Night Of The Living Dead Climate Treaty

NASA’s James Hansen started the modern climate scam, as well as the practice of altering temperature data to make it better support his brainless CO2 superstition. He gave thousands of interviews while Bush was president, to tell the press that he was being censored from talking to the press. And now Hansen’s back, eating other climate zombies.

The scientific community agrees on a crucial fact: we must leave most remaining fossil fuels in  the ground, or our children and future generations are screwed.

By “the scientific community agrees” he means himself, Bill McKibben, Leonrdo DiCaprio and the mouse in his pocket. And then he launches an assault on the equally brainless Barack Obama.

Yet Obama is not proposing the  action required for the essential change in energy policy direction, even though it would make  economic sense for developed and developing countries alike, especially for the common person.  How can such miserable failure of political leadership be explained, when Obama genuinely  wants climate policy to be one of his legacy issues?

A prelude of Paris deceit is shown by Chart 3, a press conference with John Podesta, once czar of  Obama’s climate policy, and Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz. They express optimism on the Paris  summit, citing an agreement of the U.S. and China to work together to develop carbon capture  and storage (CCS). That spin is so gross, it is best described as unadulterated 100% pure bullshit.

He got a couple of things right. Obama is a failure and catastrophic Mann-made global warming is unadulterated 100% pure bullshit.

About stevengoddard

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

100 Responses to Night Of The Living Dead Climate Treaty

  1. mogur2013 says:

    So, what’s the deal with Exxon scientists? They publish in peer-reviewed publications. They are extremely well respected. They are paid by Exxon. They get absolutely no money from Obama, the government, France, Uganda, aliens, leprechauns, Al Gore, NASA, NOAA, the Icelandic Scientific Counsel, the Danish prune council, Putin, Rasputin, Rapunzel, or Elvis, the king of rock and roll.

    And they universally agree with the 97% of other climate scientists about AGW. Exxon-paid scientists agree 100% with the position of government (and private) scientists in 53 peer-reviewed papers.

    Who are you going to believe? Exxon scientists or Exxon propagandists? Your choice. Think before you decide. Government research grants aren’t the problem. Exxon spokespeople aren’t the problem. Exxon isn’t the problem. The problem is you. The problem is you aren’t willing to fairly decide this issue. The truth isn’t absolute, and you don’t need to be, either. You just have to be willing to face the truth honestly. Don’t hide behind acceptability. Don’t hide behind political correctness, or it’s converse. If the government scientists are lying to you, then every single scientist that is paid by Exxon is also lying to you.

    Look, let’s be completely honest. Al Gore is fat, ugly, obnoxious, and a tool. But that neither makes Tony Heller handsome, nor right. Evaluate the evidence, judge the source, and make your own decisions. If certain protagonists agree with your world view, that does not make them right. Join the 100% of Exxon scientists that say that we just may have a climate problem. You are neither chicken little nor leghorn foghorn.

    • Did you lie in wait to post this? Hansen and Gore are two different people. Check you prescription.

    • Hey Mogur, here is the truth.

      1. CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere. Well, the first 20 ppm warms the atmosphere, anything above that doesn’t do much, and when I say “much” I mean any more than a negligible amount when compared to the climate variables.

      2. Sea level rise is linear over the past 150 years and not accelerating, and does not reflect any change due to human activity.

      3. Glacier melting (repeat what I just said about sea level rise)

      4. CO2 levels during the current million-year period are the lowest they have ever been in the entire 4.6 billion year history of the earth. If CO2 goes too low, all life on earth will be extinct. Humans are doing a great service to the planet by raising it to normal levels.

      5. The people who are promoting AGW alarmism are not scientists. They are morons. For example, they say ocean acidification will melt sea shells, and ignore the fact that fossil sea shells are found in rocks that are 400,000,000 years old, when CO2 was 20 times higher than today.

      6. The people promoting AGW lie through their teeth with every word from their lips, and every jot and tittle that comes from their keyboards. Bald face lies, every single time.

      7. You are an idiot.

      • mogur2013 says:

        The truth. Yes, I am a complete idiot. And Exxon scientists are also idiots? They tend to disagree with your other six points. But you can not justify the evil American government as conspirators unless you also disparage Exxon scientists as co-conspirators, can you?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Yes, I am a complete idiot”

          YES !! You are.

        • I have no idea what Exxon scientists say, but I do know that your Circle of Willis nourishes no brain tissue.

        • rah says:

          So many times when someone with any authority ever said something about climate change that the alarmists didn’t like they were accused of being paid by “Big Oil” even when they weren’t. And the credibility of those that had actually received “Big Oil” funding for their research were lower than whale dung. Now all of a sudden authorities that were actually being paid by “Big Oil” said something like the alarmists like and they mistakenly believe bolsters their argument they are excellent credible and unbiased sources.

          Personally I never gave a damn what “Big Oil” or their scientists said about climate change because the hypothesis has already be falsified.

          But thank you so much for my belly laugh this evening. Now I’ll go back to watching Myth Busters.

    • john says:

      Mogur…..sounds like booger and ogre….and homogur maybe seeing that it looks like your information comes from that dingleberry headquarters skeptical science with rhe little rainbow up in the corner who say that the Exxon scientists agree 100 percent with the expert consensus. Maybe 100 percent of Exxon scientists changed their minds when they found out that the temperature record was being rewritten by dishonest government scientists because the real temperature record showed little or no evidence for manmade warming. According to the textbook geology, the warming and melting of ice in recent decades has been caused by the highly elevated seismic activity which has released as much heat as having two sons in the sky for a month.

      • mogur2013 says:

        You have a point, finally. I am a booger and an ogre. 100 percent of Exxon scientists totally agree with you. They looked into my life and decided that I am a homogur. They changed their minds when you decided to disparage me. Thank you for discussing the relevant science. It is slightly amazing that they suddenly decided that the temperature record was something that they ignored until you mentioned it. They are climate scientists, and why would they even pay attention to the ‘real’ temperature record by dishonest government scientists?

        I’m sorry that you have two sons in the sky, as I hoped that you only had one. If that makes sense to you, then we don’t have more to talk about. I am not an idiot, I know that you were talking about two suns, but come on, you are not illiterate, you just want to want what you want. I just want you to be…… better.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “You have a point, finally”

        Well certainly don’t.

        You haven’t produced one single bit of sensible comment in the whole few months you have been here.

        NAD, NOTHING…. ZIP !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “You just have to be willing to face the truth honestly.”

      Yet you absolutely REFUSE to do so.

      You totally ignore the TRUTH that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in any climate indicator since untainted temperature records started in 1979.

      You totally ignore every bit of evidence that AGW IS A SCAM.

      So please, don’t come trying to preach to others about facing the truth when all you have ever produced is propaganda lies and misinformation.

      …… you can’t handle the truth !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Lobos puts this Exxon nonsense into proper context. A fun read. 🙂

      I particularly like these parts..

      “Is the presence of one alarmist enough to turn your company or institution into a company or institution that “officially knows” about all the idiotic fearmongering and is obliged to behave as an institutionalized champion of the climate alarm? If that’s so, I would surely recommend every sane company or institution to fire or eradicate every single employee who is at risk of being aligned with the environmentalists now or those in the future.”

      “We just can’t afford this climate alarmist scum to stay in our companies. Climate alarmism is apparently toxic even at very low concentrations. They are the real poison that we have to remove unless we want the future of the mankind to be crippled.”

      • Gail Combs says:

        OH, WOW!

        GEE, Back in that time period I worked for a company that owned a company that ranks among Canada’s largest petroleum companies. I was very focal about “IT’s the SUN STUPID!” The company fired me. Does that make the company GREEN?

    • AndyG55 says:

      And of course there is the obvious conclusion that the Exxon scientists were WRONG, because they followed to so-called “consensus”..(Consensus is NOT science).

      They could not have “known” because it wasn’t the truth.

      There was no evidence at that stage.. just like here is no evidence now.

      There is no CO2 warming signature in any reliable data. NONE.!

      The Exxon executives were totally correct to ignore the alarmist rant of a consensus follower at the beginning of the “global warming”.. whoops, not happening, let’s change it to “climate change” scam.

    • NoMoreGore says:

      It’s Foghorn Leghorn, one of many things you got backwards. Exxon is playing both sides of the issue…. why would that be hard to understand?

  2. Robertv says:

    A brown shirt attacking dear Leader ?

  3. David Cameron says:

    Why on earth would I join “the 100% of Exxon scientists that say that we just MAY have a climate problem”? The 97% scientific consensus is a proven lie. If you look at where that number actually came from it is actually 1/3 of 1% but the lie continues for years.

    • mogur2013 says:

      And you think that 1/3 percent of one percent of climate scientists believe there is a problem? That certainly defines your position, but I beg to differ.

      • Climate scientists are not scientists. They never studied science.

        • mogur2013 says:

          Scientists that never studied science. Really? That is your supposition?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Why did you drop off the “climate”.. I guess you know why 😉

          More Git being deceitful as usual.

        • Climate science is no more science than political science is. These people are political activists who studied courses like “Humanities 103, Climate and Man” on a pass/fail basis. The curriculum is “Science Technology and Society” or STS. Real scientists think STS means “Shoot The Shit”.


          That is what they all studied. They never needed to take one single hard-science course to get a degree in STS and move on to get a PhD in climate science. No math, no freshman physics. These people are science ignoramuses. I mean really. Total idiots.

        • NoMoreGore says:

          Morgan, I didn’t realize that progstania had taken this part of study to such a low, but I looked, and it appears you’re correct. How better to mold impressionable minds into the Proletariat than by morphing science into “Social Science”. Below is a description of one of the CORE requirements of a masters in klimate koo koo at NYU:

          Quantitative Models of Climate–Sensitive Natural and Human Systems
          This course is intended to equip students with an understanding of how climate-societal and intra-societal relationships can be evaluated and quantified using relevant data sets, statistical tools, and decision models. In addition to exercising statistical techniques, students perform simple decision model experiments and evaluate the results.

          climate-societal ?

  4. markstoval says:

    The James Hansen and Carl Sagan theory on CO2 is pure swill. If CO2 went up to 1500 ppm in the atmosphere there would be no warming because of that increase. But let us suppose that we did get warming (just for augment sake), … so fracking what?

    I submit that only good could come of a 5 degree Celsius increase which is at the very top end of projections. Heck, I think 10 C up would be fine. All warming would be at the poles with much milder nights and winters in the northern US. What is not to like?

    • gregole says:

      Testimony to the success of the Mann-Made Global Warming Scam that a small increase in temperature – which would simply insure more good weather – is somehow, man-made, happening, and bad. Amazing propaganda success. Simply breathtaking.

  5. mogur2013 says:

    correction… 1/3 of one percent, sorry.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The Doran Zimmerman 97% Consensus asked two questions.
      The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” (Most of us here at Steven Goddard’s would agree that it has warmed since the Little Ice Age)

      The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (So exactly what is ‘significant’? Does it include land use changes or only CO2 like the UN framework defines?)

      10,257 survey questionaires asking these two questions were sent to members of the American Geophysical Union. Of these 10,257 earth scientists, 3,146 returned the survey. 82% answered “yes” to the second question. But that wasn’t ALARMING ENOUGH So the authors used a tiny subset of 79 who published in ‘climate science’ and of those picked 76 answered warmed to the first question and 75 answered yes to the second. So 75 of 79 (94.9%) of their “most specialized and knowledgeable respondents” actually gave them the answers they wanted to both of their questions.

      But that STILL wasn’t good enough so they used. 97.4% (75 of 77)

      Since that little fudge making leaked they needed a newer better 97% Consensus so Cartoonist and friends to the Rescue!

      In the Cook paper only 1.6 % NOT 97% explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused AT LEAST 50% of global warming. How did Cook get 97%? By reading the author’s minds. Inother words he makes a JUDGEMENT CALL that the author’s paper belongs in the bucket ‘implicit endorsement’ at more than one author took a major exception to this mindreading. Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Dr Craig Idso, Dr. Nir Shaviv, and Dr Richard Tol among others.

      Dr. Nicola Scafetta?

      Dr Craig Idso?

      Dr. Nir Shaviv?

    • AndyG55 says:

      ““Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?””

      A most definitely… YES.

      Those humans are named Tom Karl, Gavin Schmidt, et al.

      They are responsible for most of the changing of the mean global temperature.

      See, I’m now counted in the 97% !! 🙂

      • Gail Combs says:

        Ain’t polls great? You can get them to say just what you want them to say by playing with the questions and selectively changing the data.

  6. gofer says:

    Climategate 2.0: Jones says 2-degree C limit ‘plucked out of thin air’

    If you’ve been wondering where the official 2 degreeC ceiling on temperture increase came from, Phil Jones enlightens us.

    From the Climategate 2.0 collection, to a European Peoples Party officials who is trying to eliminate skepticism from the EPP’s position paper on climate, Phil Jones describes the origin of the 2o limit:

    The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for the globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which the 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air. I think it is too high as well. If it is 2 deg C globally, this could be more in Europe – especially the northern part. A better limit might be maintaining some summer Arctic sea ice!”

  7. maxmbj says:

    I don’t buy the “brainless Obama” meme. While I agree he’s been made dumb by his ideological bias, his choosing to push this GWA agenda is by no means brainless. He knows exactly what he is doing: punishing the West (and especially America) and rewarding the third world which he believes the West has stolen from.

    Whether or not he actually believes in the BS that streams from his mouth is up for debate. But there is method in his madness and that method is to redistribute wealth.

  8. john says:

    Maybe 100% of Exxon scientists changed their minds after they saw this study by a junior highschool student that debunks the alarmist agenda in a few minutes with junior highschool science. Global Warming Urban Heat Effect:

  9. mogur2013 says:

    Look, you guys are clowns. Tony shows you a 1971 national geographical arctic ice map showing absolute minimum ice extent, fails to mention that, and claims that it showed the actual arctic ice extent in 1971. Then he shows you a map of current ice extent and claims that it is similar. You praise him for showing you the truth, but in reality you guys are just jerking yourselves off (sorry, Gail).

    When national geographic then shows the recent minimum ice extent, Tony goes ballistic and claims that they are distorting reality by showing the absolute minimum arctic ice extent. Which is it? Do you want the truth, or what Tony distorts into reality? Use your brains. National Geographic used the same criteria in 1971 that they use today.

    And actually, the first person that spoke up about the mis-perception of the latest National Geographic arctic map was Walt Meier, a research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Cryospheric Sciences Lab, who said he’s concerned that the map leaves out some important details that might mislead the public.He noted that the 10th edition should show the total area of the existing ice at the end of the summer, which would include the remaining ice that was newly formed over the previous winter. Without the minimum sea ice mapped, “ice that’s one year old or less is not being shown,” Meier said in a previous interview.

    “Personally, my thought is that it would be best to show the entire end-of-summer ice cover in white—which is how it generally would appear in a photo from above [without clouds]—with the multiyear area outlines or maybe offset in a different shade to highlight it. At the least, I think it would be good to put a clear line [to] denote the minimum extent,” he said.

    Meier is also concerned about relying on a single year—the new Arctic map draws from 2012 data, an extremely low year for ice cover. “If 2012 is shown, it is the record low year and probably overemphasizes the long-term trends. But if 2013, a higher year relative to recent years, is shown, it underemphasizes the trend. A potential solution would be to do an average over a few years.”

    Is Meier or Tony being deceptive? You decide.

    [SG: Wow. Another world class douche bag on the site]

    • wizzum says:

      I really don’t care, more ice is bad for everyone from the inuit to polar bears and penguins. I would be more concerned that the world is slipping into a new cool period than a warm one.
      Cold is way more deadly than warmth.

      • mogur2013 says:

        Now that is just what the sensationalist news outlets in the 70’s claimed. If you look at actual scientific papers, the opposite opinion was being discussed. Quoting a scientist out of context does not make it true. Read a little and learn a lot. Showing a journalistic opinion in the Canterbury Times from 1956 does not portray the truth of the matter. Reading the actual scientific debate might just enlighten you. Does Tony give you the truth about the early science, or does he just pick articles that make you doubt their entire effort? Remember, science is about evolving knowledge, not what the first investigators thought.

        • Shut up, idiot. Wizzum was talking about the world slipping into an actual ice age, not a 1970’s cooling. While morons like Jim Henson are talking about Earth becoming like Venus, because he took too much acid or he’s a schizophrenic fool, and imbeciles like Al Gore are talking about all of Antarctica melting, the reality is, we’ve used up 12,000 years out of what are on average 10,000 year interglacials, and a new ice age is something real and something to worry about, NOT WARMING you bloody fool!

        • mogur2013 says:

          Morgan, Morgan, Morgan. I should shut up because I don’t agree with you? Do you conceive of the possibility that there just may be room for a discussion about our differences? The muppets are not my concern. Or is there another Jim Henson?

          Al Gore is an imbecile. He is what I like to call a money-grubbing showboat. I don’t care what he ever talked about, much less what Oscar had to eat today. Yet you can’t even entertain the possibility of speaking about the potential consequences of human activity? Interglacials are a concern. A long range concern. Maybe that’s it. Maybe you are right. Maybe we should simply shut up. That, my friend, also means you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Take your meds. More Git !

          You are ranting aimlessly yet again.

        • No, you should shut up because you’re giving the bogus SkS argument about the 70’s when wizzum was talking about cooling vs warming.

    • 1saveenergy says:

      @ mogur
      As we guys are clowns just jerking ourselves off; Why are YOU wasting your time trying to convert us to your way of ‘correct’ thinking, or do you you get your orgasms watching others do what you cant achieve.

      • mogur2013 says:

        Because you clowns don’t accept alternate opinions. You give everyone that doesn’t agree with you the same crap that you are giving me. The definition of a closed mind is that you ridicule anything that disagrees with your accepted beliefs. And those beliefs include politics. If I espoused fealty to second amendment rights, american exceptionalism, religiousity, conservative ideals, and ‘personal responsibility’, I would be cheered. But instead of welcoming the challenge of discussing disparate opinion, this site shuts down opposing opinion. Try welcoming others by ridiculing them, yeah, that’s the ticket.

        • Billy Liar says:

          The definition of a closed mind is that you ridicule anything that disagrees with your accepted beliefs. And those beliefs include politics.

          Pot, meet kettle.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Wrong meds, More Git ?

          You are welcome to post your idiotic, unsubstantiated opinions.. no-one is stopping you that I can see.

          But don’t expect anyone not to exercise their right of free speak in calling you out for your idiocy.

          Free speech works both ways, you moronic fool. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          You come here with the most non-sensical, childish, vitriolic, technicolour spew…

          …. then start crying when called out on it.. boo hoo, little child.

          You bring CRAP with your every post….. don’t expect not to get it thrown back at you.

          You truly are PATHETIC !!!!!

        • mogur2013 says:

          Yeah, Andy. I throw my monkey shit directly at you. But, please, don’t take it personal.

          Tell me about the Exxon scientists that dispute every single postulate on this site. They are paid by corporate money. Show me where they are wrong. Show me where they are fools and idiots. Dispute reality, wipe off the dung, and contradict my ignorance, please.

        • “If I espoused fealty to … ‘personal responsibility’, I would be cheered.”

          That’s a misunderstanding, Mogur. We are cheering you on!

        • Jason Calley says:

          CAGW is not a team sport. Sceptics do not blindly root for EXXON or just as blindly scream against GISS. We follow the data and we follow the science — regardless of “which side” puts it out. When NOAA starts making sense we will support them. When EXXON makes sense we will support them.

        • AndyG55 says:

          you mean this..

          “The data, which was published in the journal Science, showed that the surface temperature of the Sargasso Sea has been much colder and much warmer in previous centuries than today — suggesting natural patterns of warming and cooling.”

          Yes, Exxon knew all about NATURAL climate variability.

          Your point is ???

        • AndyG55 says:

          I don’t take it personally..

          Its like a chihuahu yapping from behind a 6ft fence.. trivial and meaningless….

          ….. like everything you post.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial” and that is “according to Greenpeace”

          Only $30M..?? and over several years… roflmao !!!

          That is absolute peanuts compared to the BILLIONS spent trying to push the rubbish AGW hypothesis. Of which Greenpeace has got way more than its fair share.

          Exxon knew of the huge anti-fossil-fuel LIES and PROPAGANDA campaign that was coming and still spent only a minuscule amount on trying to combat those LIES and PROPAGANDA.

          And it seems Exxon were indeed correct.

          CO2 has had ZERO effect on any part of the planet, except for increasing the biosphere, over the last 37 years since untainted temperature data has been available.

          No warming for 18+ years. The only warming has been the 1998 El Nino, so no CO2 based warming for the whole 37 years.

          No acceleration of sea level rise

          Arctic ice travelling exactly as one would expect from the natural cycle of the AMO.


          Exxon was TOTALLY CORRECT to ignore the AGW farce and look after its own business interests.. like Greenpeace and all the renewable companies, and social totalitarian one-world-government hacks constantly do.

        • Here we have an idiot who says that 100% of all Exxon scientists agree with him. What a f’ing idiot. This idiot doesn’t know, Exxon doesn’t hire “scientists”. Exxon hires geologists to find oil, chemists to refine it, engineers to build it, but they don’t hire any “scientists” because there is no such thing as a scientist. There is no profession called “scientist.” You can’t be a board certified “scientist”. Oh my god what a stupid f’ing piece of sht we have here.

    • Billy Liar says:

      Wow, I think the Führer (John Cook) must have drafted in some extra bots for the Parisite season.

    • mogur2013 says:

      Wow, SG, you are still claiming affiliation with Robert Goddard, the father of modern rocket science? Or is it the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland that has your fascination? Robert was a rocket scientist. You are an engineer. That is great, Tony, be all that you can be. My nephew is a rocket engineer, and he is the smartest man I know. Blue Origin just stuck the rocket landing. But SG is not your appellation. Tony Heller describes you much more accurately. Be you. Don’t trade on Goddard’s fame.

      • AndyG55 says:


        Another meaningless vitriolic rant, with zero substance, from the idiot, moregit.

        Did you get an extended period out of your padded cell today, or something ?

      • Here we have a clown who criticizes another person for using a pseud. And what is this clown’s name? His real name is mogur2013. I don’t know if that’s his first name or his last name. It’s unusual to have numbers in a name so I can’t tell.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Well done, mog. Steven Goddard called you a world class douche bag. Glad to meet a fellow traveler.

  10. eliza says:

    incredibly good news

    • AndyG55 says:

      Not really, he will have left all his money to the climate alarmista propagandists.

      None to actually help out the world’s poor or anything like that, though.

      He was a truly evil man, bent on destroying the modern capitalist system that gave him his massive wealth.

      • PeterK says:

        His legacy is similar to Lenin’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s. All three of these people murdered / killed millions of people directly while Strong is guilty of killing millions of people indirectly.

    • annieoakley says:

      Yes it is very good news. I just hope it isn’t too late to repair the damage Strong has done.

  11. And now Hansen’s back, eating other climate zombies.

    I’m not sure it’s zombies. It could be mushrooms. Giant flying monkeys are next.

    Another danger of climate change: Giant flying boulders?
    By Chris Mooney

    ELEUTHERA, Bahamas — Standing atop a 60-foot cliff overlooking the Atlantic, James Hansen — the retired NASA scientist sometimes dubbed the “father of global warming” — examines two small rocks through a magnifying glass. Towering above him is the source of one of the shards: a huge boulder from a pair locals call “the Cow and the Bull,” …

    Even the tourist placard near here takes their side, saying the ocean “lifted them atop the ridge.”

  12. AndyG55 says:

    I hope you Americans are really HAPPY about YOUR forests being DESTROYED to feed the UK’s anti-coal agenda.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Where are Greenpeace, WWF etc etc fighting this ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION ?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually I was hoping that means we can get top dollar from the idiot Fabians when we clear cut 80 acres to turn it into land planted in Corn for ethanol bio-fuel.

  13. gator69 says:

    Hansen says he first encountered Hearty’s extensive Bahamas research — on the boulders and much more — eight years ago.

    The two began to collaborate, and the result, once Hansen pulled in 15 other specialists as co-authors, was a 121-page paper presenting a dire reinterpretation of much of modern climate science.

    In it, the researchers contend that there was a catastrophic storm event here 118,000 years ago. This would have occurred at the turbulent close of a climatic period sometimes dubbed the Eemian, which was moderately warmer than our own but featured considerably higher seas — especially at its end, when oceans appear to have risen quickly and then fallen again.

    That period was one where, in Hansen’s interpretation, “all hell breaks loose”: a collapse of polar ice, quickly rising seas, a shutdown of heat-transporting ocean circulation, and then superstorms spawned by a greater temperature contrast between warm tropics and cold poles.

    All of this is contested. While Hearty’s many geological studies of the Bahamas and its boulders have all been peer reviewed and published, the broader study remains under public peer review by a “discussion” journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. It has been the most downloaded paper the journal has ever considered, receiving one positive peer review and one skeptical one — and many assorted challenges.

    Meanwhile, as the scientific debate continues, Hansen and Hearty last weekend met up in Eleuthera, accompanied by Hansen’s wife, Anniek, and his 17-year-old granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan. Along with 21 other young people, Sophie is plaintiff to a lawsuit against the U.S. government — with Hansen playing the dual role of their guardian and scientific expert — demanding protection of their generation’s fundamental rights in the face of climate change.

    Nothing to see here, just Homer using his granddaughter to shakedown and defraud the US Government. Ah, science!

  14. rah says:

    “They must always have a Great Evil to crusade against, because only crusading against a Great Evil can excuse their own actions.

    — Glenn Reynolds on the Left”

  15. Martin Smith says:

    Mog, I salute you.

  16. rah says:

    Indications they would have us believe are signs of a warming world:
    Most Snow Patches Survive In Scotland Since 1994
    From the BBC:
    “Seventy-three patches of snow have survived on Scotland’s hills from last winter – the most for 21 years, according to a man who counts them.

    Iain Cameron writes about, photographs and measures snow.

    His records of the white stuff are published by the Royal Meteorological Society.

    The total of 73 is the most since 1994. They have lingered through to this winter because of the cool spring and frequent snow showers until June.

    Patches were recorded on mountains such as Creag Meagaidh, Ben Macdui and Ben Nevis.

    Mr Cameron said snow had survived this in areas where the phenomenon was unusual.

    He said: “This includes, also for the first time since 1994, mountains in the north west Highlands, where 12 patches survived.

    “The reason so many patches survived is undoubtedly to do with the very cool spring, which saw frequent and heavy snow showers right through May and even into June.

    “In fact, there are good grounds to believe that the maximum depth of snow recorded in the gullies of Ben Nevis was achieved in early June.

    “Also because of the cool and overcast summer months. For example, the summit of Aonach Mor – 4,000ft – recorded only four days where the temperature exceeded 10C.

    “July and August were also cool, and taken together this meant that melting rates were diminished.”

    Lasting snow – snow that has fallen recently and expected to linger – came about 10 days ago, Mr Cameron said.

    It means many of the 73 patches could survive into next summer.

    Earlier this year, Mr Cameron recorded details of an avalanche that occurred during the summer months.”

    This of course in a place where it was headlined in 2009 that that “Scottish ski industry could disappear due to global warming, warns Met Office”

    • Martin Smith says:

      rah, we know the world is warming because we measure the global mean surface temperature, and it is rising. We know we are causing the rise because it is happening much faster than it would naturally. Here is the explanation:

      • No Marty. We know the temperatures are warming in cities where the thermometers are. Rural areas are not warming. There is no global warming in rural areas. It’s something a smart 10 year old can explain to you. Here’s one now:

        • Martin Smith says:

          Morgan, we have many measurement systems, including thousands of land based thermometers, which are not all in in cities. The rural areas are warming just as fast. We also have buoy based thermometers in the oceans. And we have shipped mounted thermometers. And we have satellite systems that use models to measure temperatures. And when we analyze all the data, we see that the global mean surface temperature is rising. That is a fact.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Marty the Gorbot says, “Morgan, we have many measurement systems, including thousands of land based thermometers, which are not all in in cities.”

          That is a MAJOR LIE! What is more Marty the Gorbot KNOWS it is a MAJOR LIE because I have given him the information more than once.

          Martin Smith says: “…When you call infilling “Making stuff up,” you only show you have no idea what you are talking about. The don’t make stuff up….”


          Good grief I already went over Krigging and “The Great Dying of Thermometers” and had a long argument over it with you just a few days ago. You should really get to a doctor fast because such memory lapses are a sign of heart disease.

          The “DEATH” was accompanied by a major increase in ‘warming’

          Steven showed how the — krigged/infilled/made-up data — changes the trend from cooling to warming.

          “The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.”

          And that is just ONE of the frauds….

          For those not involved in the CAGW conspiracy in 2007, please be reminded of the 2000 y2k data manipulation by Hansen and his crew uncovered by Steve McIntyre of Following the disclosure by Steve McIntyre of raw vs adjusted data (pre and post 2000 temperature records) not being entered into the temperature history record correctly, resulting in 1934 again becoming the hottest year on record; Hansen and his crew merely found/made-up an algorithm that adjusted the data to give them the answers they needed to continue the lie.

          Warming in Alaska

          On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR

          This page shows the differences between GHCN anomaly snapshots released in recent years (thanks E.L.). The number of confidence interval violations is interesting, as is the ~4C/century of “adjustment” warming from the 2014 to 2015 snapshots.

        • Bob123 says:

          And yet the only system that can provide coverage to the entire planet (satellites) you alarmists completely ignore.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The rural areas are warming just as fast”

          THAT’S ANOTHER LIE. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          In the USA, which has the ONLY pristine evenly spaced surface data..

          ….. THERE IS NO WARMING.. the trend is dead flat to 2 decimal places.

          (and almost exactly the same trend as UAH for the US.. that’s how accurate UAH is !!)

          So yes, I guess rural sights in the USA are warming just as fast… ie NOT AT ALL. 😉

      • Bob123 says:

        Sure. I guess longer lasting snow is just another effect from the hottest year evah.

      • Gail Combs says:

        YESSIRRAH Marty, it is warming!

        That is why…
        Northern Hemisphere snow has soared to record levels

        April 2015 Great Lakes Ice Coverage at record levels

        and across the pond
        August count of Scottish Snow Patches at record levels

        Last Winter Polar Vortex

        Wisconsin Ice Age Glacial Maximum

        The current weather patterns with a meridional pattern to the jet stream is characteristic of a cooling climate not a warm climate.

        OOPS! Mother Nature says your beautiful GUESS is WRONG Marty!

      • Jason Calley says:

        Actually, no, we do not measure thr global mean surface temperature. Global mean surface temperature is not a “thing” so it cannot be measured. What we do is measure a bunch of individual places. Some of the measurements get used, but most get thrown out. Of the ones we use, we then take some of them and use some unpublicized and unreviewed method to guess what part of the missing measurements are. We gather all those measurements up and then derive statistics about them. Then we do statistics on the statistics. Then we do statistics on the statistics on the statistics. The last statistic is not really even a temperature, but we give it in hundredths of a degree and we call it a “global mean surface temperature.”

        I know it sounds like I am just making up a goofy rant, but that really is a close descrition of what is done. Check E.M. Smith’s posts on GIStemp. Or read the HarryReadMe files from Climategate.

  17. rah says:

    More indications of a warming world:
    Arctic Sea Ice extent trending up since 2005

    Global Sea Ice extent trending up since 2005

    Antarctic Sea ice extent trending way up since 2005

    Greenland Ice mass Balance well above mean:

    Top: The total daily contribution to the surface mass balance from the entire ice sheet (blue line, Gt/day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1990-2013 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 24 years (in the period 1990-2013) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 24 years have been left out.

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 )

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