Global Warming Scam In Complete Collapse

The North Atlantic is experiencing record cold sea surface temperatures, and Greenland is experiencing its coldest summer and slowest melt season on record.

sst_anom

sst_anom.gif (800×600)

arcticomm_webcam (11)

arcticomm_webcam.jpg (640×480)

Scotland and Norway are experiencing record summer snowfalls.

ScreenHunter_2285 Jun. 06 07.51

ScreenHunter_2346 Jun. 09 08.33

Norweigan Resort Gets Pounded with 13 Feet of Snow in June | Transworld Snowboarding

Government climate scientists respond predictably by further tampering with temperature data, and claiming record warm sea surface temperatures.

ScreenHunter_2347 Jun. 09 08.35

no-slow-down-in-global-warming-web.jpg | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

These people are engaged in deliberate and blatant fraud, in order to push the President’s agenda ahead of the Paris Summit.

There is no hiatus. Temperatures are dropping and Earth is entering a cooling period.

ScreenHunter_2333 Jun. 08 08.22

It is critically important that Congress stops the fraudulent agenda of the White House and their stooges in government agencies who are creating fake data in support of it.

images (1)

About stevengoddard

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

76 Responses to Global Warming Scam In Complete Collapse

  1. omanuel says:

    May collapse of the AGW scam bring an end to a seventy-year worldwide crime against humanity . . .

    that started in 1945 with a NEWS BLACKOUT of battlefield victories by Stalin’s USSR troops in Manchuria and Korea in AUG-SEPT 1945 . . .

    frightening world leaders into uniting nations [UN] and formerly independent national academies of science [NAS] into an “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific Truths” on 24 Oct 1945:

    Click to access Introduction.pdf

    I.e., National Academies of Science were united worldwide to “save the world from nuclear annihilation” by forbidding public knowledge of the powerful force of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki: NEUTRON REPULSION in cores of atoms heavier than ~150 amu (atomic mass units) including URANIUM, PLUTONIUM, the Sun, the Milky Way and the Universe!

    • omanuel says:

      These are the irrefutable conclusions [1-3] of carefully “cherry picked” data that the National Academies of Sciences hid, manipulated or ignored after Stalin won WWII and united nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a giant “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific Truths:

      1. AGW is false: The Sun controls Earth’s climate
      2. SSM is a lie: Stars make and discard hydrogen
      3. BBC is false: The universe has no known limits
      4. SNM is a lie: Each neutron repels other neutrons

      Mainstream scientific literature evolved into scientific rubbish after nations and formerly independent national academies of science were united into an Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific Truths on 24 Oct 1945.

      References:

      1. “Solar Energy,” Adv. Astron. (submitted 1 Sept 2104; published privately 17 Mar 2015)

      Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

      2. “Supplement for Teachers” (published 30 Mar 2015) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supplement.pdf

      3. “Intro: Science for Teachers” (published 23 May 2015)

      Click to access Introduction.pdf

  2. rah says:

    Global warming: so totally over that not even Bilderberg will touch it
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/09/global-warming-so-totally-over-that-not-even-bilderberg-will-touch-it/

    “The key topics for discussion this year include:

    Artificial Intelligence
    Cybersecurity
    Chemical Weapons Threats
    Current Economic Issues
    European Strategy
    Globalisation
    Greece
    Iran
    Middle East
    NATO
    Russia
    Terrorism
    United Kingdom
    USA
    US Elections’

    Notice there is no “climate change” or “global warming” is on the agenda.

    • iClaudius says:

      I’m sorry to say that climate etc. are no on the agenda for the simple reason that the ‘fix is in place.’ That business is done, sorted. That’s to say, we’re screwed…

    • omanuel says:

      Bolderberg was very involved in promoting false information about the Sun fifty years ago [1].

      1. O. Gingerich and Cees De Jager, “The Bilderberg model of the photosphere and low chromosphere,” Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00154238

      • omanuel says:

        Correction: The Bilderberg actively promoted FALSE false information about the Sun fifty years ago [1].

        One of the authors became editor of a journal on solar physics for many years, invited me submit a review paper on the iron Sun in the 1990s, and after I submitted the paper and responded to questions, refused to publish the paper because he said other members of the editorial board would resign if he published irrefutable evidence the interior of the Sun is mostly iron rather than hydrogen.

        That is the way the Standard Solar Model was maintained.

        • Ted says:

          I read once, many years ago, that there were 2 possible solutions to the equation governing the output spectrum of the sun. The current model, and one in which the sun is mostly a hollow iron shell, with a relatively thin layer of hydrogen fusion surrounding it. The latter, I’d read, was dismissed out of hand, simply because the scientists couldn’t conceive of it. I read that at least 20+ years ago, so I can’t elaborate any further.

          I’ve been meaning to ask you if that’s in any way connected to the lies you so regularly speak of.

        • Ted,

          Note well that I don’t endorse everything in the web-page section that I’m linking to here, let alone to the whole page, but there are some very interesting nuggets of information that contain pointers to the truth.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Origin_of_nucleosynthesis

          Oliver often refers to Fred Hoyle’s solar model, which is referenced in the link as having been formulated in 1946. Oliver states that mainstream “science” was originally receptive to this, and then suddenly buried it, without debate or public discussion, in favor of the Standard Solar Model. Read the quotes from Hoyle and from William Alfred Fowler in that section of Hoyle’s article. If Oliver’s claims are correct, the implications for science, climate and energy supply are explosive! I wish I had the background to quickly evaluate his claims, but as it is I plod along at a slow pace. I’ve stated before that I think he may be on to something with some of his ideas, but I do find some of them problematic. Nonetheless, it seems to me that he deserves credit for exposing fraud within his field, fraud that appears to be directly pertinent to the present state of climate science.

        • omanuel says:

          Ted,

          Read pages 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s autobiography to see how consensus science opinions about the internal composition of the Sun changed abruptly from:

          1. Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945, to
          2. Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946, . . .

          without discussion or debate the opinions unanimously changed!

        • flow in says:

          mostly iron shell? That makes a lot of sense.
          There’s something about iron, the bottom of an element curve, where everything ends up unless there’s a heap of energy about. That’s the kind of thing you could validate by listening – the sound of an iron shell would be very different to the current, terrible, model.

  3. It’s been frigging cold here in Scotland so far this summer. If I were an alarmist this would be proof of global cooling. Instead, it’s just proof that we pay far too much in fuel bills as we still haven’t turned off the central heating and it’s now days away till to the summer solstice.

    • RMB says:

      I live in Glasgow and you are spot on. The reason is dead simple.It is not possible to put added heat through the SURFACE of water. Radiation will penetrate the SURFACE of water, you can float a pot on the SURFACE of water, but what you can not do is heat a gas and have that heat pass by convection through the SURFACE of water. Try it for yourself. Grab a bucket of water and put the wife’s hairdryer on full blast. You’ll get the shock of your life.

      • Ted says:

        That’s why they had to fix the surface temperatures. It’s been thoroughly proven by modern sciencmajistics that the Earth is getting warmer. (the tea leaves, the bones, even the séances all agree) Now that they’ve finally figured out that air can’t heat water without actually getting warmer itself, they had to look elsewhere for the missing heat. And they finally found it. It was hiding inside the coolant intake pipes on ships.

      • Thomas Kirby says:

        Dirty water heats up at the surface.

        • RMB says:

          How heavy is the dirt. Surface tension is strong enough to support the weight of a paper clip. If the dirt is heavier than that it will sink and be irrelevant, if it is light enough to be supported the surface tension is not neutralized and the water will not heat. to get heat through the surface of water you have to kill surface tension.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Here in West Lothian, 15 miles west of Edinburgh, we’re on our third day of continuous glorious sunshine, after a steady warming up over the past few weeks. 23 degrees outside. Loving it.

      Been taps aff for days
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Taps+aff

  4. “Global Warming Scam In Complete Collapse” – seriously, there’s not much media interest at all these days. I used to scan the online media websites daily looking for stories.

    Pre Climategate, I’d find everyone of the top one’s were alarmist – and I’d be virtually the only sceptic.

    Then post climategate, more and more sceptics appeared and a few papers starting coming out with sceptical stories.

    Then around about 2-3 years ago, we started getting days when there was a majority of sceptical stories. And more and more online forums were being over-run by sceptics.

    But finally this last year, most serious online sites have largely stopped running with stories on climate. Now, it’s the same boring predictable zealots like the Guardian (who have had to resort to banning sceptics to stop us dominating their forums) – and a few snooze-papers with cut-n-paste journalists presumably straight out of University where this madness must still be endemic.

    There’s so little “meat” left to the alarmists – and so many other sceptics commenting online that I feel superfluous to requirement – I guess that’s what victory feels like!

    • Winnipeg Boy says:

      my 16 year old daughter did a ‘Persuasive Argument’ speech in her 10th grade class. Figured she would do very well or get sent to the principals office for liberal blaspheme. She tied for highest mark.
      Even the schools are allowing free speech.
      Racketeering charge still pending I’m afraid.

      • Scottish,

        In the U.S., the number of alarmist stories is decreasing because they believe their opposition (i.e., us) is in its last throes. They may be right, but I pray we can muster enough strength and courage to see this through to the end.

        We haven’t even convinced skeptics yet of the data fraud, and so we’ve clearly got a huge challenge ahead of us. Our battle has barely begun.

        Winnipeg Boy, you’re right that there is more freedom of speech being allowed on CO2, but if we don’t seize the opportunity with concrete action and soon, we will find that that will be very fleeting. We’re being rope-a-doped right now, and quite frankly it astounds me that so few of the regulars at this blog can see it.

        I’ve been very shocked by this in the past couple of months. Many have dropped off the radar, and of those who’ve stayed on, there is a level of optimism about our current situation that far surpasses what is warranted.

        The next few months may prove decisive in whether we can reverse the inertia which is currently hurtling us (at least in the U.S.) toward a lasting victory for the climate alarmists.

        — Richard

        • Ted says:

          Richard-

          I’m not sure what you’re reading as optimism is really that. I suspect it’s closer to fatalism. Let’s face it. The United States government, the single most powerful entity humanity has ever seen, says that humans releasing CO2 are causing catastrophic warming. So they’re lying. What can anyone do about it? The power brokers will tolerate an occasional James Inhofe, mainly to keep the masses fighting amongst themselves. But they’ll never allow a president to hold such unacceptable views. And they certainly wouldn’t let one ACT on such views. It doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong. The game is rigged. The outcome has already been decided. That’s how they get away with now OPENLY changing the data. They’re actually bragging about this latest tampering event.

          But the memory hole is alive and well. Just two years ago, the feds announced to the world that they were going to start counting the number of people with health insurance differently, at the same time Obamacare would start. They freely admitted that this change would cause the number of people deemed insured to go up about 2%, purely from the methodological difference. Today, Obama hails a 2% increase in the number of insured as proof that his monstrosity is an unmitigated success. Just try pointing out his own administration’s admission that they were going to rig the numbers. See how far it gets you. This latest temperature fiasco will be exactly the same. Within a year, anyone claiming that this week’s data doesn’t match last week’s data, will be dismissed as a lunatic. We’ve reached the point where they don’t even have to hide their tampering from us. The media is perfectly happy to change the past for them. And you’re a stupidevilracistsexisthomophobicantisciencewacko if you question the new and improved version of history, or even notice that it’s changed.

          In the last 10 years or so, I’ve watched several friends transition from sheep, to a general understanding that we’re being lied to about much of the world. And most, having seen bits and pieces of the truth, have voluntarily retreated back to sheepdom. I can’t say I blame them. Once you start to understand how a few dozen well placed people can greatly alter the accepted narrative of reality, what’s the point of fighting it? That’s what the Bruce Jenner thing is all about. We are all to accept that reality is whatever we’re told it is. This was the quintessential man. In his youth, the greatest athlete on Earth. Father of six children. But we’re now told that, not only is he a woman, but he’s always been a woman. The NSA would never listen to our phone calls. Inflation has always been a necessary fixture of an economy. There was never a medieval warm period. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

          Sorry for the rant. Sometimes when you start, you just have to get it out. And I’ve seen too many friends give up the fight to believe that people are claiming victory en mass. I think they just know there’s nothing left to be done, short of armed rebellion., And since they’re not willing to do that, they see talking about it as a waste of energy.

        • I hear you loud and clear, Ted, except for one thing. I believe we haven’t exhausted our feasible options, and some of us, myself included, haven’t given up on the possibility of victory. In that range, lies a group of people who, I believe, might be convinced to carry on and increase the pressure. My perspective is that rebellion is not necessarily necessary, and until serious action has been tried and failed, anyone claiming otherwise is frankly engaging in self-absorbed navel-gazing. You of course are entitled to disagree with my perspective, but I look around and see reason to believe that success through political action is possible. I’d like to believe that you could be convinced that to give up before a single one of us has even hit the streets is a little is bit immature and misguided.

          I have some connections to Latin America, and I can tell you that with some of what my connections have been through (short of rebellion) just to secure their basic political rights from Marxist intervention, they would be flabbergasted by what they would see as unnecessary and premature surrender on display in your comment. Of course, they’re all too polite to tell you so, and beyond that, they’d be petrified to post so much as a “Hi how are you” on a blog like this. But nonetheless, that’s generally how they’d feel. And they’d be right.

        • Ted says:

          Richard-

          What actions do you recommend?

          I didn’t mean to imply that I’ve given up on anything. I was presenting the argument that I’ve been given by several friends, who have, in fact, given up. I wholeheartedly agree with their arguments, but not their conclusion. I simply don’t seem capable of accepting what I know to be false, regardless of what’s in my best interests. (I guess being single, with no children, makes it easier to stick to my beliefs) But that doesn’t mean I hope for war, either. If Americans were to revolt, I expect that it would get uglier than anything your Latin American friends ever saw. And history says that even successful revolutions rarely improve the situation. More often, things get worse. So I’m dead serious when I ask what you think can be done about the blatant rewriting of the temperature data. Or any other subject those in power are forcing on us, for that matter. I ask out of the genuine hope that you’re correct, because I have no idea what can be done.

        • Ted, what we need is to start with the basics: get a little organized, and then see where people “want to go today” to quote a well-known slogan.

          Options include petitioning Congress, petitioning the states, petitioning the “scientists” or their managers, large demonstrations e.g. at GISS, Penn State, or NCDC for starters; public meetings at which we present the facts to the curious and take questions; small demonstrations spread out over many locations; petitioning presidential candidates to let them know A) about the fraud, and B) that if they do nothing, they will have to contend with us disrupting their agenda while in office.

          Please note I have been a strong supporter of paper petitions because I believe they are more effective and more legally valid than online ones. But they also, of course, take more time.

          If people feel this is not enough and want more, the next step as I see it would be to start “crashing” alarmist events by showing up outside of them in a peaceful and lawful way, to let them know exactly how they are wrong and that we have the power to put a stop to their crimes.

          The final step would be bringing lawsuits for damages against the fraudsters. Because that one would be the most difficult and require the most number of people coordinating their actions, I save it for last.

          All of this could accomplished through a PAC, but need not necessarily be. Ideally we should prefer to avoid a PAC, but that may not be feasible as it would require careful coordination amongst people who would be spread out across the country, and may not even know each other very well.

    • Throughout Education, Pop Culture, the Mainstream Media, and Government at all Levels… Climate Change is STILL a big issue.. almost daily… They have moved beyond the debate and are enacting Policy every day based on this Fraud!!

      Sorry, I’ll have to completely disagree that we are winning.. sure.. a few Skeptic pieces here and there… but no movement, no follow-up, little pressure on Politicians to discard Climate Change..

  5. Elaine Supkis says:

    Here in the US the hysteria stories are daily. No comments allowed at most.

    Ever since the Washington Post was bought by a multibillionaire computer giant guy who lives on the warm west coast, we have seen a flood of global warming hysteria stories!

    This next winter will wake up even the most insane global warmists on the East Coast, I predict. Right now, they are still demonstrating and working hard demanding colder weather which we are getting in spades.

  6. I also live in Scotland in FIFE, and it is TRUE it has been exceptionally cold through May and June so far, until TODAY. Today the 9th June is the very best weather with the temperature at around (18C) which is the highest temperature that we have seen for a very long time. This year of 2015 I can count on one hand the number of days with temperatures over 18 degrees centigrade. But even now it is likely to get cold at night time and FROSTS have still been threatened by the BBC for this week.
    The Jet-Stream is finally moving further north. But for how long? You can see on my website:- http://www.outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk/412195486
    Best Wishes,
    Steve

    • Dave1billion says:

      Does this late snow and frost affect agriculture (specifically crops) up there?

      Are late frosts common enough there that you can’t plant crops that are subject to frost damage?

    • bit chilly says:

      hi stephen, another fifer here . we certainly are not seeing any of the record temps we were promised by the met. i have to say uk forecasts have deteriorated beyond the pale in the last few years.

  7. mogur2013 says:

    Got enough cherries for a pie, yet, Tony? It’s getting a little irritating to see you keep posting that same cherry-picked rss graph, which you claim supports your notion that the earth has been cooling this century. No, it hasn’t. Why don’t you post the woodfortrees graph for the entire century, including the year 2000? Because if you did you wouldn’t have cooling anymore…
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1999/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:2011/trend

    As you can see, the slope of a linear trend of a cyclic function is very sensitive to the selection of the starting point of that trend. But then, you already know that, since you call climate experts stupid for showing a 35 year long trend in arctic ice, but it’s perfectly fine for you to show a linear trend in a cherry-picked 14 year cycle of a cherry picked version of a satellite lower troposphere temperature dataset. Is the other satellite dataset fraudulent? Are Cristy and Spenser part of the criminal conspiracy?

    It is actually entertaining to watch alarmists flapping their wings, and I appreciate it when you point out the fallacies in their chicken little routines. But when you start clucking, too…
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/remedial-mathematics-for-dimwitted-climate-experts/
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/the-long-term-trend-towards-scientific-stupidity/

    • Dave1billion says:

      Newspapers, press releases and White House web sites constantly pound us with quotes like ‘Arctic Ice since 1979 …’ , ‘Temperatures/rainfall since 1958 … “, ‘ … droughts this year …’

      Anyone with any sense realizes that even citing weather over the last 150 YEARS is cherry picking a time-frame when you really think about it.

      Tony is making a point when he does these posts, and provides a counterbalance to the “Chicken Little” alarmists. Tony’s arguments, sometimes using methodology similar to the other side’s, undercuts their argument. Any argument against the methodology likewise undercuts their argument.

      Is the only alternative to say “We know that ALL data that anyone can cite is cherry-picked rubbish, so we should just shut up, pack it in, go home, and let their calls to fundamentally change civilization go unanswered”?

      • mogur2013 says:

        You don’t find it the slightest bit disingenuous to rail against the methodology that one is using, oneself? I claim no superior ethics, but I can at least consider the validity of one’s argument that appears to be driven by the answer rather than the question.

        • Dave1billion says:

          It’s only disingenuous if you try to hide it and say that there is no room for skepticism.

          Yesterday, Tony made a post tracking a man’s height from birth to age 60 to illustrate the fallacy.

          I’d say it’s disingenuous (to be kind) to make a mocking post, including the telltale “so you’re saying that everyone is in on the conspiracy” and end it with a few lines insinuating that you’re a skeptic.

        • mogur2013 says:

          @Dave1billion
          Oh no, in reference to Christy and Spenser, I was making the opposite point, since I know that they are respected by Tony. I was actually saying, I know you think Christy and Spenser are NOT in on the CAGW conspiracy, so why don’t you accept their satellite dataset? I wasn’t mocking anyone. And yes, I am a true skeptic. By definition, my mind has yet to reach any conclusion, and I am skeptical towards all evidence.

          Anyone that thinks they have the answer to these questions is either a believer or a denier. I happen to still be a skeptic.

    • Ted says:

      mogur2013-

      The 21st century does not include 2000. It started with the year 2001. If you want to accuse someone of lying by omission, perhaps you should start with the proper definition of what he’s saying. If Tony were to include years from the last century, he could just as easily start in 1998, instead of 2000. But you’d call that cherry picking, wouldn’t you?

      And more generally, on a related subject, how was it determined that these new adjustments should start when they did? Did we start measuring temperatures differently in that year? Unless we did, it seems to me that these adjustments should go back along the entire record, and have little to no effect on the 15 year trend. Does anyone have a link to a free version of this paper I can read?

      • mogur2013 says:

        I stand corrected. You are absolutely right about the starting year of the 21st century. I live and learn, grin.

        Of course, here’s my but… As I show by my graph, the starting year greatly influences the slope of a linear trend that is less than few decades long. The ONLY way to show a cooling trend is to pick a short enough time interval, pick the only dataset that agrees with ones desired point, and/or a ‘convenient’ starting year. I never accused Tony of lying. I said he ‘cherry picked’ the data to demonstrate his conclusion that “the Earth is entering a cooling period”.

        Look at the UAH dataset. Look at other datasets. Look at several decades of recent data. Just look at the entirety of the data available. Don’t look at what alarmists want you to focus on. Don’t look at what deniers want you to focus on. Look at the widest range of data that is available. I believe the truth lies between the extremes.

        • What I look at is real, unadjusted temperatures in the United States, as well as record-setting snow and ice events across the globe. For me, these data taken as a whole preset a picture of the coldest mean temperature in my lifetime … and I was around in 1975.

        • rah says:

          the “truth” lies where the “truth” is and has nothing to do with where who ever or how many proclaim it to lie.

          The “truth” is that there is absolutely no evidence the climate or the weather we are experiencing is “unprecedented” or even close to being outside the parameters of natural variations as far as the historic records show and paleo evidence implies. There is absolutely no observable hard evidence in nature that man is causing catastrophic global climate change. End of story as for CAGW! Thus end of story for any logical justification for any government to be involved in trying to negate something that is not proven and for which there is no good evidence after all these years of trying even exists.

        • Ted says:

          Cherry picking is lying by omission. It’s the very definition of the phrase.

          As to other data sets, you’re correct that they all disagree. And that’s the problem. The satellite data and the surface data are irreconcilable. We’re told that last year was the warmest ever. But UAH and RSS both show it as exceptionally ordinary. It’s not the actual temperatures that matter, or even the trends, when comparing two data sets. It’s the consistency. The satellite data has been diverging from the surface data for almost 20 years, and at an accelerating rate. More importantly, that divergence is continuing to grow, even in the past. We were told just a few days ago that the surface data has been wrong for almost 20 years, but they’ve fixed it now. This is on top of the numerous other times they’d already fixed the same data. And always in the same direction. There is never an adjustment to the surface data that lowers the trend. The odds against that happening by pure chance are astronomical. Even higher, when you take into account the fact that there are far more potential warming biases than cooling ones. The satellite data, on the other hand, has been adjusted in both directions. And rarely. And always with an explanation of what the problem was, and what has been done to correct the problem that necessitated the adjustment. For the surface data, they’re content to just keep measuring it wrong, and add in a bunch of adjustments. That’s not science.

          For the record, I couldn’t care less whether it’s getting warmer, or colder, or staying the same. The warm mongers have no workable solutions, so it doesn’t matter. CO2 will continue to rise, rapidly, throughout the foreseeable future. Even if the most extreme predictions prove to be true, people would rather adapt to the changes, than voluntarily reduce the quality of their lives. This whole argument, at least from my point of view, is about the integrity of science. I can think of no other field in which raw data is literally ERASED in lieu of adjusted data, which East Anglia says they’ve done. As far as I’m concerned, that disqualifies every last bit of research coming from them, and from anyone who defended them for it.

          Yes, Tony presents the data which he thinks will best make his point. Doesn’t almost everyone? (oddly, Carl Mears plainly doesn’t) I doubt you’ll find anyone on this site who ONLY looks at Tony’s numbers. We come here because he sheds a bit of light on the blatant fraud that goes in to some of this research. I apologize for jumping to condemn you for accusing Tony of cherry picking, but it’s become a mindless, catch-all rebuttal to every claim. And in honest science, even cherry picked data needs to be explained. Particularly when it comprises close to half the data set, as it does in the RSS case. And of course, every data set showed a marked slowdown in warming over that period, until this latest claim that the surface data has been wrong for two decades.

          And while you’re correct about looking at all the data, which I certainly do, I disagree with your assertion that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Data is either fraudulent, or it isn’t. There is no middle ground.

    • Tony B says:

      Agree with you to some extent, especially in support of an argument with a long term trend. However, when the CAGW proponents had a hockey stick, an IPCC prediction and a PR campaign that indicated something similar to an SR-71 take-off flight path from 1998, with predictions of fire and brimstone, tipping points and points of no return in the very near future, any leveling or downward trend is indicative of something seriously wrong. These same proponents stated the leveling would not last longer than 7, no; 10, no; 14, no; 17 years. I don’t see that as cherry picking to rebut that argument and a simple presentation of evidence that their predictions are wrong. It seems quite fair and logical to me.
      What you and some proponents of CAGW are trying to do is twist the argument. Tony is just throwing bombs indicating the hypothesis is wrong. What you’re suggesting is that Tony and other skeptics have their own hypothesis and are trying to prove it. As far as I can tell…they don’t. All they need to do is prove the CAGW hypothesis wrong and it’s being especially easy to do that at the present time.

      • mogur2013 says:

        Okay, I give you that. Well said. (Except the part about me being with the CAGW crowd, and twisting the argument.)

        I am not suggesting that Tony has his own hypothesis and is trying to prove it. Read his original post, above… “These people are engaged in deliberate and blatant fraud, in order to push the President’s agenda ahead of the Paris Summit.
        There is no hiatus. Temperatures are dropping and Earth is entering a cooling period.”

        Tony is stating his hypotheses, himself. He doesn’t need me to accuse him of that. His hypotheses include, in fact, way more than scientific ponderings. They are undeniably political in nature, as well. There is no place in science for politics, from either side of this issue.

        • Tony B says:

          I didn’t mean to put you in the CAGW crowd. I see where you are coming from with the last paragraph. Thanks.

        • Your position implies that if the professional “scientists” go full-bore political, we have no right to be political in response. Even if doing so is the only way to shut down their lies.

        • mogur2013 says:

          @Richard
          If professional “scientists” go full-bore political, they are not scientists. And you have every right to be as political as you choose, of course (this is America, damn it). We are all political to one extent or another, but anyone full-bore political (like Al Gore, Roger Moore, or Jim Inhofe), can not claim to be an impartial scientist. Rail all you want against full-bore politicians, that is your right. But you’ll need quality evidence to refute scientists (without the quotes).

        • Tony has posted irrefutable evidence of cooling hundreds of times.

        • mogur2013 says:

          Thank the Lord, there finally is irrefutable evidence of cooling. This should rock the scientific world. [Okay, NOW I am mocking… can you blame me?]

        • You’re right, it should! We mock because apparently it doesn’t. Where is the tsunami of scientists to exhort the government to reverse their GW policies?

        • rah says:

          mogur2013 says:
          ………Rail all you want against full-bore politicians, that is your right. But you’ll need quality evidence to refute scientists……….”

          Ha! Or just looking out the window and paying attention to the available information. “Scientists” predicted continuing drought in Texas and even another dust bowl. What happened?
          “Scientists” predicted the global temperature to be much higher than it is now because of CO2 and it isn’t.
          Some “scientists” predicted that Atlantic hurricanes, and N. American tornado, and wildfires incidence and/or severity would increase. And in fact they have decreased.
          Some “scientists” predicted that the Antarctic sea ice would decrease. It has increased.
          Some “scientists” predicted that population would outstrip food production. Instead we have more calories per capita on this earth than every before for several years running.
          Some “scientists” predicted that the skiing industries in the Scotland and the US would be severely damaged. What happened?

          Every prediction and the facts that demonstrably falsify them I have stated are on the internet and some on the nightly news or what people can see for themselves.

        • mogur2013 says:

          Sorry, I’ll never mock a turtle again.

        • Just remember, it’s turtles all the way down.

        • rah says:

          Any one that would mock a turtle in the first place is a fool.

          What was said that would happen has not. Not a single substantive thing! Global Sea level rise rate has not increased. There has been no “tipping point” with temperatures rising outside of natural variation. Coral Reefs in general seem to be doing fine. The NW passage is not open and does not look like it will be this summer. The Polar bears are doing fine. Antarctic sea ice is breaking records regularly.

          NOTHING substantive that they with their models predicted has come to pass except CO2 levels which are actually a little above predicted values for this time. Name one thing that should cause anyone to be alarmed about global temperatures or climate based on actual observations of the physical world.

        • mogur2013 says:

          I guess the whole mock turtle soup thing went over some peoples heads. Sorry, my fault. Just know that I don’t disparage anyone. And I mean ANYONE. I appreciate all people that want to know what is real. I am struggling with these questions with the best and the worst of us. I hope I am not on the ‘worst’ list. I want to be on the reasonable list.

        • Beale says:

          The whole idea of CAGW is political, down to its roots, The IPCC is a political body; the ‘I’ stands for ‘Intergovernmental’. The point of CAGW is always control and the destruction of freedom.

  8. Robertv says:

    Congress is not gone stop the fraudulent agenda. There is someone who knows all their little secrets. No one will speak out. Rotten until the bone.

  9. AntiLieGuy says:

    So all this global warming and climate change bullshit and not one mention of Planet X, which is causing all of this. That is what the chemtrails sprayed every day globally for the past decade have been hiding. Because of this, your evil government is going to start WW3 the same day as the next false flag using a nuke to invade Iran. That same day amerikka-the-stupid will be annihilated by Russia, China and the SCO. All planned centuries ago by the “gods” (slavedrivers) who made us to be primitive workers to mine gold for them. Now theyre back, theyre going to have us wipe out each other then take the gold. The sheeple are sooo stupid.

  10. TimeToWakeUpAmerica says:

    The TRUTH always wins out, in the end.

    Find out who, exactly, is behind ALL the “globalist” memes, from “man-made” “global warming” – oops! – “climate change”, to “gun control”, the “war on drugs”, the “war on terror”, the coming global economic collapse, the “war on cash”, and more, here:

    X22 Report: Central Bankers Can’t Stop The Economic Collapse Instead They Will Cover It Up
    http://sgtreport.com/2015/01/x22-report-central-bankers-cant-stop-the-economic-collapse-instead-they-will-cover-it-up/

    Read ALL comments. Click on ALL links. Read, view, listen to ALL content.

    • TimeToWakeUpAmerica says:

      In 1991, the Club of Rome published a document, entitled The First Global Revolution, and on page 75, it states: “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill… The real enemy then is humanity itself.” Via deception, they have tricked many naive people via their MSM (Mainstream Media) into believing that humanity itself is the cause of “global warming” or “climate change”, when, in fact, these climate changes are natural, and cyclical, and occur independent of human beings, often over long periods of time. The Club of Rome is a Cecil Rhodes Roundtable Group. Cecil Rhodes had a connection with the Rothschilds.

  11. tabnumlock says:

    I’m sure a new enviro-scam is in the works.

  12. AntiLieGuy says:

    youre keeping the truth from the sheeple you evil bastard! Youre a treasonous piece of shit. Enjoy your Russian nukes you evil bastard, you deserve it!

  13. I posted the following comment on this same article over at Tony’s realclimatescience.com :

    =========================================================
    Nevertheless, I am confident that Obama and his adoring, outraged bots all over the Earth will find a way to blame the incessant cooling on ‘carbon pollution’ and ‘evil deniers’.

    Congress is a creature unto itself. It takes a special level of denial to know the truth about these lies that Tony has presented above, and do nothing about it.

    They deny, not only the power of an enraged electorate to remove them from office and discredit them in other ways … but also the serious consequences of their refusal to act.

    Therefore it is on the people to fill the political vacuum with action of their own .. action of a nature that the Congress should have taken by now, but clearly refuses to.

    This is not just a prerogative of ours, but our civic responsibility, at which we also thumb our nose every day that passes without serious action by us.

    — Richard T. Fowler

    =========================================================

  14. cfgj says:

    Looks like Arctic warming has affected the jet-stream so now “sticky” weather-patterns are more probable than before. Welcome to the new normal!

    • rah says:

      Yea, it’s never been 88 degrees with 80% humidity in mid June in central Indiana before (sarc)

    • gator69 says:

      What was the old “normal”? Dinosaurs, or continental glaciers? Please do enlighten us!

      • spren says:

        What’s amazing, Gator, is that although I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s which are reputed to be among the coldest decades of the 20th century, the summers were still very hot and amazing. We would have extremely cold winters with great amounts of snowfall, but when the seasons changed, they changed. But we didn’t have “wind chill” or air conditioning so we had no choice but to adapt to both extremes.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Oh you silly fool.

      Don’t you realise that the Arctic was substantially warmer during most of the last 10,000 years?

      Don’t you realise that we are only a molehill out of the coldest period for those last 10, 000 years !

      We NEED some more warming, and certainly a LOT MORE atmospheric CO2, if photosynthesis, which is the source of all food on Earth, is going to keep up with population growth.

    • tommy says:

      Funny how this “sticky” weather of the jet stream behaviour seems to happen during periods of low solar activity and cooling temperatures.
      The jet streams have also on average moved southwards while the warmists predicted that they would continue to move northwards which they have done for decades until they suddenly started moving southwards conciding with the modern grand solar minimum.

  15. bit chilly says:

    fantastic news for the fish populations of the north atlantic,and of course those who fish for them .

  16. Robertv says:

    What is it that makes people go to the ‘Dark Side’ ?

    Money, fame, power, fear, hope ?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bon-jovi-host-fundraiser-hillary-clinton-n-home-article-1.2252061

  17. Beale says:

    A question: why do you use a picture of Colin Powell? What does he especially have to do with it?

    • It’s not so much who is in the photo, as what he is holding up, and why, and what he later had to say about the whole matter. This is a reminder of the level of contempt that our civil government holds us in on a constant basis.

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