Behind The Smokescreen

This graph is updated to the latest GISS temperatures, and is the only real story in global warming science. Since the year 2000, temperatures have remained below Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C. No matter how much cheating and spinning they do at NCDC and NASA, their scam is dead.

ScreenHunter_5373 Dec. 20 12.12 ScreenHunter_5372 Dec. 20 12.11

ScreenHunter_5357 Dec. 20 06.47

NASA has (of course) deleted the evidence, which was located here :

But you can get a copy here :


About stevengoddard

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

40 Responses to Behind The Smokescreen

  1. Scarface says:

    And how are we going to kill the undead global warming meme?

    • Gail Combs says:


      “A rendition of the Defenestration of Prague. The manure pile is not featured.”

      …A Broken Deal & a Soft Landing

      Needless to say, the Bohemian nobles were outraged. They drew up a petition as quickly as they could, condemning Ferdinand for violating the terms of their original agreement. When the collective of nobles arrived at Prague to deliver the petition to the king, they found that Ferdinand was not there. Instead they came across two of his Catholic advisors, whom they attempted to give the petition. We can only surmise that the advisors’ answers were less than well-received, for the next thing we know, those same two advisors were hurled from the third floor window of the tower. The Bohemian nobles then declared that Ferdinand was no longer their legitimate king.

      Luckily for the advisors, they met a soft landing – a pile of manure. That, at least, was the Protestant account of why the men survived, one which effectively adds insult to injury…..

      Segue: The Powder Keg’s Lit

      While the circumstances of the defenestration sometimes seem a little silly, if not farcical, the consequences of it were nothing of the sort. The escalation in hostilities and bloodshed that followed would leave extremely deep scars throughout the villages, towns and cities of Europe for the next three decades, and well beyond…..

      • Gail Combs says:

        (I think I can come up with a nice fresh manure pile if needed.)

      • scizzorbill says:

        Also known as ‘assisted suicide’

      • I urge moderation. Neither of the two Prague defenestrations brought good, long lasting results. I know the temptation is strong, though, whether one is a Praguer or not.

        Our visit to Prague we were compelled to lengthen somewhat. Prague is one of the most interesting towns in Europe. Its stones are saturated with history and romance; its every suburb must have been a battlefield. It is the town that conceived the Reformation and hatched the Thirty Years’ War. But half Prague’s troubles, one imagines, might have been saved to it, had it possessed windows less large and temptingly convenient. The first of these mighty catastrophes it set rolling by throwing the seven Catholic councillors from the windows of its Rathhaus on to the pikes of the Hussites below. Later, it gave the signal for the second by again throwing the Imperial councillors from the windows of the old Burg in the Hradschin–Prague’s second “Fenstersturz.” Since, other fateful questions have been decide in Prague, one assumes from their having been concluded without violence that such must have been discussed in cellars. The window, as an argument, one feels, would always have proved too strong a temptation to any true-born Praguer.

        Three Men on the Bummel
        Jerome K. Jerome
        J. W. Arrowsmith, 1900, United Kingdom

        Also, with the exemption of the Occupy movement, in most American municipalities and on university campuses it is illegal to pile manure on the sidewalks. It has to be bagged and what would be the fun in that?

        Let’s not look for solutions abroad. Tar and feathers is a more patriotic method and there is less to clean up afterwards.

        • Gail Combs says:

          True, True But it was so much fun picturing certain academics covered in fresh manure on the outside since they extrude so much manure in the inside of ‘learned journals’

        • mjc says:

          PhD=Pile it Higher and Deeper…

          If the pile were an order of magnitude smaller than the pile of bovine excrement they’ve spouted over the past 30 yrs, you’d still need to use a window on the Empire State Building to throw them from.

        • Sparks says:

          I was reading this and thinking, how virtual politicians are now.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Colorado Wellington,

          I was just thinking. We won’t be putting the fresh manure on the side walks but in the shrubbery/lawn area next to the building. We can always say it is ‘organic fertilizer’ after all horse manure is great for the rosebushes to be added to the top of the pile.

    • daveandrews723 says:

      an icicle stake through the heart… appropriate and leaves no evidence (assuming it melts). 🙂

  2. QV says:

    I am not sure of the relationship between Hansen’s scenario “C” and the IPCC AR4 “commitment” scenario. The latter involves 16 models, including giss_model_e_r and ukmo_hadcm3. .
    However, the trend from 2000-2014 (to date) for the “commitment” scenario is 0.9c/century, while that for the WMO mean is 0.69c/century. So even the “commitment” scenario appears to be higher than observations.

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is Hansen and NASA and NOAA who are flat out lying to Congress.

      Hansen, as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, made the prediction. He was wrong. Case closed.

      Hansen’s testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 along with a nasty bit of stagecraft is what convinced Congress to ratify the UN Convention on Climate Change.

      Now we know about the stagecraft and we know the dire predictions of Hansen are wrong. Should we under those circumstances continue down the path of economic suicide while our enemies (Russia and China) are allowed to build their industrial and military strength?

      Only those who have the best interests of our enemies would say yes.

      And make no mistake China is our enemy.
      Hackers Linked to China’s Army Seen From EU to D.C.

      THE CHINESE COMMUNIST TARGETING OF AMERICA: An in-depth monetary, economic, geopolitical
      and precious metals analysis

      China Maneuvers To Take Away U.S.’ Dominant Reserve Currency Status

      China Picks at the Scab to Keep the Wound Fresh
      Lessons of history: China’s century of humiliation: The repercussions of British opportunism in China during the Opium Wars can be felt in geopolitics even today

      Leading Chinese Dissident Warns: China Planning Nuclear War

      …Wei Jingsheng, who spent 18 years in confinement in China, spoke at a forum on Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the National Press Club, sketching a disturbing picture of a powerful nation on the march to war….

      Wei stated that China needs the distraction of a war with Taiwan to turn attention away from the Chinese people�s frustration with rampant corruption and failed policies at home.

      Wei also stated that a number of factors allow them to consider traditional warfare against Taiwan and even nuclear warfare against the U.S.

      First, Russia, who China has often seen as an enemy, has offered a tacit agreement to China�s military plan, said Wei.

      He pointed out that �China has signed a treaty with Russia that basically says if China invades Taiwan, Russia will not support the U.S.�, that meant that they would defend Taiwan if the island came under attack.

      China also teamed up with Russia recently for joint military exercises on the Shandong Peninsula, an area fairly close to Taiwan, indicating both China�s intentions and Russia�s acceptance of those intentions.

      Wei said that China had also been considering nuclear war against the U.S. as a way to defeat America in the war. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is considering nuclear war, Wei said, because it is not afraid to sacrifice China�s people….

      And Clinton gave China the military know-how — From the New York Times no less:

      The Nation: Open Arms; Spying Isn’t the Only Way to Learn About Nukes
      NOW that a Congressional committee has released its three-volume, 872-page techno-thriller on the theft of atomic secrets by Chinese spies, much of Washington is agog. But the uproar overlooks an arresting fact. For more than a half decade, the Clinton Administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China’s bomb makers…..

      Releasing many of America’s nuclear secrets was seen as an essential part of this strategy, since it would signal a new global order in which nuclear know-how was suddenly and irreparably devalued and real security would lie in the collective knowledge that nobody was able to push weaponry beyond the known boundaries. What had been gold would become dross, and the atom would lose power and prestige. Driven by such logic, the Administration made public masses of generalities about nuclear arms….

      China is also making major inroads in South America and Africa.

      • Sparks says:

        Hanson believed at the time (which is important) he was doing the right thing.. I understand where he was coming from. reality takes over and it’s a bitch.

        • rah says:

          Did I miss a statement from Hanson that he was wrong in both his “science” and the vehement way he has presented it and apologized for it all?

        • Gail Combs says:

          The only thing I have seen ‘Death Trains Hansen’ do is advocate a move to nuclear power.

          In his Q&A with Bill McKibben featured in the paperback edition of Storms of My Grandchildren, Dr. James Hansen, the world’s leading climatologist, shows that exactly contrary to the impression the public has received, the science of climate change has become even clearer and sharper since the hardcover was released. In Storms of My Grandchildren, Hansen speaks out for the first time with the full truth about global warming: The planet is hurtling even more rapidly than previously acknowledged to a climatic point of no return. In explaining the science of climate change, Hansen paints a devastating but all-too-realistic picture of what will happen in our children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes if we follow the course we’re on. But he is also an optimist, showing that there is still time to take the urgent, strong action that is needed- just barely….

    • John Silver says:

      You can only compare the observations to scenario A; Do nothing. The gap is an abyss.
      Scenario B and C are irrelevant.

  3. QV says:

    Correction, the trend for the “commitment” scenario should have been 0.95c/century.

  4. Bill says:

    Reading the paper briefly and saw a few interesting things. This should be the kind of thing they seriously go back and look at and ask “how good were our projections 25 years ago”?

    1. They model the heat only going 125 meters into the ocean. So below their original 65 meters “mixed layer” but still just a fraction of the ocean. Since now they think it is heating the deep oceans 700 and 2000 m down (by ~0.02 degrees), would not this change how long it takes the surface to heat? Like by thousands of years?

    2. They did a 100 year model run with fixed 1958 GHGs and saw internal variability up and down by 0.3 to 0.4 degrees in periods of ~20 years. Their std. dev. was ~0.1 degrees. So from this I would say they can’t really “project” temperatures for any given year to within better than 0.1 degrees, thus they can’t make any declarations about this particular (older) model until temperatures change by more than 0.2 degrees and really since they saw random variations of ~0.4 degrees over 20 years, they can’t say shit about their predictions matching or not matching until there is a rate of change greater than 0.2 per decade and until there is a total change of >0.5 degrees C. Add in natural climate variability and precision of the thermometers adds up to another ~0.5 degrees over say 50 years. So, to be sure that the models and temperatures were moving together and it was real and that their models reflect reality, they would need to see a change of ~ 1.0 degrees C. That is, if they were doing science.

    3. Of course, what the defenders of the faith say when this paper is brought up are that the models are better now with improved forcings. And that since some of the GHGs (methane, etc.) did not rise as rapidly as predicted (even though CO2 rose more) that this is not really (as) wrong. They can also point to the heat going into the ocean. But then they somehow never say as I did in 1. above that this will increase the amount of time we have (even if you believe the models).

    Honest scientists will look at all the data, new and old, and honestly admit the failures so that they can improve the models and would tell people to take the output of the models as speculative.

  5. Neal S says:

    I looked at the source for the ‘removed’ page at NASA and it literally is “Not found.” Not a regular ‘404’ page. To me this indicates that the page wasn’t just removed, but someone quite deliberately replaced it with the “Not found.” text instead. And despite the fact that everything NASA produces is funded by our tax dollars, they have a ‘robots.txt’ which prevents from giving you the old versions. Even that by itself is an indication of the corruption at NASA.

  6. mjc says:

    Let’s see how long it lasts, but here’s a working link to it on a NASA server…

    Click to access 1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

    (notice the subtle change in title?)

    The nice thing (at least) is that the archived version and the NASA version have the same checksum…

    And here’s the Wiley link…; (Of course the Wiley link is PAYWALLED!!!)

  7. emsnews says:

    The 30 Years War is why my distant ancestors from France ended up here in the New World. And is directly why, when the Constitution was written, wanted a huge separation of Church and State.

    • These Protestants didn’t know what they caused by throwing two Catholic counts and their secretary out the window of the Prague Castle. The predictive skill of their history models must have been much lower than what we have today.

  8. philjourdan says:

    The scam is not dead. It has no facts, but then scams usually do not. As long as you have Gruberites, the scam will continue.

  9. Don says:

    Seems that Hansen et al paper is still available through this link. Correct me if wrong.

    • That’s it, but without access to the directory it is almost impossible to keep track of files that they keep renaming.

      • Don says:

        I understand, much thanks.

        Here is an example of hatred towards yourself and what I deal with on DTT dot com. This is a response this poster made to my posting the information you supplied in this article.

        “Oh sure, that’s a “real” copy of the original, unaltered info. You know this to be a fact?

        More likely, you know this to be a fact because ol’ Guru Goddard sayeth so. Good as gold. Guru Goddard who once embarrassed Guru Watts with his inaccuracies.

        Once again, AGW denialists have no honesty, no honor, and no credibility regarding the climate and human impacts on it.

        They make it up as they go, they always claim to have a corner on “the truth,” they never integrate all of their “real science” into a climate model that makes accurate predictions … because they have no climate model at all.”

        • mjc says:

          You can always point to the md5sum results between the cached elsewhere paper and the one from the NASA site…that should shut the moron up, if he believes that matching checksums indicates that the documents are the same (but with some of those folks, I’d say it’s touch and go on that point…the do believe in fairy dust and unicorn farts, after all). Checksums are ‘hard data’…

  10. Sparks says:

    rah says:
    December 21, 2014 at 2:17 am

    “Did I miss a statement from Hanson that he was wrong in both his “science” and the vehement way he has presented it and apologized for it all?”

    Who fucken cares? his science is flawed and incorrect.. WRONG!

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