Latest Lies From The Witch Hunt

Check out this spectacular fraud from the Climate Inquisition

Steve Goddard 

Goddard is the pseudonym of climate denialist Tony Heller, who has been active in the anti-global warming action campaign since 2008. Heller has degrees in geology and electrical engineering. He currently runs the blog Real Science, where he comments on climate research and political news. He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming. He also maintains that U.S. and global temperature records have been tampered with, rendering global warming projections inaccurate.

Leaked Email Reveals Who’s Who List of Climate Denialists | InsideClimate News

If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort. I was discussing attribution for the observed warming, not whether or not the Earth was warming.

The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie. Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.

My comment explicitly assumes that the Earth is warming. You can’t have attribution for something which isn’t happening.

These people are unable to engage in honest debate. They are criminals pushing an agenda.

About stevengoddard

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

84 Responses to Latest Lies From The Witch Hunt

  1. darrylb says:

    Well, a who’s who list, (but not a complete list) of honorable people. Hopefully, the list will keep growing. As some of us are doing, this presents a good list to support and to help grow.

    Maybe, who knows, some day, some of us will be honored by being on the list in some way.

  2. gator69 says:

    An email from DR Singer asking for advice in suing for damages is proof of what? Damages?

  3. Anto says:

    Heller has degrees in geology and electrical engineering.

    Far more impressive than diplomas in basket-weaving and crystal astrology.

  4. Doug says:

    I had no idea that you denied the fact that there is a climate.

    • Disillusioned says:

      +1

      I find it even more absurd when they claim that “the science” is on their side. No, the rigged system, which is avoiding science at every turn, and vandalizing the historical climate record, is the side they’re on.

    • DD More says:

      They do not have it quite correct, from their ‘real skeptics’ partners –

      Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewed climate publications. They found that:

      “≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]”

      http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

      To really get 97% you have to add – 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate science research. and not just – “97 percent of climate scientists”

      Are they talking about Big Algor here -“have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s. ”

      Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee.http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/30/us/gore-forced-to-make-hard-choices-on-tobacco.html The NEW YORK TIMES???

      “Throughout the whole of his life, Al Gore Sr. and his family depended on pay-outs, kickbacks and subventions from [Armand] Hammer,” wrote Neil Lyndon, who worked for Hammer. “Like his father before him, Al Gore Jr.’s political career was lavishly sponsored by Hammer from the moment it began until Hammer died, only two years before Gore Clinton in the 1992 race for the White House.”
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2000/02/1547/#Gcu0dMbzMQiymsrB.99

      And didn’t he sell some TV thing to the Oil Sheiks?

      • chick20112011 says:

        I wonder how that lawsuit Al’s got going against the buyers of “Non”-Currant TV? Quite amusing with a multimillionaire hypocrite suing because he didn’t get all his 100+ Million. Al’s just a man of the people with a too-tight chakra.

  5. What annoys them most is that they put in all the effort to create these helpful list of sceptics (many I’ve never heard but they sound worth reading if I can).

    And we sceptics never return the courtesy. I started doing it once. It was
    Mr Nasty … media studies
    Ms Vile … media and asian studies
    A.N.Other … marketing from nowhereton

  6. gator69 says:

    Meanwhile a cop hunt is under way in Ferguson, thanks to Eric Holder..

    The Reverend @Kelemchrist
    Follow
    #ChiefJackson steps down and two pigs get shot? Best day #Ferguson has had in years

    Lifeless @hastavilla
    Follow
    im glad 2 pigs wounded in #Ferguson lol

    Lifeless @hastavilla
    Follow
    #Ferguson kill the pigs

    Isíldúr Jones @emptymindedejit
    Follow
    serves those two pigs right, i hope organized public militancy continues #ferguson

    Edward
    ‏@ejc8713
    It’s time for the ppl to finally fight back against these racist ass pigs! #Ferguson #truth #tcot
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    More
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_4I5gdUYAEBgyD.jpg:large

    Rage Against Tyranny @NoMoreGulags
    Follow
    FERGUSON PIG-SHOOT;

    Finally, somebody speaks the only language
    the Gestapo pigs understand!

    GOOD WORK!

    OPERATION NATION @OperationNation
    Follow
    #Ferguson pigs shouldnt grab ppl; thugs deserved it. Wish it was #DarrenWilson. Sound familiar? #MichaelBrown #VonderittMyers #AntonioMartin

    ┗╋┓ @TOONASTYGAWD
    Follow
    “@stopbeingfamous: At least 2 Ferguson police officers have been shot, 1 in the face, according to news reports.” FUCK 12 SLAY THEM PIGS

    #LONGLIVEWENGER @StayBlessedKid
    Follow
    Racist cops shot not gonna cry 4 pigs #Ferguson

    Cheyo @CheyosWorld
    Follow
    Ferguson pigs getting shot… 👏

    Rage Against Tyranny @NoMoreGulags
    Follow
    FERGUSON!
    SHOTS FIRED, PORKCHOPS DOWN!

    Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it Gestapo pigs!?
    Hahahahaha!

    Mr. Solo Dolo @Bob_Loblaw420
    Follow
    Hunting pigs RT @zerohedge: Two Police Officers Shot Outside Ferguson Police Department: Shooting Caught On Tape http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-12/two-police-officers-shot-outside-ferguson-police-department-shooting-caught-tape

    Josi @joselleaq
    Follow
    After what the Ferguson Police Dep has done does anyone REAAALLY care that three pigs were shot? #NoLOL

    The Offender @offensivehour
    Follow
    I heard two pigs in #Ferguson got shot? We’re they left on the ground bleeding out and dead like Mike Brown?

    ☥W3PW4w3t☥ @Anarch_Z
    Follow
    @AP @AnonRastaFTP yeah sorry can’t feel bad about pigs getting shot. #FTP #ACAB #Ferguson

    mike sawyer @riseupagain33
    Follow
    hopefully they’ll be off the street for a long time. two less pigs out harassing & kidnapping people. #Ferguson
    2:45 AM – 12 Mar 2015

    FUCK SAE OU @StylistSunshine
    Follow
    Fuck the police nobody shot those pigs in #Ferguson they did that themselves! Inside job!

    All this hate, nonsense and attempted murder because Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed a criminal who was an imminent threat to his life.

  7. gator69 says:

    Billionaire Peter Thiel on climate ‘science’ (2:25 mark)…

    Peter Andreas Thiel (born October 11, 1967) is an American entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and hedge fund manager. Thiel co-founded PayPal with Max Levchin and Elon Musk and served as its CEO. He also co-founded Palantir, of which he is chairman. Thiel serves as president of Clarium Capital, a global macro hedge fund with $700 million in assets under management; a managing partner in Founders Fund, a venture capital fund with $2 billion in assets under management; co-founder and investment committee chair of Mithril Capital Management; and co-founder and chairman of Valar Ventures. He was the first outside investor in Facebook, the popular social-networking site, with a 10.2% stake acquired in 2004 for $500,000, and sits on the company’s board of directors.

    Thiel was ranked #293 on the Forbes 400 in 2011, with a net worth of $1.5 billion as of March 2012. He was ranked #4 on the Forbes Midas List of 2014 at $2.2 billion. Thiel lives in San Francisco, California.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel

  8. This is all about destruction of political opponents.

    Y’all must realize that the truth, and scientific facts will never win this struggle.

    There must be an overwhelming case of fraud, deception, and worse.

  9. Stephen Fisher says:

    Time to “shrug”.

  10. KTM says:

    They are all lathered up about a series of messages discussing how to respond to the public attacks against Dr. Singer, that were publicly posted to a website after they occurred.

    Meanwhile, they are not at all concerned about secret e-mails discussing how to skew peer review, requests that the co-conspirators all agree to purge potentially incriminating e-mails from each other, etc, uncovered by the release of the Climate-gate e-mails.

    • KTM says:

      I left out secret strategizing on how to ignore FOIA requests for data that are legally required to be made available, and how best to conspire to bury/ignore scientific papers found to be of merit after peer review that undermined their cause.

    • chick20112011 says:

      Fascinating in their hypocrisy, isn’t it?
      The end justifies the means to many of the fraudsters.

  11. Hope says:

    “He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article

    “If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort.

    The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.” Steve/Tony

    ?????

    “He has called it “a massive lie” … I said nothing of the sort. I called it a massive lie.

    Help me out – what am I missing here?

    • KTM says:

      “Is it warming” is a very different question than “is mankind primarily responsible for warming”.

      The Senate just voted unanimously that climate change is real, without specifying anything about whether the climate is changing primarily from natural causes or is human-induced. You’re alleging that Steve has disputed that the climate changes, which is an obvious lie on your part.

      • Hope says:

        Thanks for your reply, but “is mankind primarily responsible for warming” does not appear in the article

        ““He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article

        “If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort.

        The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”

        Steve clearly called 97% consensus a “massive lie”,

        “You’re alleging that Steve has disputed that the climate changes, which is an obvious lie on your part.”

        Not at all. I say that nowhere.

        I am claiming this article is bunk: Steve admits to your face that HE DID SAY what he claims he never said:

        ” I said nothing of the sort.

        The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.””

        And I wondered if any of you notice this?

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, we noticed that the authors committed a ‘lie of omission’

          Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Omission

          It is a common tactic of the left. Whole lies out of half truths.

        • Neal S says:

          Hope asked what she was missing. How about …

          “Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.”

          I am sure Hope has missed a lot more than that, but I don’t have the rest of my life to clue her in. Hats off to those of you who have more patience than I.

        • KTM says:

          Although you are being obtuse, I’ll hold your hand.

          The 97% consensus is well-known to refer to the discredited paper published by Cook.

          Click to access 1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

          That study has been refuted by a more recent peer reviewed paper, which found that using the standard definition of athropogenic climate change used by the IPCC, the actual level of consensus was only 0.3%.

          http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

          To further support his statement that the discredit claims of 97% consensus are a “massive lie”, Steven referred to yet another data source that found “only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.”

          The original data were misinterpreted and their interpretation has been refuted by a later peer reviewed study. There is no other study that has replicated their original claims. Yet this supposed 97% consensus is one of the most often repeated statements used to debate the issue. Anyone who continues to quote such a flawed study in the face of peer reviewed rebuttals and contradictory findings is telling a “massive lie”, just as Steve said.

        • chick20112011 says:

          Lawyers are wonderful at lies of omission Hope. Mr. President of Hope/Change is a master.

        • Michael 2 says:

          Hope springs eternal.

          Or something like that.

          Rerminds me of HotWhopper’s obsession with Anthony Watts.

        • Dave N says:

          “And I wondered if any of you notice this?”

          Only thing I’ve noticed is your extreme ineptitude at discerning the difference between two statements.

          Strawman arguments are a classic symptom of alarmists; not being able to recognise when they’re actually doing it (or just ignoring that they are) is one that follows.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Hope,
          At this point in time, it would easy to be to dismiss you as a stubborn troll. However, I am going to proceed with the assumption that you are not aware of — or do not comprehend — what is meant by the phrase the “97% consensus” in global warming discussions. There was a Zimmerman/Doran survey and a Cook survey which claimed that 97% of scientists agree that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the major or significant source of global warming with the connotation that this warming is dangerous. These surveys have been thoroughly debunked and have been a source of embarrassment to the universities where the surveys originated. So when the 97% consensus is referenced, “everyone knows” that these surveys are being referenced. Meanwhile, it would be a absurd statement to claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming because 100% of climate scientists would agree that the earth warmed from the 1970s to the end of the 20th century. Meanwhile is very possible that only half of scientists would say that the earth has warmed in the last 18 years — although I am not aware of any study (biased or unbiased) that has asked that question. It is a gross distortion (a lie) to say that Goddard calls it “a massive lie that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming.” The massive lie is that there is a 97% consensus that human emissions are the primary or significant factor in earth’s warming.

    • A bit thick, aren’t you?

    • gator69 says:

      Hope says:
      March 12, 2015 at 5:30 pm
      Help me out – what am I missing here?

      A brain.

    • Actualy, Hope, we’re perhaps being a bit unfair on you!

      I have actually heard many otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people confuse the fact that the planet has warmed up since the Little Ice Age, with the claim that it is all or mostly man made.

      They then go on to assume that the little bit of warming we have had will somehow turn into catastrophic warming in future.

    • The claim in the article is a flagrant lie. I didn’t make any claim about whether or not scientists said it was warming.

      My claim was what the scientists attribute the warming to.

      • Hope says:

        Wow – Steve – you are sticking by this?

        ““He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article

        “If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort.

        The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”

        You clearly said what the article says you said.

        You stick by the notion that these two sentences don’t say the same thing …

        …. and to imagine they do is dishonest whichhunt:

        “He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” article

        “The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.” you

        What is the difference between the two sentences?

        • An Inquirer says:

          The distinction may be easy to miss. This is the “massive lie”: 97% of climate scientists agree that human-emitted gases are the key reason for increases in global temperatures.

          This is the accusation against Goddard: He calls it a massive lie that 97% of scientists say that the earth is warming.

          It is well established that the claim of 97% consensus on human-emitted gases as the key reason for increases in global temperatures is bunk. However, most likely Goddard would agree (and close to 100% of climate scientists) with this statement: The global mean temperature rose from the 1970s to the end of the 20th century.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The distinction may be easy to miss”

          Particularly to a brain-washed ditz from the trailer park.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You again prove that your thinking and comprehension ability is Hopeless.

          Is it going to take 100 posts, again, for you to understand ?

        • Hope says:

          @Aninquirer:

          ” He calls it a massive lie that 97% of scientists say that the earth is warming.”

          I read it that attributing this sentence to him is dishonest:

          “I said nothing of the sort.”

          But in fact that is exactly what he said: “The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”

          .. and in fact the article’s description:

          “He calls it a massive lie that 97% of scientists say that the earth is warming.”

          Is correct.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Oh FFS, learn to read, you moronic idiot !!

          He did NOT call it a lie that 97% of climate scientists agree the world is warming.

          The consensus LIE is about the CAUSE of the natural, and very beneficial warming, since the LIA. The CONSENSUS that is is cause by CO2 is a LIE, a FABRICATION.

          Do… you…. Understand? you dimwitted, brain-washed twerp !!

        • Hope says:

          ‘AndyG55 says:
          March 12, 2015 at 10:13 pm

          Oh FFS, learn to read, you moronic idiot !!

          He did NOT call it a lie that 97% of climate scientists agree the world is warming.”
          ___________________________

          It’s just really not that hard to see:

          “He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article

          .. then claims he said nothing of the sort and cites this sentence as what he actually said:

          “The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”

          CAN YOU (I know you have to included insults as you can not answer in any other way, so go ahead)

          TELL IS the difference BETWEEN these TWO sentences??

          __________________________________________________________
          “He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming”

          “The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”
          ____________________________________________________________

          WHAT is the difference in meaning in these two sentences?

        • gator69 says:

          The difference dummy, is that Tony went on to explain that sentence, and the a-hole liars that cherry picked one sentence out of a paragraph did not bother to tell the whole truth.

          It is a lie of omission. And a lie is a lie.

          Again, we see Hopeski defending liars, looks great on your resume sweety! 😆

          You never have answered my question. Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this legal document?

          The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.

          Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.

          Click to access Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf

          It is a simple yes or no.b Or is that above you mental capacity?

        • gator69 says:

          What up B! 😆

          Can’t answer a simple yes or no? 😆

          Fraud! 😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          Hope also failed basic English at junior high level.

          Totally unable to comprehend even the most simple wording.

          You truly are proving to be unbelievable DUMB and SIMPLE !!!

          and totally HOPELESS !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I know you have to included insults as you can not answer in any other way, so go ahead”

          I HAVE answered it, you are just too dumb to comprehend or being wilfully ignorant.

          As NO-ONE can be so dumb that they cannot understand the difference, it is obvious that you are choosing to be wilfully ignorant. or maybe, against all possible rationality…

          YOU REALLY ARE THAT DUMB !!!. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          I repeat, for the HOPELESS idiot..

          The FAKE consensus is about the CAUSE of the slight warming since the LIA,

          NOT about the warming itself.

          How much simpler an explanation do you need ?

          Do you have the basic comprehension ability to understand that?

          I doubt it very much !! You have shown you are as thick as 10 bricks !!

        • gator69 says:

          Andy, if you really want to talk to Hopless, you need to be on this thread…

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/hope-and-choom/#comment-502248

        • AndyG55 says:

          I’ll leave the Lipsink fraud guy to you, thanks. 🙂

          Not my neck of the woods.

          If the dope ever wants to discuss real science, I will be more than happy to try to shut her ignorant yabbering 🙂

      • gator69 says:

        The lie of omission is the difference. Taking a statement without giving the full context.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually Hope “the world is warming” is a big lie depending on your starting point.

      Last 65 million years

      Last 5 million years

      Last 10,000 years (Greenland Ice Core)

      Last 12,000 years (Vostok Ice Core)

      Last 18 years

      As was noted Steve is trained as a geologist and would be well aware that the earth is gradually cooling.

  12. Andy DC says:

    You made the list! Congratulations! Obviously, you have hit more than a few nerves to have been so distinguishtly honored!

  13. gator69 says:

    Breaking news from InsideClimate News!

    U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!

    https://thescoundrel.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/u-s-marine-assaults-african-immigrant-and-steals-his-lunch/

  14. gofer says:

    In an interview with the BBC, the president of Natl Academy Science, when asked if it would lead to catastrophe, answered, “There is NO EVIDENCE for that”. They do not want to talk about it.

    Where is the consensus that it will be catastrophic? Otherwise, its just weather. They are trying to smear by connecting skeptics to fossil fuels, so people will be prejudiced against skeptics before they read skeptic blogs, since many will want to check out blogs, like this one. Just like our guest keep yelling “fossil fuel propaganda” when frustrated by facts. They are getting desperate, so the lies and smears will ramp up.

    They are, unwitting, sending people to check out those blogs. I noticed they left out Michaels connection to MIT. “1000 Scientists Dispute Global Warming” shows there are a lot more, including Nobel winners, that are being hid from the public.

    • gator69 says:

      I’m waiting for the 30,000+ scientists on the Oregon Petition to be targeted. Or would that be counterproductive for their lesser army of idiots.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I lost the link, but one of the IPCC scientists noted that the number of scientists contributing has gone down from 1000s (8000?) to hundreds (400?) as more and more scientist leave in disgust as their work is rewritten to conform to the The Summary for Policymakers (SPM)

        The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed to “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed, “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary. “ This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

        Not many scientists will be willing to have their work twisted to have an opposite meaning. And more than one stormed off in a huff.

        • Hope says:

          In fact, All 9K studies the AR-5 is based on remain valid:

          “assess, evaluate and synthesise the findings of 9,200 peer-reviewed scientific studies published since the last review in 2007”

          http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/09/co2-reshaping-the-planet-meta-analysis-confirms/

          In fact the stringent agreement policy makes the ar-5 more conservative, not less:

          “PCC’s reports, they say, often underestimate the severity of global warming, in a way that may actually confuse policymakers (or worse). The IPCC, one scientific group charged last year, has a tendency to “err on the side of least drama.” And now, in a new study just out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, another group of researchers echoes that point. In scientific parlance, they charge that the IPCC is focused on avoiding what are called “type 1” errors — claiming something is happening when it really is not (a “false positive”) — rather than on avoiding “type 2” errors — not claiming something is happening when it really is (a “false negative”).”

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/30/climate-scientists-arent-too-alarmist-theyre-too-conservative/

        • gator69 says:

          I never knew science was a drama. Do tell. 😆

        • gofer says:

          “The models are convenient fictions
          that provide something very useful.”

          – Dr David Frame,
          climate modeler, Oxford University

        • Ronald says:

          The best thing one can do is do their own analysis and see if it matches the predictions. That is the beauty of science. Discuss the data and conclusions. Sharyl attkinson had a great Ted talks about astroturfing and the first sign is attacking the person or funding rather than the data.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “evaluate and synthesise the findings of 9,200 peer-reviewed scientific studies ”

          Choosing ONLY those that reinforce the global warming farce..

          Ignoring any that cast an opposite view.

          With WWF, and Greenpeace, and agenda approval, of course.

      • gofer says:

        They try to dismiss anybody who is not a climate scientist when, in fact, there are dozens of different science disciplines that come under the banner of climate science, like geology, mathmatics, statistics, solar, atmosphere, heat transfer, radiation and many others. Any one person can only be an expert in 2-3 of these fields. A climate scientist has to rely on a lot of others. IF they were looking for the truth, they would welcome skeptics to find the flaws, which is the first step in seeking truth. Disturbing that Jones remarked, “Why should I give them my work when all they are going to do is find flaws in it?” Very anti-science.

        If we applied the same to them, then there are a bunch who aren’t in any of these. A skeptical astrophysicist is bad but the same supporting AGW is good. An English major is a climate scientist who can contort data and its all good. They must avoid discussing the data and focus the smear. No debates allowed, too risky.

  15. I expect it is just a careless mistake by them. I have told them about it so I expect they will correct it promptly.

  16. David A says:

    Hope Quotes, “PCC’s reports, they say, often underestimate the severity of global warming, in a way that may actually confuse policymakers (or worse). The IPCC, one scientific group charged last year, has a tendency to “err on the side of least drama.”
    ============================================
    I hope you do not believe everything you read. The IPCC takes the modeled mean of all their wrong models, which all run way to warm and postulates the harms based on the modeled results, not the observations.

    Hope, please read about this meeting from an APS meeting on CAGW. The skeptics roundly trounced the CAGW proponents.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/12/notes-on-the-aps-workshop-on-climate-change/

  17. Gail Combs says:

    Hope says:
    “….In fact, All 9K studies the AR-5 is based on remain valid….”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh Boy did Hope step into it with that one.

    Chapter Seven, Second Draft: (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

    Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

    And Lots and Lots of papers. Here are a few from the last couple of years (no links)
    Evidence for solar forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in Europe
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 71, Issue 12, pp. 1309-1321, August 2009)
    – Jean-Louis Le Mouel et al.

    Evidence for Obliquity Forcing of Glacial Termination II
    (Science, Volume 325, Issue 5947, pp. 1527-1531, September 2009)
    – R. N. Drysdale et al.

    Possible orographic and solar controls of Late Holocene centennial-scale moisture oscillations in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 21, November 2009)
    – Cheng Zhao et al.

    Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 71, Issues 17-18, pp. 1916-1923, December 2009)
    – Nicola Scafetta

    Long-term solar activity as a controlling factor for global warming in the 20th century
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 8, pp. 1271-1274, December 2009)
    – V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov

    Quasisecular cyclicity in the climate of the Earth’s Northern Hemisphere and its possible relation to solar activity variations
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 7, pp. 1056-1062, December 2009)
    – M. G. Ogurtsov et al.

    A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 62-76, January 2010)
    – Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vladimir Kossobokov, Vincent Courtillot

    Evolution of seasonal temperature disturbances and solar forcing in the US North Pacific
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 83-89, January 2010)
    – Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouel, E. Blanter, M. Shnirman

    Possible manifestation of nonlinear effects when solar activity affects climate changes
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 1, pp. 15-20, February 2010)
    – M. G. Ogurtsov et al.

    A statistically significant signature of multi-decadal solar activity changes in atmospheric temperatures at three European stations
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 7-8, pp. 595-606, May 2010)
    – Vladimir Kossobokov, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Vincent Courtillot

    Difference in the air temperatures between the years of solar activity maximum and minimum and its mechanism
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 3, pp. 375-382, June 2010)
    – A. I. Laptukhov, V. A. Laptukhov

    Solar Minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: The North Atlantic-European case
    (Global and Planetary Change, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp. 282-293, July 2010)
    – Nils-Axel Morner

    Quantifying and specifying the solar influence on terrestrial surface temperature
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 926-937, August 2010)
    – C. de Jager, S. Duhau, B. van Geel

    Global temperatures and sunspot numbers. Are they related? Yes, but non linearly. A reply to Gil-Alana et al. (2014)
    (Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Volume 413, pp. 329-342, November 2014)
    – Nicola Scafetta et al.

    Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 37, Number 15, August 2010)
    – Jean-Louis Le Mouel et al.

    The Influence of the Atmospheric Transmission for the Solar Radiation and Earth’s Surface Radiation on the Earth’s Climate
    (Journal of Geographic Information System, Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 194-200, October 2010)
    – Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Alexander I. Bogoyavlenskii, Sergey I. Khankov, Yevgeniy V. Lapovok

    Dynamical Response of the Tropical Pacific Ocean to Solar Forcing During the Early Holocene
    (Science, Volume 330, Number 6009, pp. 1378-1381, December 2010)
    – Thomas M. Marchitto et al.

    Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures
    (Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2011, pp. 1-8, 2011)
    – Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum3

    Natural climatic oscillations driven by solar activity
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 51, Number 1, pp. 131-138, February 2011)
    – A. A. Gusev

    Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issues 2-3, pp. 383-387, February 2011)
    – Maxim Ogurtsov

    A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing
    (Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 529, A67, April 2011)
    – A. I. Shapiro et al.

    Possible impact of interplanetary and interstellar dust fluxes on the Earth’s climate
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 51, Number 2, pp. 275-283, April 2011)
    – M. G. Ogurtsov, O. M. Raspopov

    A unified approach to orbital, solar, and lunar forcing based on the Earth’s latitudinal insolation/temperature gradient
    (Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 30, Issues 15–16, pp. 1861-1874, July 2011)
    – Basil A. S. Davis, Simon Brewer

    Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force
    (Climate of the Past, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp. 685-692, July 2011)
    – L. Tan et al.

    Sun-earth relationship inferred by tree growth rings in conifers from Severiano De Almeida, Southern Brazil
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issues 11-12, pp. 1587-1593, July 2011)
    – A. Prestes et al.

    Evidence of solar signals in tree rings of Smith fir from Sygera Mountain in southeast Tibet
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 13, pp. 1959-1966, August 2011)
    – Xiaochun Wang, Qi-Bin Zhang

    Solar-geomagnetic activity influence on Earth’s climate
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 13, pp. 1607-1615, August 2011)
    – S. Mufti, G.N. Shah

    Temporal derivative of Total Solar Irradiance and anomalous Indian summer monsoon: An empirical evidence for a Sun-climate connection
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 13, pp. 1980-1987, August 2011)
    – Rajesh Agnihotri, Koushik Dutta, Willie Soon

    Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th century
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 16, pp. 2331-2344, October 2011)
    – Willie Soon, Koushik Dutta, David R. Legates, Victor Velasco, WeiJia Zhang

    Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures
    (Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2011, pp. 1-8, December 2011)
    – Jan-Erik Solheim et al.

    A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 74, pp. 145-163, January 2012)
    – Nicola Scafetta

    Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change
    (Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 107, Issue 3-4, pp. 599-609, February 2012)
    – Adriano Mazzarella, Nicola Scafetta

    Hydroclimate of the northeastern United States is highly sensitive to solar forcing
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, February 2012)
    – Jonathan E. Nichols, Yongsong Huang

    Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
    (Applied Physics Research, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 178-184, February 2012)
    – Habibullo I. Abdussamatov

    Variability of rainfall and temperature (1912-2008) parameters measured from Santa Maria (29°41′S, 53°48′W) and their connections with ENSO and solar activity
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 77, pp. 152-160, March 2012)
    – P. H. Rampelotto et al.

    Bicentennial decrease of the solar constant leads to the Earth’s unbalanced heat budget and deep climate cooling
    (Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 62-68, April 2012)
    – Kh. I. Abdusamatov

    Trends in sunspots and North Atlantic sea level pressure
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 117, Issue D7, April 2012)
    – Harry van Loon et al.

    Strong evidence for the influence of solar cycles on a Late Miocene lake system revealed by biotic and abiotic proxies
    (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volumes 329-330, pp. 124-136, April 2012)
    – A. K. Kern

    Assessment of the relationship between the combined solar cycle/ENSO forcings and the tropopause temperature
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, pp. 21-27, May 2012)
    – Alfred M. Powell Jr., Jianjun Xu

    Testing an Astronomically Based Decadal-Scale Empirical Harmonic Climate Model vs, the IPCC (2007) General Circulation Models
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, pp. 124-137, May 2012)
    – Nicola Scafetta

    The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, pp. 267-284, May 2012)
    – Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum

    Solar Forcing of Climate
    (Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 33, Issue 3-4, pp. 445-451, July 2012)
    – C. de Jager

    Climatic variables as indicators of solar activity
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 52, Issue 7, pp. 931-936, December 2012)
    – A. S. Balybina, A. A. Karakhanyan

    Stratospheric circumpolar vortex as a link between solar activity and circulation of the lower atmosphere
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 52, Issue 7, pp. 937-943, December 2012)
    – S. V. Veretenenko, M. G. Ogurtsov

    Impact of the geomagnetic field and solar radiation on climate change
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 52, Issue 8, pp. 959-976, December 2012)
    – V. A. Dergachev, S. S. Vasiliev, O. M. Raspopov, H. Jungner

    Is there a planetary influence on solar activity?
    (Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 548, pp. 1-9, December 2012)
    – J. A. Abreu et al.

    Orbital forcing of tree-ring data
    (Nature Climate Change, Volume 2, Number 12, pp. 862-866, December 2012)
    – Jan Esper et al.

    Solar influences on atmospheric circulation
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volumes 90-91, pp. 15-25, December 2012)
    – K. Georgieva et al.

    A Mechanism for Lagged North Atlantic Climate Response to Solar Variability
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp. 434-439, January 2013)
    – Adam A. Scaife et al.

    Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 93, pp. 45-56, February 2013)
    – Willie Soon, David R. Legates

    A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy
    (Quaternary International, Volume 288, pp. 239-248, March 2013)
    – Federico Di Rita

    The role of solar activity in global warming
    (Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp. 275-285, May 2013)
    – S. V. Avakyan

    Solar Wind, Earth’s Rotation and Changes in Terrestrial Climate
    (Physical Review & Research International, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 117-136, April-June 2013)
    – Nils-Axel Morner

    Solar and Planetary Oscillation Control on Climate Change: Hind-Cast, Forecast and a Comparison with the CMIP5 GCMS
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 455-496, June 2013)
    – Nicola Scafetta

    Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
    (Journal of Geology & Geosciences, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 1-10, July 2013)
    – Habibullo I. Abdussamatov

    Climate change and decadal to centennial-scale periodicities recorded in a late Holocene NE Pacific marine record: Examining the role of solar forcing
    (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 386, pp. 669-689, September 2013)
    – J. M. Galloway, A. Wigston, R. T. Patterson, G. T. Swindles, E. Reinhardt, H. M. Roe

    Influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation and solar forcing on climate and primary productivity changes in the northeast Pacific
    (Quaternary International, Volume 310, pp. 124-139, October 2013)
    – R. Timothy Patterson et al.

    Phase-locked states and abrupt shifts in Pacific climate indices
    (Physics Letters A, Volume 377, Issue 28-30, pp. 1749-1755, October 2013)
    – David H. Douglass

    Terrestrial ground temperature variations in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle
    (Natural Science, Volume 5, Number 10, pp. 1112-1120, October 2013)
    – C. de Jager, H. Nieuwenhuijzen

    New evidence of solar variation in temperature proxies from Northern Fennoscandia
    (Advances in Space Research, Volume 52, Issue 9, pp. 1647-1654, November 2013)
    – M. Ogurtsov et al.

    Clouds blown by the solar wind
    (Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4, December 2013)
    – M. Voiculescu, I. Usoskin, S. Condurache-Bota

    Deep solar activity minima, sharp climate changes, and their impact on ancient civilizations
    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 53, Issue 8, pp. 917-921, December 2013)
    – O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev, G. I. Zaitseva, M. G. Ogurtsov

    Evidence of the solar Gleissberg cycle in the nitrate concentration in polar ice
    (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2014)
    – M. G. Ogurtsov, M. Oinonen

    ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models
    (Astrophysics and Space Science, 2014)
    – Nicola Scafetta, Richard C. Willson

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