100% Consensus

Among satellites which study Earth’s temperature, 100% of them agree that Earth is not warming.

ScreenHunter_3316 Sep. 29 09.01

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

ScreenHunter_3320 Sep. 29 09.51


By contrast, 100% of climate models are wrong.


Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

So how do climate experts respond to this?  They ignore the best data we have from satellites, and rely on completely worthless climate models.

About stevengoddard

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

29 Responses to 100% Consensus

  1. Andy DC says:

    Since 100% of their funding is dependent on global warming, 100% of climate scientists are going to agree that there is global warming.

  2. Latitude says:

    Is there any proof the LIA ended in 1850??

    If it ended in 1990….there’s been no global warming since the end of the LIA

  3. Steve Case says:

    Curve fitting worked up to 1998. They could go back to more curve fitting to make it all come out to 2015 observations, but then they would have admit that there hasn’t been much if any warming.

  4. catweazle666 says:

    Steve, have you any data from the balloons and other atmospheric temperature measuring technologies?

    Presumably, for fairly obvious reasons they would be at least as relevant as the satellites?

  5. Henry P says:


    I am not happy with UAH

    My own [3] data sets say it is cooling at about 0.01K per annum since 2000.

    RSS seems to come closer to my results.

    Either way, it is a small amount,

    so nobody really sees or feels a difference.

    • justanotherpersonii says:

      UAH version 6.0 Beta gives a trend much more similar to that of RSS’s. See this pre-paper for information about it: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf.

      • Henry P says:

        If I look at my own data set, I also get 0,010K/annum since 1980.
        However, if I look from 2000 I get -0.01K/annum
        That means we started crossing a point some time around 1995
        as can be seen also at the change in rate of minimum temperatures

        This graph also shows that there is no AGW as it should affect minima, showing up some chaos.
        but there is no chaos. It is a 100% correlation on a random sample, balanced by latitude. (balancing on longitude is not important as long as we look at K/annum )

        • justanotherpersonii says:

          I would refrain from saying there is “No AGW”, as virtually all climate scientists have come to that conclusion, but, as with all sciences, there is a slim chance that everything we think we know may be wrong.

        • Henry P says:

          Hi just another person
          you say
          I would refrain from saying there is “No AGW”, as virtually all climate scientists have come to that conclusion, but, as with all sciences, there is a slim chance that everything we think we know may be wrong.

          In fact, during my investigations I did come across some results that do look like AGW, namely the large increase in minima in Las Vegas, from 1973-2014, where they turned a desert into a green oasis.
          Then I also came across a large drop in minima in Tandil, Argentine, from 1973-2014. I found out that this is where they chopped the trees, in great numbers…..
          What does that tell you?

          More vegetation traps heat, less vegetation causes cooling.
          Which one is more, AGW or AGC?
          From my results, it looks that the positives cancel out the negatives.
          AGW or AGC is immeasurably small compared to the heat from the natural process on the Sun.

        • justanotherpersonii says:

          I don’t have the expertise to say if the positives cancel out the negatives, but the point of the greenhouse effect is that the greenhouse gases harness the heat of the natural processes from the sun and keep some of it from escaping to space.
          Most every notable skeptic agrees with the notion that CO2 can cause warming, e.g. S. Fred Singer, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Henrik Svensmark, David Douglass, Petr Chylek, Craig Loehle, Nic Lewis, Paul Knappenberger, etc.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Henry, I think WFT still uses UAH5.6

      UAH 6 shows a tiny negative trend since 2002

  6. AndyG55 says:

    A bit of something to have a chuckle at. They probably got paid to produce this. !


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