My Climate Forecast

I forecast that NCDC and NASA will attempt to make 2014 the hottest year on record, despite the fact that it isn’t even close and continues a 16 year cooling trend.

Bookmark this post. I have been watching these climate propagandists for many years, and see the writing on the wall.

ScreenHunter_1351 Jul. 26 18.13


About stevengoddard

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

19 Responses to My Climate Forecast

  1. omanuel says:

    Of course, they will continue!

    When the Climategate fable finally collapses, so will the careers and reputations of all those scientists that deceived the public after WWII about “Solar Energy.”

    Click to access Preprint_Solar_Energy.pdf

    • geran says:

      Not to mention those that believed the Blob was going to eat all the grasshoppers.

    • Wally Lind says:

      I doubt that. The global cooling crowd didn’t do a mass suicide, they just faded away, as did the “population Bomb” people. Demographers now project that global population will peak in mid-century and begin to drop, due to the rising economic condition of women and their unwillingness to have big families. These people will keep their cushy jobs, probably be predicting some other global disaster if we don’t do something else that increases the power of their political sponsors.

      • gregole says:


        We have a winner! Yes the mother of all scams was the population bomb. Fooled me when I first heard about it in the late ’60s but I was young…

        Check this out:

        Not to toot my horn, but really it all ties together overpopulation, global cooling, global warming, plundered planet, fragile ecosystems, mass-extinctions, blah. Blah. Blah. None of it real in the sense of an irreversible catastrophe; all of it manageable with our current level of human organization and ingenuity.

      • Yes the David Appell’s of this world don’t change their minds. People just stop paying attention to them and regrettably, focus on some other idiocy instead.

  2. Dmh says:

    I go to NOAA’s websites only to check the data and graphs like this

    and this,
    I don’t read what they write anymore. It’s been already a couple of years since i visited any NASA website. I just don’t do it anymore, it’s a waste of time.
    If they’re liars is their problem, the clock is ticking and their deception will be uncovered sooner or later.

  3. Dmh says:

    BTW, I like your graph Steve, 16 years of cooling trend is more than what I get from RSS
    that shows cooling trend only in the last ~ 14 years.

  4. geran says:

    Just suppose North American temps were colder than average this fall. (Not that that could happen….)

    Just suppose NA temps were colder than average this winter. (Not that that could happen….)

    “Climate science” would tell us it is due to AGW.

    (I’m trying so hard NOT to be a prophet!)

  5. D. Self says:

    I agree and predict they will say 2015 hotter than 2014 and 2016 hotter than 2015 to lead up to the 2016 election. Any and all lies are necessary to elect the next liberal president.

  6. gregole says:

    Here’s their dangerous game: As shown on this blog and others, and you can easily check this yourself – download the data, raw and adjusted, take the difference and see the past cool station after station – the past has been and continues to be subjected to a cooling adjustment creating a never-ending upward trend and “new” record highs. Adjustments are small, just enough to get the job done.

    So ask this simple question of yourself next time the record high month, year, decade is announced: “By how much and what is the uncertainty / error?” You will find that the “record” is always just barely made.

    Two things to consider: Firstly, so what; who cares if it’s 1/100 of a degree hotter this month; well within historic variability and other than being a stupid factoid equally stupid people love to load with snark, emotion, and other pointless baggage, it really doesn’t amount to much. Second if the current cooling trend accelerates, the entire game comes unglued; but when does that happen and how much cooling?

    Ah, that’s why it’s important to at least consider their actual numbers, because they will be forced to make ever greater “adjustments” to get the never-ending highs. Steven has them figured out; but much more of their abuse, even a bit more of their blatant fraud and they will have permanently cornered themselves.

    Time passes. Conservatives come to power. Watch out. It could happen.

  7. kirkmyers says:

    NOAA’s HR department must have issued the following internal memo: “Anyone deviating from the AGW (aka “climate change”) talking points is subject to termination.”

    The two favorite employee bumper stickers at NASA: “Paid to look the other way.” “Science for sale.”

  8. Sage Vals says:

    Another trick to watch for is an anouncement of ‘preliminary’ figures which show apparent warming, accompanied by huge media coverage. This becomes the accepted meme in warmist campaigning circles, with lots of references to it on multiple websites, which of course will pretty much remain online forever.

    A month or two later, especially if there’s a risk of exposure of flaws in the data, revised ‘final’ figures, which may show little or nothing in the way of unusual readings, appear in a neglected corner of a website or journal. Obviously, there is no media fanfare.

    So, no one has actually lied, but the false impression stays in the public mind, and campaigners can continue to refer to the original ‘preliminary’ data – quite possibly not even knowing that its wrong.

  9. 2hotel9 says:

    The dogs and I frooze our collective a$$es off a few nights in a row, in JULY. So of course it is the warmestes year in all history! Wifey was warm, stealing all the covers.

  10. Mkelley says:

    What a fine summer here in Montana. It’s almost an antidote for the horrible winter we had. I even partially shut a window last night because the kitchen was getting chilly.

  11. woodNfish says:

    I am happy you didn’t try to bet us money you are right Steven, because we’d all be on the losing side of that deal.

  12. Brock Way says:

    When JBS Haldane was asked what would falsify evolution, he said ‘fossilized rabbits in precambrian strata’. Falsifiability is critical to science. So far, I have never seen the climate change group’s equivalent of the precambrian rabbit. It seems to me that they would claim global warming no matter what the data. But surely if the polar caps met at the equator, that would be their precambrian rabbit.

    I think all people interested in the preservation of science as something other than a propaganda tool should FORCE the warmists to specify what would falsify the theory. It would be interesting to see that in the next IPCC assessment report.

    I don’t think skeptics have much power to shape warmist behavior, but I bet if we tried, we could force them to adopt some language identifying what minimum conditions would have to be met to falsify the theory.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The FALSIFICATION STATEMENTS made by Warmists:

      1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones

      2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link

      3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate

      ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, [Maybe THAT is the 95% the IPCC is now talking about.] suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

      4. we are looking at no changes in temperature over a period longer than the 10 years that James Hansen once said would show the models wrong;

      So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. This is why skeptics start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit the 17 year mark, The Goose was Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead. (The goal posts keep moving)

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s