranoid people believe in conspiracies. So I ask you a question, Jaydy baby. If the government mandates that all scientists funded by that government agree with AGW, and cuts off their funding if they don’t, then yes, it’s a government conspiracy. Propaganda is always a government conspiracy. And can you explain to me what the idiotic phrase “conspiracy theory” means anyway? Do people have a “theory” about “conspiracy” whenever the government makes policies? The IPCC efforts to buy consensus among other countries, how is that not a conspiracy?

          Whenever somebody uses the phrase conspiracy theory, I immediately know that that person has a brain made of fermented buffalo poop filled with wiggling worms.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Conspiracies happen. People conspire with one another for the purpose of achieving an intended outcome. They are deemed “conspiracies” because there is no (or not enough) evidence to support them. They are believed because they have what seems (to the believer) like a sound logic behind them, and if enough evidence is discovered to support the theory, they are no longer deemed a conspiracy, they become deemed fact by the broader population. If after some time (and debate amongst the broader population), the conspiracy is found that it has logical errors, or just lacks the evidence to support it, then the conspiracy falls into the abyss of being labelled a “conspiracy theory,” and they are rightly ridiculed. This is because holding onto a belief that isn’t based on sound logic or evidence is “faith,” not science.

          This is where climate deniers are. All of their “evidence” is easily dismissed by the experts, and the logic behind their “conspiracy” is completely unsound, to put it politely.

        • philjourdan says:

          Idiot. They are deemed conspiracy because the people conspire! The availability or lack of evidence has nothing to do with it.

          You are a conspiracy nut.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          The global warming conspiracy theory even has its own RationalWiki page:
          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

        • philjourdan says:

          Did you write it just for us? So who is wasting the most time? 😆

        • Morgan says:

          Yep, you’ve got a brain made of fermented buffalo poop filled with wiggling worms.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          And yep, you’re a crazy conspiracy theorist.

        • RationalWiki the apologeticists of scientism, upholding the faith. Good on you Jayden, they couldn’t hope for a more fervent acolyte.

      • JL says:

        See, I can cherry-pick and adjust the data at the same time too! (Everyone please notice my explanation mark!)

      • philjourdan says:

        She provided the links as well. Nothing was out of context except your non sequitur.

        She did not say she was doing well. Nor did she say she was part of the IPCC.

        major fail all the way around for our tin foil magnate.

  46. Morgan says:

    Waiting to hear some science. Let me pick your brain:

    1. What wavelengths of IR are radiated by the surface of the Earth, from pole to equator, winter and summer, day and night, on average, and what wavelengths are absorbed by CO2 and water vapor?

    2. Does CO2 have latent heat? What about water vapor? What is latent heat?

    3. How high into the atmosphere does IR get before all of it is absorbed? a. 100 feet b. 1000 feet c. 10000 feet d. 20 miles

    4. Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing every winter?

    Inquiring minds want to know….if you have a brain.

    • Morgan says:

      Crickets? I don’t even hear crickets. I hear wiggling worms.

      • Charles Koch says:

        You tell ‘im Morgan. If this Jayden guy/girl is so smart, how come he/she can’t answer these questions that only an expert in the field could answer in any meaningful/reputable way? What a moron!

        • JL says:

          Correct!!

        • Tel says:

          Ya know Charles, when it comes to Jayden, all I can say is, “Haters gonna hate.”

          That pretty much sums him up, yeah?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I agree with Tel. Haters are going to hate. It’s this simplistic thinking that doesn’t realise that everyone loves and hates certain things, depending on their values and what does/doesn’t appeal to their emotions. So saying “haters gonna hate” is akin to saying “things are things.” I didn’t know that! Thanks for the useless information!

        • philjourdan says:

          Not surprising you did not know that. Your immature mind is still grappling with simple concepts.

        • _Jim says:

          How can you tell JS? You’re mentally f*cked.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          If you don’t accept this simple truth, you’re the one that is brain damaged Jim.

    • _Jim says:

      Maybe Jaydee/Jaylee/twerp ‘huffs’; would explain the really dumbed-down view of things … huffing really ‘rots the brain’ too. Sad that some human beings do those kinds of things to themselves … wasting so much potential in the process …

      Inhalant Research: Brain Damage
      Chronic Solvent Abusers Have More Brain Abnormalities and Cognitive Impairments Than Cocaine Abusers

      Chronic inhalant abuse has long been linked to widespread brain damage and cognitive abnormalities that can range from mild impairment to severe dementia. Now a NIDA-funded study that compared brain damage and intellectual functioning among long-term inhalers of volatile solvents and cocaine abusers has found substantial brain abnormalities and cognitive impairment among both groups. However, considerably more inhalant abusers than cocaine abusers had brain abnormalities, their brain damage was more extensive, and they did significantly worse than cocaine abusers on tests of working memory and the ability to focus attention, plan, and solve problems.

      – – – – –

      More – see link above.

    • Andy DC says:

      Jayden,

      Would you be so kind to explain why all these predictions by alarmists going back 30 years have been so dead wrong? Please refer to several posts on this blog from earlier today.

      If basically the same so-called predictors have been wrong for the last 30 years, why would you trust them about the next 30 years? If they were investment advisors, they would be long out of business.

      • _Jim says:

        I’ll bet Jaydee/Jaylee, even if he/she is a business major has never heard the story of “LTCM” (Long Term Capital Management) and their demise, even though ‘they had everything going for them’ (like the use of ‘financial models’ and the best brains in the industry).

        Trading strategies
        The company used complex mathematical models to take advantage of fixed income arbitrage deals (termed convergence trades) usually with U.S., Japanese, and European government bonds. [1]

        The entering of academics on the stock market became a reality in 1997 when Robert C. Merton and Myron S. Scholes were awarded the Swedish central bank’s Price in Memory of Alfred Nobel “for a new method to determine the value of derivatives”. By using dynamic hedging they claimed to eliminate the risk, the model came to use by a commercial company called Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) who hired academics, including two Nobel Prize winners, to implement mathematical models. [2]

        [1] Wiki
        [2] http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rootzen/finrisk/LTCM_readingprojectMVE220.pdf

      • Jayden,

        You obviously have a deep seated need to hate people who don’t conform to your tiny, limited view of the world. Quite pathetic really.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Pointing out comments that are illogical is “a deep seated need to hate people”? I thought it was just a deep seated need for logical consistency. I guess this answers why there’s no logical arguments presented on this page.

        • philjourdan says:

          Claiming actions that have not been done by you is also a vain attempt to cover yourself with accolades when none have been earned. You have not pointed out anything other than your childish need to use petty insults.

          Again, RIF. Hopefully one day you will learn how to read.

        • Morgan says:

          Phil, put it to bed. The guy was a troll and he’s gone.

        • philjourdan says:

          Yea, but I missed all the fun this past weekend! 😉

  47. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    The global warm-mongering faction are composed of two different types of people: Those who are so stupid they have fallen for it and those who are making money out of it.

    • Charles Koch says:

      Too right! I can’t think of anyone who would make money out of discrediting science. Not anyone at all. Actually, all of my fossil fuel industry buddies have been wracking their brains for decades about this, and we’ve completely failed to come up with even one name, or corporation, or industry, that would profit from it. Not one.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        I’d put California Chrome odds on the IP address of this comment matching that of one of Al Gore’s Green Energy-funded, Sasquatch-esque carbon footprint mansions – and only slightly lower odds that it’s yet another George Soros-funded troll.

        The idiots on the left (but I repeat myself…) always give me a good laugh when they try to turn the Koch brothers into some sort of Conservative-Capitalist Bogeymen.

        • Charles Koch says:

          [snip]

        • Impersonating other people is unacceptable. You are spam.

        • philjourdan says:

          spiced pig meat? 😉

        • Charles Koch says:

          I love you Steven Goddard. You’ve been sewing the seeds of doubt for a long time. And for this me and my fossil fuel industry buddies are forever grateful.

        • What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

        • Chip Bennett says:

          The data prove that anthropogenic climate change is a fantasy. The Mann-made manipulation is utterly unscientific and fraudulent, but is required to keep the sycophants of the Religion of Climate Change feeding at the trough.

          Even though the troll’s payload is impotent, the increase in fire proves that we are directly over the target. Unfortunately for him (but fortunately, for our own amusement), while he’s clearly trying his best to use sophisticated Alinskyite methods, his utter lack of evidentiary support renders his screeds as nothing more than the equivalent of, I know you are, but what am I?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Nice one Chip! Said like a true believer in something that is laughed at by anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Given your track record, I’ll keep my own counsel in that regard. I don’t put much merit in the assertions of anyone who admits to a complete lack of independent thought.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          When have admitted to having no independent thought?I am always independently thinking that people who believe in a conspiracy theory that is dismissed as absolutely crazy by any sensible person is something that sounds pretty rational to me. See, I’m just like you guys. I fit in here.

        • philjourdan says:

          RIF child. Learn it.

        • Jayden,

          You are an ignorant bigot looking for excuses to stereotype and hate. You have no interest in science.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          That’s weird, because I think most people would make that same comment about you guys.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          And yet another troll, reduced to I know you are, but what am I?

        • Andy DC says:

          Jayden,

          I admire you in the sense that you can hold your own with anyone in a pissing contest. Unfortunately, you have not shown us very much else when it comes to your debating skills or knowledge of climate issues.

        • philjourdan says:

          If the object is to piss on yourself she can. But she is a lousy firefighter.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Andy, I’m not here to show you anything. I’m simply here to make fun of the nonsensical things you believe. And the crazy arguments that are made against the science to maintain these nonsensical beliefs.

        • philjourdan says:

          And you fail at that as well. Have you ever succeeded at anything in life? Don’t bother answering – given your propensity to lie, the answer will be anything but the truth.

        • It’s time to leave………Jayden!

      • JL says:

        What science?

      • JL says:

        So I see by your response to Jimmy Haigh you’d be in the “too stupid to have fallen for it” crowd. Makes sense.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          I am too stupid. Too stupid to have the intelligence to question gravity and a heliocentric solar system. I’m even too stupid to question the dogma that the Earth is round. Seems pretty flat to me! But I’m just too stupid to question it.

        • You are too stupid to understand that you are a brainwashed ignorant bigot, who wouldn’t know science if it bit you on the ass.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          That’s what I’m saying Steven! And that’s why I’m here. I consider you guys family since we’re all so alike.

        • philjourdan says:

          Wishful thinking on your part.

      • Realist says:

        What? How about any business endeavor that emits compounds associated with global climate change? You don’t think they might have a chip in the game? Wow.

  48. Morgan says:

    Jayden. If you don’t answer my above questions it proves to everybody that you are a science dunce and your opinions on global warming mean nothing. Parroting the public relations releases of government science bureaus does not make you an authority. You need to go.

    • Truth Seeker says:

      Interesting questions Morgan. What are the answers to them? Were you asking them of this Jayden person to make a broader argument?

      • Morgan says:

        1. What wavelengths of IR are radiated by the surface of the Earth, from pole to equator, winter and summer, day and night, on average, and what wavelengths are absorbed by CO2 and water vapor?

        2. Does CO2 have latent heat? What about water vapor? What is latent heat?

        3. How high into the atmosphere does IR get before all of it is absorbed? a. 100 feet b. 1000 feet c. 10000 feet d. 20 miles

        4. Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing every winter?

        A Planck curve from around 7 to 50 microns centering at 15. No. Yes. It’s the heat that water vapor releases when it condenses into clouds. 100 feet. Because it’s getting colder.

    • I put Jayden on spam. He had entered the blog suicide by spam mode, which people like him inevitably do.

      • Realist says:

        Wow – I guess that’s how “real science” works. Ban those who don’t agree with you. But wait – I thought that was your complaint about the climate change scientists.

        The idea put forth by Morgan, that the govt is conspiring to manipulate climate data by withholding funding to those scientists who dissent is ludicrous. First – why would the govt WANT there to be global climate change? Second – the data is not just US data but multinational in nature and therefore would require a global conspiracy NOT just an American one. Third – you really don’t know scientists do you? There is NOTHING more satisfying for a scientist and boosting to their careers than to prove a current scientific tenet to be wrong.

        • I ban people who spam or are abusive, not those who disagree.

        • philjourdan says:

          You should change your name to “neophyte”. The temperatures are global, and the cries of tampering are as well. But I guess you missed the cries from Iceland, Australia, Russia, New Zealand, etc.. They have all been adjusted, and all been adjusted in the same manner.

          Second. why would the government want it? Again your new name of neophyte comes into play. It was but 5+ years ago that a certain little Napoleon said “Never let a crises go to waste”. indeed, if the governments can convince the people there is a crises, they get more power and the people lose it. it is already happening. Again with your new name, I guess you missed what the EPA just did about limiting your choices. You are now pollution by their definition.

          Really neophyte, if you cannot be bothered to check the facts for yourself, of course you will never doubt your new religion.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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