We Are Just 90 Days Away From Fundamentally Transforming Climate Science

Barack Obama has made his way through life by ignoring experts, and breaking existing paradigms. Had he listened to expert opinions, he wouldn’t be president. He really doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.

Except when it comes to these people, whom he pretends are unassailable masters of the universe. When it comes to science, no one is permitted to question their opinion.

ScreenHunter_8564 Apr. 12 13.48 ScreenHunter_8563 Apr. 12 13.48 ScreenHunter_8562 Apr. 12 13.47


About stevengoddard

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

125 Responses to We Are Just 90 Days Away From Fundamentally Transforming Climate Science

  1. Who would DARE question the brilliance of those 4 Men !!

    • I wouldn’t but I also admire Goddard’s mastery of Linnaean taxonomy and his focus on structural similarities among the men. Look at the distribution of active hair follicles. He’s got the specimens sorted right.

      • nielszoo says:

        Well, I looked for the laryngeal prominence and was only sure about 75% of them being male (Isn’t it sexist and homophobic to use that term now?.) The upper right subject has the ventral surfaces of his/her/its neck hidden under a woven fabric covering (I’m sure was produced without using any hydrocarbon based energy or feedstocks) and in the absence of any other physical markers I’d have to have a chromosome check run… which is proving surprisingly difficult to do from a photograph. Maybe the reporters at Rolling Stone or the NYT can provide some tips on how to get facts like that without resorting to research.

        • That shouldn’t take long. I am certain the commenters on this thread violated the civil rights of these men. The Justice Department will summon the genes and chromosomes of all victims and perpetrators to adjudicate the severity of the criminal violations.

    • R. Shearer says:


    • Smokey says:

      Ha! What a great way to start this thread!

    • Me says:

      I thought Gadaffi was dead, it lives! 😆

    • Menicholas says:

      Mr. Ed called.
      He wants his teeth back.

  2. Joseph says:

    I remember watching John Stossel on Fox News fairly recently. Stossel had Roy Spencer on to talk about climate change. Gavin Schmidt (sp?) was also present and refused to debate or even discuss climate change with Roy Spencer. That right there says a lot about the alarmists’ confidence in their argument. Smug bastard.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Joseph, I saw that also. Gavin Schmidt refused to even be in the same room with Dr. Spencer. He got up from the table and walked out of the studio right before Spencer walked on.

      I believe at least part of his outward smugness is about hiding fear. He knows he cannot argue the science, nor defend his adjustments. I think he is afraid he will eventually be taken down.

      • Joseph says:

        I agree with you in regards to Gavin. If the alarmists are so confident why don’t they debate skeptics?

      • Gavin Schmidt refused to even be in the same room with Dr. Spencer.

        Naturally. What would he do if Spencer asked him a question?

        • Shazaam says:

          I suspect Gavin Schmidt would soil his pants if he were put in a situation where he had to actually debate his talking points.

          It’s extremely telling Gavin is too much the coward to engage in an actual debate.

        • gator69 says:

          You mean Schmidt himself? 😆

          I really enjoyed watching Gavin sweat and stutter. It was obvious to me that not even he believed what he was saying, no polygraph was needed to prove he was lying.

    • Andy DC says:

      Roy Spencer is a PhD and a highly respected scientist. If you read his blog, he is extremely reasonable, with no shrillness and no apparent ax to grind. His big “crime” was to help design the satellite that has shown no warming since 1997. Gavin is a mental midget by comparison, though pretends to be above it all. He knows that Spencer will utterly destroy him in any debate, thus running away from the debate is his one and only strategy.

    • Progressives and idealogues… fascists… don’t want debate here guys… they want CONTROL…

      Its that simple….

      Thus … we must go around them and influence people directly…

  3. Disillusioned says:

    Now THAT was funny.

  4. scizzorbill says:

    Their exterior appearance is an expression of the interior confused mess.

  5. At least two of them are quite effeminate.

  6. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Maybe Austin Powers was on to something.

  7. Robertv says:

    They may think they are important but just like the rest of us they are just cannon fodder. The only difference is they know too much. The only way to get out of the mafia is horizontal.

  8. who are the two nincompoops at the top? Recognize Gavin and little Mikey.

  9. omanuel says:

    Steven, your challenge is this: “Can you correct falsehoods faster than the worldwide combined forces of consensus scientists can generate them with public funds?”

    AGW is only the last in a long series of fraudulent science claims, going back in time from the present to the end of WWII and the decision to form the UN to save the world from annihilation by hiding the creation of the world.

    AGW (made-made global warming)
    OSN (oscillating solar neutrinos)
    LJID (lost Jupiter isotope data)
    NAG (neon alphabet game)
    SHE (superheavy element) fission
    NSI (nearby supernova) injection
    IDG (interstellar dust grains)
    B2FH (element synthesis in stars)
    ABE (average nuclear binding energy)
    SSM (standard solar model) of H-stars

    Each day, thousands of physicists spend millions of $$$ at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider to hide this empirical fact:

    Click to access Supplement.pdf

  10. They are not normal people.

    Gavin Schmidt ‏@ClimateOfGavin
    MT @kirkenglehardt: Experts are better at controlling their political biases than ordinary people via @cult_cognition

  11. hannuko says:

    Who is the one on the top left? I don’t recognize her.

  12. AndyG55 says:

    The bottom two are obviously Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dumber,

    The top two could be the wicked queen and one of the toadstools.

  13. gator69 says:

    The four horse-asses of the Apocalypse?

  14. The climate expert on the bottom left looks like he’s holding a bull’s testicle in his mouth

  15. R. de Haan says:

    Talking about mixed signals from the Mad House (former White House) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/12/last-2-years-president-obama-blamed-extreme-cold/

  16. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Barry plans to have lotsa fun in Paris at COP21 now that he’s proven his negotiating skills with the Chinese over CO2 and the Iranains getting the Bomb.

  17. Justa Joe says:

    what a freak show

  18. Justa Joe says:

    Kari NorGaard putting hers scientific expertise to work.

    • rah says:

      rejects from nerd camp. Even too nerdy for the nerds. And Who the hell wears white pleated trowsers in the field? Can anyone say staged photo op?

      • gator69 says:

        Just a quick glance at fatboy, and you can see he was dressed for a day at Sea World. Note that the swollen fool is freezing his fat ass off, trying to keep his hands warm in the sleeves of is Lands End sweater, as well as protecting is rapidly diminishing core body temperature. He makes Kari look like a genius, and flat chested too.

      • gator69 says:

        “… sleeves of his Lands End sweater…”

        Talk about a big fat liar.

    • Smokey says:

      The alarmist crowd sure has a lot of *ahem* quite unusual looking folks leading the Guardian lemming contingent. Here’s another one:

      [That’s Pierre Rayhumbert or something, breaking the law by playing that weird instrument.]

    • Ben Vorlich says:

      Interesting that the one least prepared for cold is the office based researcher who developed the hockey stick. I suppose he was expecting a balmy t-shirt day’s walk in the park.

  19. gator69 says:

    ‘Tax protest’ suicide seals Capitol

    The man shot himself on the west front of the Capitol building in Washington DC just after 1pm yesterday local time. No one else was hurt.

    Capitol police chief Kim Dine said the man had a backpack and a rolling suitcase, triggering an hours-long lockdown, and a sign that said something about “social justice“.


    Social justice? Sounds like a progressive to me. Thank God he took himself out first, for a change.

    But note how the media calls this a ‘tax protest’, as if it were a Tea Party member. I could be wrong, and if I am I will be more than willing to admit it, unlike Progressives.

    But there is more…

    The sign carried by the man contained a message about “social justice,” Dine said. A witness, Robert Bishop of Annapolis, Md., said it also said something about taxing the “1%..”


    I’m not familiar with any Tea Party members who are concerned with wealth redistribution, in fact, it goes against their Libertarian leanings.

    I’m thinking that we do need more background checks for gun permits. Like voting records.

  20. ossqss says:

    My neurons worked and reminded me of this…. Just sayin>

  21. BritInMontreal says:

    Top left, that’s a bloke, right?, next right, that’s Sister Wendy, the art expert, Bottom left, who the ***is that? bottom right, wouldn’t buy a used car from this guy.

  22. Pathway says:

    In the name of diversity, where are the black people in this picture?

  23. bill.capron says:

    3 ugly guys and 1 ugly woman; take you pick … politics is show-time for the ugly, because it ain’t science they’re doing!

  24. northernont says:

    Who is the man in the top left pic? Looks angry.

  25. David, UK says:

    Can we raise the bar above poking fun at these, admittedly, strange looking people? The most noteworthy thing I can say about them is that the geezer at the top-left doesn’t have any facial hair, which in Climate Science is remarkable indeed. And the other three look like they escaped from a lunative assylum. But please, folks, let’s avoid the silly, almost baseless insults.

    • David,

      You know there is plenty of serious discussion on this blog. You are right that this thread is mostly horsing around but i haven’t laughed so much in quite a while.

      Besides, it’s good to put these insulting but harmless comments in context with the list Gator posted below.

      These are not decent people of good will.

      • David, UK says:

        Please read my comment again. If you still miss the tongue-in-cheek irony, read it again! 😉

        • This is the thread that keeps on giving! Thanks, David, now I’m laughing at my own gullability. No need to reread your plea again. It is quite clear.

          Most readers here know that I am against /sarc tags, even at the risk of occasional misunderstanding. Signaling sarcasm spoils the fun. You did it right and it was hard to miss, anyway.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Colorado, I agree, purveyors of lies and propaganda are not good people, and deserve all the sophomoric ribbing they get. But it looked to me like David, UK’s post was tongue-in-cheek. After all, his post was full of irony, replete with insults of his own…

      – Referred to them as “admittedly, strange looking people.”
      – Referered to Naomi Oreskes as a geezer with no facial hair.
      – Said “the other three look like they escaped from a lunative [sic] assylum [sic]”.

  26. Robertv says:

    We don’t need CO2 to create hell on Earth.


    “The drive to a cashless society is supported by the UN Capital Development Fund’s Better Than Cash Alliance which aims to accelerate the shift to electronic payments, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, MasterCard and Visa among others. But it’s Sweden that is blazing the trail.”

    We are moving toward a brain death Big Brother hell.

    Whatever happened to those Vikings?

  27. gator69 says:

    Christopher Monckton has compiled a list of Climate ‘Nazis’…

    2005: Margo Kingston, in Australia’s Daily Briefing, said: “Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”

    2006: Bill McGuire, at University College, London, said: “We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.”

    2006: The Grist.com website called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. The article was later retracted.

    2006: Heidi Cullen featured Dave Roberts, who said online, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” The remark was not later retracted.

    2006: Mark Lynas, a “green” columnist, wrote: “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”

    2006: Spiked Online reported that when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”

    2007: Ellen Goodman, in the Boston Globe, said: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

    2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

    2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

    2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

    2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

    2008: David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, said government leaders skeptical of global warming should be “thrown into jail”.

    2008: Alex Lockwood, a British journalism professor, said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

    2009: A writer at Talking Points Memo said global warming “deniers” should be executed or jailed. He later retracted this remark.

    2010: James Lovelock, inventor of the “Gaia hypothesis”, told The Guardian: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

    2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

    2010: A video from the “10:10 campaign” showed climate skeptic children being blown up by their teacher in class, and their classmates were spattered with their blood and guts.

    2011: An Australian journalist said climate skeptics should be “branded” with cattle-irons to mark them out from the rest of the population.

    2011: Another Australian journalist said skeptics should be “gassed”.

    2012: Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria, recommended the death penalty for skeptics. He later withdrew.

    2012: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Widener University School of Law, again declared that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

    2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

    2014: During a February cold snap, the New York Times ran a cartoon headed “Self-Destructing Sabers for Dispatching Climate-Change Deniers” and showing a climate skeptic being stabbed with an icicle.

    2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

    2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

    2015: Katie Herzog at Grist.com on 16 January wrote: “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.”

    2015: Comment on the webpage of the Brisbane Times about a category 5 cyclone along the Queensland coast on 19/20 February: “These type of weather events could happen further south in future and be more intense with global warming … if anyone has to suffer out of this one I hope it is a climate change denier, if anyone.” Downloaded from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-marcia-live-coverage-20150219-13iuaw.html.

    2015: The Australian Capital Territory’s Arts Fund gave $18,793 “to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, Kill Climate Deniers”.


    • Disillusioned says:

      …we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

      Sounds like the perfect treatment for purveyors of fraud, like Mike, Jim and Gavin, et al.

      • gator69 says:

        The real criminals, responsible for starving millions…

        The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases.[2] Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year.


        Bjorn Lomborg did the math, and what we spend on CAGW would feed, shelter and offer basic medical care to all the at risk children on Earth.

    • nutso fasst says:

      Think of all the GHGs that would be released. Is killing of climate deniers sustainable?

  28. Brian H says:

    Deniers: hypothetical deaths in the future.
    Believers: actual deaths in the present.

    Pick one.

  29. BruceC says:

    Has Gavin & Mikey ever been seen in the same room at the same time?

  30. David G. says:

    Arent two of them women?

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s