Implausible Deniability

Gavin is playing his usual game, trying to cover his ass with “uncertainty” that wasn’t mentioned in the NASA press release.

ScreenHunter_6136 Jan. 17 11.04

They get the propaganda out there for the White House and major news outlets, then try to generate implausible deniability through back channels like twitter. None of this was mentioned in the NASA press release.

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA


About stevengoddard

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

70 Responses to Implausible Deniability

  1. Gail Combs says:

    He even looks like an evil professor.

    Unfortunately unlike Mikey Mann the guy is not dumb.

  2. futuret says:


  3. Joe says:

    2014 is only 48% certain of being hottest on record? Well, that was fun while it lasted.

    • Tony B says:

      We’ll have to wait until after the State of the Union address when the temperatures get adjusted downward so that the “scientific” result was a “correction” on the temperature rankings, but the political propaganda for the State of the Union address will have been complete.

    • hifast says:

      So NOAA says there’s a less than 50% chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record, and NASA says it’s less than 40%. And these “odds” aren’t in the press releases?

  4. Even the WMO admit you cannot make “hottest year” claims without allowing for uncertainty.

    This was from their report on 2006:

    All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.”

  5. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    According to NOAA definitions, global surface temperatures for 2014 were “More Unlikely Than Likely” the highest on record, but they failed to note that on the main page of their State of the Climate report.
    Found in

  6. rah says:

    So we see a full court press going on right now with obvious collusion between the press, the government, and some “scientists” to get around the FACT there has been no appreciable temperature trend in the last 18+ years and nothing they have said would happen has. And it all comes just before the President gives his State of the Union address. Cover for the new EPA regs that will directly effect a lot of the population? Attempt to put the Republican congress on the defensive over Keystone and possibly de-funding the green energy scam? Prep for Paris next fall? I suspect that there is something else coming. Something we don’t know about yet. Perhaps another unconstitutional move by the president having to do with environmental policy?

    Anyway it goes only the disengaged, dishonest, and the pneumocephalic can possibly be gullible enough to NOT SEE the obvious over the top PR campaign on climate/environmental issues that going on right now.

  7. Cornelius says:

    Notice that the NOAA and NASA probabilities of warmest year on Gavin’s chart sum to 90% and 82%, respectively. Where do you think the other 10% and 18% might fall? Surely the 1930’s and 1940’s. Conveniently omitted. The last thing a climate propagandist would want to do is to put into peoples’ minds that our warmest years in modern history might have been that far back.

  8. AndyG55 says:

    A comment from Bob Koss on JoNova’s

    Don’t believe the record temperatures.

    I ran a file comparator over both the unadjusted and adjusted files GHCN produces for both the 15th and 16th of Jan.

    Between the Jan 15th and 16th they added no new usable data to the GHCN unadjusted file. There were 3 months of data added for 2014, but they were all immediately marked defective.

    To build their adjusted file they start with the cleaned(no defects) unadjusted data. Since that didn’t change, their adjusted file should have stayed the same for both the 15th and 16th. It didn’t. They changed 18656 lines on the 16th. Over 200,000 months of data. Those figures are since the 19th century. All changes were in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. Nowhere else. You Aussies didn’t even make it to the finals. 🙂

    GISS also uses the GHCN adjusted data, so they can’t claim independence.

    They have been busy beavers since at least the 6th of Jan. removing and inserting data all over the world. Pretty sure you were included in the preliminary rounds.


  9. Tom Harley says:

    Does the New York Slimes really want it colder? Blimey! Does Gavin? Nuts!

  10. gymnosperm says:

    Gavin is a worthy adversary. May need to break down and open a tweeter account. Not that he would actually engage, but he might read before he deletes…

  11. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    Would you have a link to the actual NASA report with the .38 probability ?
    I have a bar buddy who is an EPA physicist and hang out online with a University phisicist… To make the argument to them I need NASA’s actual report.

    I found noaa, but have found nasa’s on line yet

  12. Richard Rounds says:

    I know it is not polite to boo during the SOTU. Is it acceptable for elected reps to make and hold up small signs when pinnochio shows up? Say— NOAA 48% NASA 38% 0.02C +-0.10 Not really!
    graphs of tornadoes, hurricanes etc. a recent drought map? This would all be caught on camera, and the press would have to investigate. Hell- Americans should watch some the fights in parliament just for fun.

  13. Jim Hunt says:

    I take it you weren’t on the call either Tony? Have you by any chance seen this press briefing?

    • futuret says:


  14. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: stevengoddard says:
    January 19, 2015 at 3:22 am

    That’ll teach me to get involved in debates about “the global warming pause”. I can feel another blog post or two coming on!

    What do you make of this recent Arctic sea ice extent chart from your beloved DMI?

  15. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: stevengoddard says:
    January 19, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    Perhaps this chart is clearer?

    How do you define “exactly”, “likely” and “close”?

    Regarding my views on Al Gore’s so called predictions, see:

    In brief “Al Gore never ‘predicted’ that the Arctic would be ice-free by now!”

    • gator69 says:

      Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

      Seven years from now.

      Well, he didn’t say ’22 years from now’, did he? No, he emphasized the most alarmist position he could find.

      You can weasel out of this by stating that Gore did not make the prediction ,but he sure as Hell quoted and emphasized it, over any and all other predictions. And in front of the Nobel committee and entire world at that!

      So have you confronted Gore over the failed prediction he parroted in Oslo? When you do, you will have a modicum of credibility. Get busy.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        At the risk of repeating myself, “for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics a ‘projection’ is not the same thing as a ‘prediction'”

        Getting back to Tony’s predictions, and using the NSIDC daily extent numbers for the moment, would you say that 4.98339 is “exactly” 5.74877? How about “close”?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Oh we are well aware that the IPCC had to switch from prediction to projection to cover their asses with Implausible Deniability.

          The big list of failed climate predictions

          No wonder the IPCC switched from prediction to projection!

          Click to access ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

          Table of contents:
          …. How much confidence do we have in our predictions …… xxvii

          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ….. page 5 (xi)

          * regional climate changes different from the global mean, although our confidence in the prediction of the detail of regional changes is low For example, temperature increases in Southern Europe and central North America are predicted to be higher than the global mean accompanied on average by reduced summer precipitation and soil moistuic There are less consistent predictions lor the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere

          pag 28 (xxxiii)
          ….As research advances, increased understanding and improved observations will lead to progressively more reliable climate predictions…..

          In the Business-as-Usual scenario (Scenario A) the energy supply is coal intensive and on the demand side only modest efficiency increases are achieved Carbon monoxide controls are modest, deforestation continues until the tropical forests are depleted and agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are uncontrolled For CFCs the Montreal Protocol is implemented albeit with only partial participation Note that the aggregation of national projections by IPCC Working Group III gives higher emissions (10 20%) of carbon dioxide and methane by 202^

          In Scenario B the energy supply mix shifts towards lower carbon fuels, notably natural gas Large efficiency increases are achieved Carbon monoxide controls are stringent, deforestation is reversed and the Montreal Protocol implemented with lull paiticipation

          In Scenario C a shift towards renewables and nuclear energy takes place in the second half of next century CFCs are now phased out and agricultural emissions limited

          For Scenario D a shift to renewables and nuclear in the first halt of the next century reduces the emissions of carbon dioxide, initially more or less stabilizing emissions in the industrialized countries The scenario shows that stringent controls in industrialized countries combined with moderated growth of emissions in developing countries could stabilize atmospheric concentrations Carbon dioxide emissions are reduced to 50% of 1985 levels by the middle of the next century.

        • for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand …

          You are projecting.

        • philjourdan says:

          Do you expect him to understand his projection? 😉

        • gator69 says:

          At the risk of repeating myself, “for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either Weasel or Mumbo Jumbo, Jim has not addressed the real problem.

          Al Gore stood at a podium in Oslo, in front of the entire world, and parroted the most alarmist position possible regarding the Arctic ice he could find. Gore then reemphasized this fear mongering claim in the next breath, in front of the world and Nobel committee, and has never recanted.

          Jimbo has never confronted Gore over this whopper of a ‘projection’, never will, and does not wish to. Why? Because hyperbole like that spewed by Gore in Oslo helps ‘the cause’. Jimbo is a zealot who only attacks those who disagree with him, and not those that tell whoppers on a world stage in support of a failed hypothesis.

          19 years of no warming while CO2 levels increase. Over 60 excuses as to why. Zero credibility.

          Jimmy baby, when you confront the real problem of exaggerated claims by alarmists, you can hold your head high, until then you are less than a useful idiot.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator as I said when Jimmy Baby first reappeared he is a knowing accomplice to Murder.

          I really really would like to see The ClimAstrologists and their enablers like Jimmy Baby here facing Nurenburg style trials for all the deaths they have KNOWINGLY caused.

          In the UK alone the number of deaths:
          For 2007-2008 was 27,480.
          For 2008-2009 the 36,700.
          In 2009/2010 there were 25,400
          2010-2011 showed 25,700
          2012-2013 there were 31,100
          TOTAL = 146,380 in five years.

          Indur Goklany in looking at the daily death reports found excess winter deaths are more than triple the number killed on the road.

          The statistics indicate that:

          For the 10-year period, 1998-2007, Australia had excess winter deaths of 6,779 per yr out of a total of 131,613 deaths per yr (avg.) This works out to 5.2% of all deaths per yr (on avg).
          For the 10-yr period, 1999-2008, NZ had excess winter deaths of 1,542 per yr out of a total of 27,792 deaths per yr (avg.) This is equivalent to 5.5% of all deaths per yr (on avg).

          The excess deaths in winter are roughly more than 4.5 times (Australia) and 3.75 times (New Zealand) the annual road toll.

          Then there is the Bio-fuel idiocy.
          Over 9 million people die worldwide each year because of hunger and malnutrition. Of those over half are children with 5 million deaths. The food crisis of 2008 drove an additional 100 million people into poverty. Biofuels forced global food prices up by 75%—far more than previously estimated—according to a World Bank report. The USA supplies most of the export corn and a lot of the export grain. Over a third of US corn is now used to produce ethanol; about half of vegetable oils in the EU goes towards the production of biodiesel.
          (Vegetable oils like Palm Oil that have caused the cutting down of rain forests.)

          These are older graphs but show we are going backwards in providing food despite the fact enough is produced.

          Change in United Nations estimates of death rates and infant mortality rate for least developed regions over prior five year period 1950-2005. Source: United Nations: World Population Prospects, the 2004 Revision.

        • Sharpshooter says:

          No, actually: infantile weasel.

          Fraud at the Federal level is punishable by up to twenty years in jail. Hope your affairs are in order when they frog-march you through that door!

    • philjourdan says:

      Actually, no, your chart is less clear. Steve’s has all the years and it is clear his prediction is correct. Yours does not. Nor does yours have a legible legend. Another snow white lie.

  16. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: gator69 says:
    January 21, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    The conversation about the non-random Arctic numbers has at last taken a statistical turn over at:

    I note that you are still dodging the question there too.

  17. rah says:

    No need for anyone to dodge anything but you. Steve was are more correct in his predictions than you were in your projections. End of story!

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