Today’s Featured Climate Criminals – The Daily Beast And The EPA

Most of the climate science community has confirmed that last week’s breaking study suggesting a coming freeze like nothing we’ve seen since the 17th century will account for little more than a blip on the climate radar.

These criminals have no idea what “most of the climate science community” believes. They are making up lies in support of their agenda.

A spokesperson for the EPA told The Daily Beast that “Major climate science assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Chapter, have stated that any cooling from a solar minimum would be much smaller in magnitude than projected warming due to increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.”

The IPCC has absolutely no clue what  a solar minimum might do to the climate.

The now infamous Maunder Minimum, which saw the likes of the Thames in London freezing over, had little to do with solar activity.

These criminals make claims like this, without any basis or alternative theory for what caused the cold during the Maunder minimum.

Dr. John Harte, who holds a joint professorship in the Energy and Resources Group and the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources at UC Berkeley, says it’s just not possible: “There’s just nothing in solar physics that tells us there’s a plausible mechanism for a change in solar output on the scale of, say, three degrees Celsius.”

Mini Ice Age Won’t Save Us From Global Warming – The Daily Beast

Three degrees Celsius?  These criminals simply make numbers up in support of their agenda. So far this century, troposphere temperatures have declined.

ScreenHunter_9939 Jul. 18 10.09

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

These people believe they can lie with impunity. I say their time for doing this is running out.


About stevengoddard

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

22 Responses to Today’s Featured Climate Criminals – The Daily Beast And The EPA

  1. emsnews says:

    In that article they also got rid of the Maunder Minimum pretending it was ‘local’ not planetary.

  2. omanuel says:

    These people have lied with impunity since Stalin emerged victorious from the ruins of Japan in possession of

    1. Japan’s successful atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea and
    2. The crew of an American B29 bomber he held for negotiations to

    Unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a giant Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Ssience (UN)Truths on 24 OCT 1945.

    • omanuel says:

      The United States NAS reviews budgets of federal research agencies, like the EPA, NASA, NOAA, DOE, etc., for Congress to make certain the projects of various research agencies are all supportive of the Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths.”

    • omanuel says:

      Federal agencies like NASA, EPA, DOE, etc. pretend concern for politically-correct, racial equality etc., but beneath this fascade their NUMBER ONE (#1) and ONLY agenda item is to HIDE FROM THE PUBLIC the pulsar-centered Sun – the CREATOR & SUSTAINER of every atom, life and planet in the solar system!

      This was illustrated in the research career of a black astrophysicist, Dr. Carl Rouse, probably the most intellectually honest and certainly one of the most abused astrophysicists of the past century.

      He received a PhD in astrophysics from CalTech in the late 1950’s, lived in LaJolla, CA with his lovely wife, and spent his career pointing out errors in the Standard Solar Model of a hydrogen-filled star.

      Here are a few of his papers:

      1964: “Calculation of stellar structure using an ionization equilibrium equation of state”, University of California, UCRL Report 7820-T.

      1969: “Calculation of stellar structure”, in Progress in High Temperature Physics and Chemistry 2, ed. C.A. Rouse, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 97-126.

      1975: “A solar neutrino loophole: Standard solar models”,Astronomy and Astrophysics 44, 237-240.

      1983: “Calculation of stellar structure. III. Solar models that satisfy the necessary conditions for a unique solution to the stellar structure equations”,Astronomy and Astrophysics 126, 102-110.

      1985: “Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 149, 65-72.

      1995: “Calculation of solar structure IV. Results using a detailed energy generation subroutine”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 304, 431-439.

      2000: “Inverse and forward helioseismology”, in Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations, ed. O. Manuel, Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, USA, pp. 317-344.

  3. mpcraig says:

    One part of forecasting future climate which is never really talked about (in my opinion) is natural variability. If you think you know the effects of CO2 and make a projection based on estimated emissions, you still need to add in natural variability.

    I’ve asked this many times with no satisfactory answer, where do the projections for future natural variaiblity come from? What are they? And when I ask about past natural variability the answer is just to subtract out the CO2 warming. This seems to be a circular argument to me. This is the kind of graph I am talking about: Where did that blue line come from and how do we know where it is heading?

    • gator69 says:

      One of the first things I ask of natural variability deniers is this.

      “List all climate forcings, order them from least to most effective, and then quantify them.”

      You would be surprised how many natural variability deniers acctually believe that this has been done. It is mind boggling.

  4. iurockhead says:

    “There’s just nothing in solar physics that tells us there’s a plausible mechanism for a change in solar output on the scale of, say, three degrees Celsius.”

    Deflection. He is saying the sun can’t get hot enough to do that. Agreed. But the theory is the sun’s magnetic field strength affecting cloud formation via cosmic ray intensity, which is the temperature controlling factor, as described by Svensmark. He knows better, I’m sure, but his statement is an easy deflection for the uninformed. Sheesh.

    • gator69 says:

      It is a lie.

      There are two kinds of lies, lies of commission, and lies of omission. By leaving vital information out of a statement, a lie of omission is created.

      • shazaam says:

        How do you classify the criminally incompetent climate modelers’ results?

        All of the computer-generated fantasy climate models to date, appear to be a witches brew of few facts (very few), tons of propaganda and a metric ton of assumptions wrapped up in a thin veneer of “science”.

        The Climate Modeling Teams neglect to mention they can’t model cloud cover (omission, natch) and conveniently always seem to get the results they expected (OK, commission)

        Looks like I answered my own question, never-mind.

      • Doug says:

        Lies of emission.

  5. gator69 says:

    Most of the climate science community has confirmed that last week’s breaking study suggesting a coming freeze like nothing we’ve seen since the 17th century will account for little more than a blip on the climate radar.

    A blip? Like 0.8C?

  6. Andy DC says:

    Translation: No matter how great the cooling, there is nothing that our “climate scientists” can’t eliminate with their creative “adjustments”.

    • What could possibly go wrong? says:

      There is in fact no possibility that anything happens which can not be incorporated into the “settled science”. Colder? We toldyaso. Warmer? We toldyaso. Wetter? We toldyaso. Drought? We toldyaso. Pay up to atone for your sins!

      The climate religion is a textbook example of a cultist circle jerk. The only difference to the usual fringe cults is that those come cheaper than “climatism”. Both in financial and human cost.

  7. Dmh says:

    We don’t need an entire new Maunder, just 10 years / 1 cycle of Maunder-level radiations, as predicted by Prof. Zharkova, would erase all warming of *the entire XX century*. Easily!
    If the El Nino of 2009-10 had not happened, we’d already be at 0.1 to 0.2 C below the beginning of the century,

    Present climate “science” is highly biased by the warming of the 1980’s and 90’s.

    The disconnect of these people from reality is baffling, they don’t see the step-change of temperatures after the ENSO of 1997-2001, they don’t see the decreasing intensities of El Nino’s in this century, the shortening of the present AMO+ phase, the recovery of the Arctic ice after 2008, the systematic increase of Antarctic ice, especially in the last 3 years, etc.

    They’re completely oblivious to reality and, of course, completely arrogant about their false knowledge.

    We (the skeptics) are still ahead of time in our predictions, the important cooling of this cycle starts next year and goes until the early 2020’s.
    It’ll be fun to watch their reactions.

    • omanuel says:

      They seek to stay in power by mis-educating the next generation.

    • LouMaytrees says:

      DMH, You don’t know how to read a graph do you? “If the El Nino of 2009-10 had not happened we’d already be at 0.1 to 0.2 below the beginning of the century.” The WFT graph shows a .05*C change over 14 years, so If the ’09 El Nino had not happened a WFT graph would show about a .06*C change averaged over 14 years, if even that much. You fake (skeptics) are still way behind your times in doing even the simple math.

      • Dmh says:

        You didn’t understand my comment, and I’ll not try to explain it to you, but for those that may have read it without a biased mind and may be confused by your meaningless comment, I’ll try to expand a little what I said.
        The model of Prof. Zharkova predicts a period of very low radiations from the Sun, similar to what happened in 2008-09 (two years) for no less than one entire solar cycle (11+ years).

        The RSS graph clearly shows the profound implications of low radiations for an extended period (measured in years, not just a few weeks or months).
        The oscillation downward of the anomalies in the 2008-09 period was comparable to the La Nina that followed the 1997-98 El Nino, but the ENSO of 2007 was much milder. Therefore, it seems clear to me that the additional cooling all came from the low radiative input from the Sun.
        However, the El Nino’s tend to push worlds temps upward, as happened in 2010, but in this case the following La Nina’s (of 2011 and 2012) were not strong enough to bring the temperature anomalies down to 2008 levels.

        Therefore, we may safely conclude that if the El Nino of 2010 didn’t happen, or if it had not been so strong, the world’s anomalies would be *easily* 0.1 to 0.2 C below the present levels.

        Now imagine what would happen if instead of just one period we had a repetition of 2008-09 for 11+ years in a row.
        I can imagine, in this case, a drop of 1 C during such a prolonged minimum, and this would bring Earth’s temperatures back to early 1800’s levels, typically LIA levels.

        • Gail Combs says:

          you can see the same sort of correlation in reverse. Not only has the current warming been beneficial it occurred as a Step-Change!

          Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years around 1850 — Naturally.

          An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

          At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

          At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.

          Dr. Evans Solar Notch-Delay Theory predicts a delay of about 11 years from a change in solar conditions to a change in earth climate.

          So what happened around 1840? Solar Cycle 8. It began in November 1833 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.3 and ended in July 1843. Max sunspot number ~210. The prior Solar Cycle 7,began in May 1823 with a smoothed sunspot number of 0.1 and ended in November 1833. Max sunspot number ~105. And thus began the Grand Solar Maximum, highest in 3,000 years which has just ended.

          In the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.” Their reconstruction of solar activity displays several “distinct features,” including several “well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD,” as well as “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” described as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”

          PAPER: Usoskin, I.G., Hulot, G., Gallet, Y., Roth, R., Licht, A., Joos, F., Kovaltsov, G.A., Thebault, E. and Khokhlov, A. 2014. Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity Astronomy and Astrophysics 562: L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423391.

          Also SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

          And in further news from Royal Astronomical Society (RAS):

          “Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 July 2015.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s