Just How Stupid Are These People?

One day after Gavin is quoted as predicting at least five more years of pause, Mikey pats Gavin on the back for saying the pause is dead. What are these people smoking?

ScreenHunter_782 Jan. 20 13.40

ScreenHunter_6240 Jan. 19 21.00

About stevengoddard

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

41 Responses to Just How Stupid Are These People?

  1. Odin2 says:

    When you start telling lies it is very difficult to keep track of them. It is even more difficult when many people are telling or repeating lies about the same subject.

    • Jimbo says:

      Here is the pause that never existed. Note the first date they did not notice the lack of warming / pause. Then go down the list through to 2015

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
      The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
      ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

      Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
      “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”

      Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
      “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

      Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
      “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”

      Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
      “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
      “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”

      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
      [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

      [A] “Yes, but only just”.

      Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
      “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”

      Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
      “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”

      Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
      “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”

      Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
      “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”

      Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
      “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
      Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012

      Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
      “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

      Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
      “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
      [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]

      Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
      “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

      Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
      ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
      Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
      “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

      Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
      “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”

      Met Office – July 2013
      The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
      Executive summary
      The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
      Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf

      Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
      “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”

      Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
      They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”

      Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
      Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
      Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”

      Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
      “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

      Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
      “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…

      Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
      “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..

      Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
      “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”

      Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
      Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
      “This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”

      Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
      “…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”

      Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
      Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
      Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
      Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
      The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
      ….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..

      H. Douville et al – 2015
      The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
      The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….

      Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth 11 July 2014
      Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
      Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.

  2. gator69 says:

    I wonder when MM will inform us that the 97% consensus is dead? Or the denial of the MWP? Or the hypothesis of AGW.

  3. How does Gavin know what solar output and volcanic activity will be in 10 years?

  4. Gail Combs says:

    If the “pause” really is a dead concept

    Then that means the earth is COOLING! {:>D

    • PeterK says:

      Gail: You are right. If the pause is dead, that means global warming climate change or whatever is politically dead, however, the climate will continue to change as the climate decides that it wants to change or not and nothing or no-one will tell it how it has to behave.
      Whenever Mann makes a stupid comment, I just say that “He said a ‘Mikie’!”

  5. Winnipeg Boy says:

    So its…”Ha! In your face! We are all going to die!” while dancing a jig. I remember these guys from middle school.

  6. RossP says:

    It continues to amaze me how these people using Twitter do not realise how quickly stupid comments are picked up and spread like “wild fire”. But this one from Mann really takes it to a new level.

  7. omanuel says:

    They’re smoking the “straight dope” supplied by none other than the Dope-Dealer-in-Chief.

  8. I guarantee that within 10 years I will be able to predict the winning lotto numbers. –Gavin (MD, Kreskin University)

    Guys, Gavin just won the lottery! –M.E. Mann (PhD, Trisomy 21)

  9. philjourdan says:

    It is mikey. He took the scarecrows place. No brain.

  10. _Jim says:

    Hmmm … someone is ‘off message’ … how long will it take to get them back on the same page?

  11. Greg says:

    I thought the sun didn’t do anything?

    • Menicholas says:

      Yes, the sun can be ignored, unless it can’t.
      If it can’t be ignored, he can say with confidence when it can be ignored again.
      These guys have sophistry down to a science!

      • gator69 says:

        Excellent observation! I previously identified one of the new age sciences spawned by alarmism, and named it ‘Grantology’. With your permission, I believe we can jointly claim the discovery of another new age science, and name it ‘Sophistology’.

        Grant please!

  12. DakotaKid says:

    I ran the numbers given the CO2 absorption spectrum compared to Water. Water vapor already absorbs 98% of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs. So if we use a simple model of nitrogen Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor if the model goes from 0% CO@ to MAX CO2 (0% to 99.5% CO2) , assuming a grey body consistent with water/CO2 and grey body consistent with water/nitrogen
    I came up with a temperature differential of 0.5 degrees Celsius(about 1 degree F), so how do these models come up with so much warming?

    • Gail Combs says:

      The ClimAstrologists get that high CO2 climate sensitivity by making water a FEEDBACK of CO2 and therefore multiplying the actual CO2 climate sensitivity threefold. This is the heart of the BIG LIE.

      Here is the ‘BIG LIE’ straight from NASA:

      Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change Page Last Updated: November 18, 2008
      Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. [In other words water is what has a big effect on earth’s climate not CO2.]

      Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere….

      “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

      The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. [There is the twisting of cause and effect used to make CO2 increases catastrophic.] Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. [Adding in the fear component just in case you need to be hit by a hammer and completely neglecting the fact that the temperature on earth has upper bounds as seen in the geological record.]

      Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

      “The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,” Dessler said. [Well at least he has that part correct.]

      Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere — the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude….

      Andrew Dessler has a great career ahead of him as a used care salesman.

      • Menicholas says:

        Did anyone ask him why you need CO2 in this feedback at all?

      • AZ1971 says:

        The problem is that water vapour condenses out at ~4% atmospheric concentration, so we should be seeing more rain events and/or more extreme rain events. We aren’t.

        Has anyone – and I mean anyone, including the charlatans at NOAA and NASA – looked at historical records of dewpoints for all US HCN stations to plot whether there has been an increasing trend in water vapour? If there is no such increase, then it just casts more doubt on the positive feedback spin they’re putting out.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Relative Humidity

          Specific Humidity

          Lots more info and graphs:

        • AZ1971 says:

          Well that doesn’t jive with what’s predicted either. Shouldn’t the decrease in relative humidity – but more importantly, the lack of specific humidity outside near-ground levels – since 1948 be addressed in terms of the feedback mechanism by CO2? Or is it merely inconvenient for our lauded experts to deal with?

        • Menicholas says:

          Good question!
          I suspect not.
          I have wondered why radiational cooling events are not being closely measured to detect any change in the rate at which the air cools, for example, on a clear windless night in the desert.

  13. Dave N says:

    Mikey: “The moon isn’t made of cheese, d*niers!!”
    Gavin: “In a few years, I’m going to make Quesadilla’s from it”
    Mikey: “I’ll have some, too”

    • Dave N says:

      Ah, crap.. Please excuse extraneous apostrophe in Quesadillas; I think I’ve caught the disease from others.

      PS: I hate the English language.

  14. gofer says:

    Time to start worrying, Mr Jones:

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    • The fact that they use words like “worry, travesty and problem” to describe the lack of catastrophic warming tells us all we need to know.
      Their work will only be validated (in their minds) when the get to say a big “told you so”

      • AZ1971 says:

        NOAA has spent $160 BILLION since 2003 on global warming research, and has yet to resolve basic problems we as skeptics keep pressing them on.

        That $160 billion is money I’d much rather they not piss away and let me keep in my pocket.

  15. Pooka says:

    Am I the only one happy they actually admit there’s a pause?

  16. nigelf says:

    it’s a personal travesty when the thing they say they’re most worried about doesn’t materialize and they claim that that’s the travesty.
    Hey, someone should ask them to make a bet on it! Make them put their money where the mouth overflows.

  17. gofer says:

    Are they going to overhaul the models in 3 years, “at the latest”, and admit they were worthless?

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

  18. R. de Haan says:

    You’re dealing with the Alynski Style approach for creating chaos.

    You know their agenda.

    These people have no rational motivations, they’re bloody activists.

    The sooner you get this the better.

    Obama is one of them.

  19. R. de Haan says:

    Every time we try to come up with rational arguments these bastards are laughing their pants off.

  20. sabretoothed says:

    These people look pretty stupid http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1421971494

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