NOAA Is Getting Bolder And Bolder With Their Climate Fraud

Check out yesterday’s mind-blowing peer-reviewed Arctic fraud from NOAA’s chief scientist – Rick Spinrad

2015-12-15-23-07-10

Arctic air temperatures highest since 1900, global report shows – Telegraph

The US weather Bureau reported exactly the same thing in 1922. Seals disappearing and fish being forced northwards. However, in 1922 the reported warming was much larger than 2.3 degrees.

2015-12-13-18-35-00

docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

In 1947, scientists reported 10 degrees Arctic warming, much more than the 2.3 degrees reported by Rick Spinrad.

2015-12-13-05-13-11

31 May 1947 – TEMPERATURES RISING IN ARCTIC REGION LOS ANGELES…

Glaciers were disappearing from Alaska to Norway.

2015-12-13-05-24-22

18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING GLACIERS SAID TO [?] M…

The sea ice maximum occurred at the end of March, not February 25 as Spinrad claimed, and extent is the highest since at least 2004, not the “lowest on record

2015-12-16-02-07-42

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Satellites show that recent Arctic temperatures peaked about 2010, and have fallen half a degree since then.

2015-12-16-02-29-13

RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser

Before data tampering, Arctic temperatures were at least as warm in 1940 as they are now. Spinrad cherry-picked 1979 as his start date for many of his metrics, because it was the coldest year on record in the Arctic.

ReykjavikV2

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Arctic warming was causing major challenges to communities 60 years ago.

2015-12-16-02-42-10

24 Nov 1954 – CANADA WILL SHIFT ARCTIC DWELLERS

But the biggest lie of all is his claim “the lowest extent recorded since records began in 1979.” The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report, and shows that NOAA has sea ice data going back to at least 1973, and that extent was much lower in 1974. Spinrad cherry picked 1979 because it was the maximum of the last 45 years, and hid the earlier NOAA data which showed that ice extent was much lower prior to 1979.

2015-12-16-02-18-58

He said “we know it is due to climate change.” Climate change is natural and occurs all the time. What Spinrad is reporting is due to his own junk science.

Every single one of Spinrad’s claims was either false or misleading. The norm in government climate science. Why doesn’t peer-review catch these blatant errors?

About stevengoddard

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

168 Responses to NOAA Is Getting Bolder And Bolder With Their Climate Fraud

  1. saveenergy says:

    Rick Spinrad
    I like the way his name matches his job.
    At least we know what to expect every time we see his name !!

  2. trotter387 says:

    It is hard to understand how the science can be so wrong, working with data most of the time you come to realise the weakest links are what you gather and what you “want” the data to establish. The earth does have climatic cycles and these can and are affected by humans but the interesting irony is that in resolving the issues the earth has the capacity to reduce human impact very quickly.
    I enjoy reading the evidence you present – thank you

    • gator69 says:

      Actually there is no proof that man causes climatic changes on a global scale. Land use changes can definitely alter local climates, but that is all that is proven.

      • trotter387 says:

        I understand that – the science is trying to take local data and create global conclusions
        My personal issue is this gets away from the real impact of pollution that it kills more people today than the predictive models for global warming will by 2100.So in their models land will be lost, we will move people; property will be damaged but we will rebuild or build stronger but we can’t tackle the health issues created by these same harmful emissions. The data set does support that. So why focus on debatable fiction when social science tells us we are already in deep crisis. As I say I really enjoy reading the posts.

        • gator69 says:

          Pollution deaths are nothing compared to the seven million we could save every year from starvation, with the money wasted on CAGW.

        • trotter387 says:

          Don’t disagree – the number of people who die through contaminated water is also in that mix the point made is eloquent we have more pressing issues than the ifs and buts of science fantasy.

        • rah says:

          Reality is that poverty kills. Look where the pollution is the worst and where starvation and disease mortality is the worst and you find it in impoverished nations or those with a standard of living below the mean. This nations water and air is far cleaner than it was even 50 years ago. We in the states help some of those in ways most don’t even realize. For many years every time you buy your preventative medication for heart worms for your pet(s) a part of the price you paid went for helping people in Africa or central and S. America. The active ingredient which kills the microfilarial organism is Ivermectin. It was developed by Merck labs in the mid 70s and as long as their patent was in effect a portion of the price you paid went to funding programs for using the drug to treat diseases caused by mircofilarials in 3rd world countries such a River blindness and Elephantitis. Ivermectin is near the top of the list of medications considered necessary for world health improvement.

          Now what can we attribute this too? Fossil fuels which have provided the relatively cheap energy that have made such progress possible despite the problems of pollution their extraction and use has caused, which in developed nations is being controlled.

          As nations like India and China industrialize and advance they will continue to go through the stages where industrial pollution causes problems that eventually must be addressed. This of course will happen by necessity. The problem is that generally as a matter of record, Representative governments of capitalist societies have a much better record of addressing their pollution/environmental problems that effect quality of life much more quickly and effectively than authoritarian type governments and especially communist governments. The people that live in the former Warsaw pact nations are still recovering from the residual effects of being under the thumb of the Soviet bear in this aspect.

        • trotter387 says:

          Yes but the causes of poverty are the issue to be tackled and all that history shows is that those with power rarely have an interest in those who are really poor.
          For example look at the EU they ague over borders and forget the human tragedy. It is based on fear and ideology.
          The poorest countries forget their greatest resource is the people and that learning to be self sufficient isn’t as simple as they like to think.
          The greatest killer today is civilisation and the government it requires because those in power need money; money comes from the commerce and commerce can always replace people.
          Sadly there is no real solution.
          Watch there will be a plan to send all the nuclear waste into space – in fact why not put it on the dark side of the moon – it will be like sweeping it under the carpet, then someone will realise we can do that with our carbon emissions and soon the planet pollution will have its ambition solution but people will still die.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    OT, but I hope none of you alarmista trolls are vegetarians

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/dont-eat-lettuce-or-anything-else-for-that-matter/

    Seriously funny stuff. 🙂

    • Ted says:

      Okay, I admit it. The warm mongers are right about one thing.
      When they’re right, I’m willing to sacrifice for the greater good. From this day forward, I vow to always substitute bacon for lettuce.

      • dave1billion says:

        I like the occasional BLT.

        Does that mean I’ll be brought before the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity?

        • Can’t we all just get along? For the children? Make it a BBT?

        • gator69 says:

          CW, I am surprised. You are normally right on point with your logic and commentary, but this time you missed the obvious. Tomatoes are vegetables. Make it a BBB, and show the planet you really care.

        • But I do care! I was just thinking about the children so much I forgot the planet for the moment. Now I will selflessly open three bacon packages at once! The planet will grunt in pure bliss and the children will frolic in the kitchen. We will all hold our breaths a little and write Bill McKibben about our righteous deeds. He will need the little cheer now with the oil export ban lifted.

        • gator69 says:

          A salaam alaikum.

        • Ja, Salam, ja! Würste, mangiare. Mangiare, Würste. Buona, buona. Das da! Bitte, ja, ja. Mangiare!

        • rah says:

          Dave1billion says:
          December 16, 2015 at 3:44 pm

          “I like the occasional BLT.

          Does that mean I’ll be brought before the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity?”

          If so I’ll be with you there Dave. About one every 4 to 6 weeks I get the craving and fry up a pound of bacon so I can have a couple of BLTs. Funny thing is about every time I do that my better half, turns her nose up and says “No I don’t want any. Too much cholesterol and fat.” Once I get to frying though she comes back around and her will power fails her.

          My bacon for BLTs and frying up some thin sliced potatoes with onions on occasion are about the only fried foods we make here at home.

        • OrganicFool says:

          We need cholesterol (vitamin D, hormones, wound repair, more) and animal fats contain vital fat soluble activators (vitamins), like vitamin A, D3 and K2, necessary for many bodily functions including mineral absorption, digestion, immune support. The fat phobia is one of the main causes of modern disease! It leads to deficiencies of these vitamins. Humans have been eating animal fats since the beginning. Fat does not make us fat. Sugar is the main culprit of obesity..

          Enjoy your bacon!
          http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-diseases/myths-truths-about-cholesterol/

  4. eliza says:

    Cooling of the Southern oceans apart from the cooling of the Arctic are becoming pretty dramatic
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
    In color anyway LOL

  5. Peter Alexander says:

    heads up!

  6. “Peer Review” doesn’t catch it because the peers reviewing are being paid by the same Big Climate marketing department as the author.

    • Steve Case says:

      B I N G O !

      Academia is no longer independent, for for some time now it has been dependent on government funding.

    • cfgjd says:

      That’s nice, now you can conveniently ignore all science and form your own fact-free opinions. It’s a conspiracy!

      • sunsettommy says:

        You are a perfect example,cfgjd.

        • catweazle666 says:

          cfgjd says: “How does that $29 billion corrupt non-US scientists, who are the majority?”

          Wrong as usual.

          Chinese, Indian and Russian scientists don’t believe in AGW.

        • Gail Combs says:

          cfgjd says: “How does that $29 billion corrupt non-US scientists, who are the majority?”

          Seems CFool doesn’t understand what the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the IPCC was all about.

          This is from 2009

          The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – Trillions to come

          For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

          THE SUMMARY

          * The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

          * Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

          * Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.

          * Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

          * The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

          That is JUST the USA. The UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canda, Germany and many others are also wasting massive amounts on this idiocy.

      • $29 billion per year would corrupt any community. It has nothing to do with your black helicopter mentality

        • cfgjd says:

          How does that $29 billion corrupt non-US scientists, who are the majority? Are they all in the same masonic lodge or sumthin’?

        • gator69 says:

          So other countries are not funding alarmism? How stupid are you?

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Remember this from waaaay back?

          cfgjd says:
          December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
          Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

          So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

        • $29,000 MILLION! Imagine that! That’s $79 Million per DAY, going to arguably a handful of qualified, competent climatologists in the whole world. Do you think that’s where it is actually going? Can you imagine the accounting staff alone that would be required to keep track of $55,000 per MINUTE?

  7. Just “Nookied” a copy of Peter L. Ward’s latest book, “What Really Causes Global Warming – GHGs or ozone” that offers up ozone as an explanation for global warming.

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG —— WRONG & Wrong!!!

    The scientific method does not demand that we skeptics offer an alternative explanation for a non-existent problem. All the scientific method requires is that skeptics poke holes in CAGW theory and if they can’t patch those holes that’s their problem. Cold fusion, anyone?

    It is obvious that that earth has been hotter and CO2 concentrations higher and that any current changes in CO2 and heating are simply natural variability. In the uncertainties surrounding the magnitude and fluxes of both CO2 and heat/power balances, CAGW theory has not demonstrated that anthropogenic sources make a significant contribution compared to natural variability which is evident in their theory’s inability to model or match reality.

    CAGW theory is a combination of esoteric theory, hocus-pocus proxies, hand waving, corrupted data, and name calling that has collapsed in the face of reality. We skeptics should not compete by playing their losing game.

    The ball is in the warmist’s court, not the skeptic’s.

    • cfgjd says:

      In order to poke holes in AGW-theory you need to publish your results. This should not be a big problem today.

      • gator69 says:

        Nature publishes the results, and proves CAGW to be a myth.

        Per your own admissions, natural variability is still the rule when it comes to climate change. No peer review has ever disproven NV.

      • AndyG55 says:

        They are published, on several sites.. and they receive a far more thorough peer-review than any climate science™ paper will ever receive.

        Journals are not the only means of publication, much as the climate gatekeepers wish they were…

        The several main climate realist sites receive a far greater viewing than any climate science™ magazine…. and the climate glitterati hate that fact.

        That is why they send useless trolls, like cfool and Marty to try and disrupt rational discussion.

      • catweazle666 says:

        cfgjd says: “In order to poke holes in AGW-theory you need to publish your results.”

        There are plenty of publications on that very subject – more with every passing day.

        But, as you are purely trolling and have no interest in keeping abreast of the science, you will have no knowledge of them.

    • Robertv says:

      The anthropogenic source of Global Warming.

    • Steven Douglas says:

      “CAGW theory has not demonstrated that anthropogenic sources make a significant contribution compared to natural variability which is evident in their theory’s inability to model or match reality.”

      It’s even worse for the IPCC and CAGW devotees whom claim that most, if not all, recent changes were anthropogenically forced. This is tantamount to an even bolder claim: namely that the ever-changing climate would have flat-lined 30-40 years ago were it not for humans.

  8. Here is some hole poking.

    Prior to MLO the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, both paleo ice cores and inconsistent contemporary grab samples, were massive wags. Data at some of NOAA’s tall towers passed through 400 ppm years before MLO reached that level. IPCC AR5 TS.6 cites uncertainty in CO2 concentrations over land. Preliminary data from OCO-2 suggests that CO2 is not as well mixed as assumed. Per IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 6 mankind’s share of the atmosphere’s CO2 is basically unknown, could be anywhere from 4% to 96%. (IPCC AR5 Ch 6, Figure 6.1, Table 6.1)

    The major global C/CO2 reservoirs (not CO2 per se, C is a precursor proxy for CO2), i.e. oceans, atmosphere, vegetation & soil, contain over 45,000 Pg (Gt) of C/CO2. Over 90% of this C/CO2 reserve is in the oceans. Between these reservoirs ebb and flow hundreds of Pg C/CO2 per year, the great fluxes. For instance, vegetation absorbs C/CO2 for photosynthesis producing plants and O2. When the plants die and decay they release C/CO2. A divinely maintained balance of perfection for thousands of years, now unbalanced by mankind’s evil use of fossil fuels.

    So just how much net C/CO2 does mankind’s evil fossil fuel consumption add to this perfectly balanced 45,000 Gt cauldron of churning, boiling, fluxing C/CO2? 3 Gt C/CO2. That’s correct, 3. Not 3,000, not 300, 3! How are we supposed to take this seriously? (Anyway 3 is totally assumed/fabricated to make the numbers work.)

    IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011 (Fig TS.7). In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitude and uncertainty of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedo of clouds, snow and ice, and the absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle. (IPCC AR5 Ch 8, FAQ 8.1)

    IPCC AR5 acknowledges the LTT pause/hiatus/lull/stasis in Text Box 9.2 and laments the failure of the GCMs to model it. IPCC GCMs don’t work because IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity (TS 6.2), of CO2/GHGs RF in the heat balance and dismiss the role of water vapor because man does not cause nor control it.

    The sea ice and sheet ice is expanding not shrinking, polar bear population is the highest in decades, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 has all the makings of yet another embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Roseanne Roseannadanna (Gildna Radner aka Emily Litella), “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”

    • cfgjd says:

      Correction: Arctic sea ice volume is on a rapidly descending trend plus Greenland, Antarctic Peninsula, perhaps 95% of all mountain glaciers and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are all losing ice. And sea-levels are rising.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “Arctic sea ice volume is on a rapidly descending” BECAUSE the AMO has not yet turned into the cooling phase.

      1. How much of an iceberg is above water and how much is below water?

      2. Which has the better heat transport characteristics water or air?

  9. sfx2020 says:

    “Why doesn’t peer-review catch these blatant errors?”

    That’s an essential question, and I may have found the answer.

    • Was in Phoenix over Thanksgiving visiting son & wife. Found the following title in a used book store. Explains why peer review has become pal-review.

      “The Great Betrayal – Fraud in Science” Horace Freeland Judson

  10. Andy DC says:

    Cold weather in 2014 and early 2015 were a result of the polar vortex, a “weather pattern” caused by global warming.

    Mild weather in December 2015, is climate, proof of a doomed New England ski industry and the new normal.

    The alarmist spin doctors are always at work, along with their “peer reviewed” journals that systematicaly exclude bonafide skeptical evidence and points of view.

  11. AndyG55 says:

    The Arctic is NOT heating up

    In fact the hottest months for the Arctic in the satellite record were in the early 1980s.

    And if you go here http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    You can confirm for yourselves that 2013, 2014 had amongst the shortest periods above freezing point of all years displayable.. that’s all the way back to 1958

  12. AndyG55 says:

    “Spinrad cherry-picked 1979 as his start date for many of his metrics, because it was the coldest year on record in the Arctic.”

    Also the very bottom of the AMO cycle.

    All they have is this child-minded cherry-picking, designed to fool the fools.

    And as cfool has shown.. it works on the weak-minded every time.

    • dave1billion says:

      It really helps if you WANT to believe.

      • AndyG55 says:

        I don’t believe for one minute that guys like Spinrad actually don’t know about the reality this stuff…… they cannot be that ignorant. (cfool, I get.. he is just plain DUMB, IGNORANT and GULLIBLE)

        But what the NOAA guys are doing, in deliberately mis-informing the general public, is totally disgusting.

    • PeterK says:

      Dr. Richard Spinrad,
      NOAA Chief Scientist.

      On May 9, 2014, Dr. Richard W. (Rick) Spinrad was named by the Obama Administration as NOAA’s Chief Scientist.

      http://www.noaa.gov/spinrad.html

      • AndyG55 says:

        Which means he was almost certainly interviewed and asked if he would push the AGW fraud for Obama and his AGW cronies.

  13. ntesdorf says:

    They are desperate to show warming and have gone right out of control with their lies about temperature. They hope that people will believe the Big Lies as much as they believed their earlier Small Lies. Only the Skeptical Blogs will keep people informed of the scientific truth now. All the Warmist Media outlets are now co-ordinating in this post-COP21 Push.

  14. Jim Steele says:

    Steve a month or so ago when I mentioned I had predicted Greenland would soon be gaining ice, you suggested if it did the new NOAA report card would engage in another fraudulent exercise. I suspect now you were right on target.

    Here is my evaluation of go their report on Greenland

    http://landscapesandcycles.net/noaa-s-report-card-and-greenland-ice.html

  15. OrganicFool says:

    “A 2014 study by NERA Economic Consulting estimated the CPP [Clean Power Plan] will cause double-digit electricity rate increases in 43 states, an increase seniors’ on fixed budgets and the poor, a large percentage of which are minorities, have little room to absorb. Escalating costs could force seniors and the poor to forgo meals and doctor visits just to afford electricity – a devastating consequence that could seriously impact their health.”
    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/06/17/study-shows-state-energy-costs-soar-under-clean-power-plant-rule

    “U.S. Navy planes used a biofuel and jet fuel blend that cost $424 per gallon. The price for conventional jet fuel is between $57 and $67 per gallon.

    “Lehr says the price to be paid for the U.S. Navy’s “green fuel comes in the form of funds being diverted from military readiness to the Obama administration’s climate change priorities.”

    “Carbon Dioxide Not an ‘Invader’

    “Sardonically commenting on the connection between global warming and military readiness, Taylor said, “Carbon dioxide is not invading the country. We don’t need weapons to shoot down CO2.”
    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/07/06/climate-policy-and-national-security

  16. Andy says:

    The arctic maxima did not peak end of March. There are twin peaks on that graph and both are so close together and the line so thick you cannot make out which is greater easier

    If you download Jaxa
    https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/plot_extent_n_v2.csv

    Maxima is on 25th March

    Iff we look at cryosphere ( which uses 30% like DMI I believe, but area)

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    again Feb.

    for NSIDC

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Feb again

    Even on the other DMI graph it shows the Feb peak higher

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    So the graphs or data show the maxima in Feb not March, it is just wishful thinking looking at one graph that ever puts it in March.

    Andy

  17. Andy says:

    Oops, for Jaxa “Maxima is on 25th March” should read Feb of course🙂

  18. Andy says:

    Also I am starting to think there is something extremely incorrect with the current value of ice extent this graph

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

    gives. It is getting too outside the normal to not be questioned. It doesn’t agree with other graphs currently, not even the other DMI one.

    If you look at an equivalent Cryosphere graph I did on the interactive showing same number of years and using 30% conc like DMI

    The general shape is same all the way though, the two peaks in Feb and March, the reduction in ice loss before minima and the rapid rise and then step in Oct and Nov. So the shape is the same but the Cryosphere graph is in the middle of the pack of previous years, similar to other graphs including DMI. So why is one DMI graph so outside the range?

    I can only think that is not being questioned on here more because it is showing a large amount of ice. If it was showing a lot less I am sure it would be open to more comment on it’s accuracy

    Andy

  19. cfgjd says:

    Luckily most data about the environment and the Earth is from non-US sources and satellites.

  20. pmc47025 says:

    The two links I posted were from US government sources. The 30% arctic ice graph presented by Steven is from DMI. Are you implying the DMI source is more accurate?

    And, previously, I said “Go have that spec of brain removed”. I misspelled “spec”, should have been “speck”, and for that, I apologize (cr Judge Roy Bean).

    • cfgjd says:

      I’m just saying, US internal politics do not have much to do with non-US data sources, which are many. This should dampen down the conspiracy theories a bit.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You mean like DMI

        or the Iceland temperature guys

        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/image_thumb6.png?w=404&h=312

        And we know GISS, NOAA, GHCN and Hadcrud are in cahoots..
        Tom’s emails proved that.

        When real un-tampered data is put forward, the AGW scam is bought under the spotlight, and fails miserably.

        • cfgjd says:

          So you really think “data tampering” caused these rapid changes in the Arctic for example?

          So how come skeptics don’t study and publish the issue? It’s their job, nobody is going to do it for them.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Still ignorant..

          Any changes in the Arctic are TOTALLY NATURAL, as you have been shown many, many times before…. maybe even slightly hiogh for the phase of the AMO.

          .. and now the AMO has switched, we are going to look forward to your idiotic denial as Arctic sea ice levels continue t climb.

          I hope you have a deep crevasse to run and hide in, although you seem to be immune to shame.

  21. Res ipsa loquitur – And the data indicates AGW is much. much slower if not altogether non-existent! Apparently the CAGW crowd have no purpose in life without such a cause.

  22. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    More blatant lies from the warming alarmists.
    So much for the value “peer-reviewing’!
    So much for integrity!
    Political and income agendas over-ride science and honesty.

  23. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Why doesn’t peer-review catch these blatant errors?”

    Further merit to the term “pal-review” which has sadly become common-speak in reference to the corrupt world of anthropogenic climate science.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I know a couple of guys who have done some peer-review in climate science (and a few in literature and other subjects..)

      They read the paper.. correct any obvious spelling or grammar errors ….

      and that’s about all.

      They make no attempt to check any calculations, the data integrity, or to see if the data really indicates what the paper is saying.

      So long as it is “on message” that is all that matters.

      Journal peer-review is just a small step in making a paper public.

      It puts the paper forward for discussion… that is all.

      That is why the data and methodology absolutely MUST be available from day one.. so that ANYONE that wants to check the paper, can do so.

      IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE AN ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED, so long as it can be checked for validity by anyone that wants to do that checking.

    • cfgjd says:

      Why have skeptics refused to publish a study about the “problem”? Their scientific incompetence is preventing them from making an impact.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Not worth responding to.. Just another meaningless ignorant rant form the cfool !

      • Climatism says:

        Which “problem” do you refer? And I think the job of sceptics is to question “science” just as is the job of any “scientist” and a science. The problem is if one questions the so-called “consensus” science, they are labeled a heretic or “denier” – that by its very silencing and totalitarian nature is ‘anti-science’

        • Climatism says:

          Furthermore I believe sceptics have had a crushing impact on the activist global warming ‘scientific’ orthodoxy, and prevented draconian climate policy, simply by exposing their dodgy one-way science and dud alarmist predictions.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Considering the monumental funding imbalance, the AGW cult have FAILED MISERABLY.

          CO2 emission levels will continue to rise.. probably accelerate for at least the next 3-4 decades.

          MONUMENTAL FAILURE..

          One big reason is the ineptitude of worms like cfool.

          They continue to display their abject ignorance for all to see. time, and time, and time again.

          So thanks cfool, for helping the skeptic side of the argument so, so much 🙂

        • Climatism says:

          It’s a treat seeing all the cfools claim “the science” and produce none. Then reach for the “denier” card. Groupthink robots reading from the same script. I couldn’t live with myself! Really.

        • cfgjd says:

          Questioning science happens via publications. Where are they?

        • Climatism says:

          Sure it does but cannot anyone who is has access to the available science question the veracity of scientific assertions?

          For example to be able to question why 100% of 102 CMIP5 state-of-the-art climate models are currently overheated by up to 1 degC (more than the total warming since 1880!) which bear no resemblance to reality and observations, yet from those modelled expert “assertions” we base draconian TRILLION dollar climate policy on!?

          Are are we not allowed to question scientific “assertions” like that of CRU’s expert Dr David Viner who in 2000 “children just won’t now what snow is” “snow is now a thing of the past”.

          Cannot we question why almost every climate ‘expert’ said that by 2014 there would be NO MORE summer Arctic sea ice?!

          http://wp.me/p3Bc8A-23o

          Can we not question the IPCC’s assertion that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035? To pump up their 2007 report. Later apologised publicly for misleading via a Greenpeace propaganda leaflet.

          Can we not question the scientific assertion that Antarctic ice sheet was facing collapse, only last month corrected by warmist NASA , begrudgingly releasing a paper stating it is in fact cooling and reducing the rate of sea level rise.

          Can we not expose the blatant lies that Pacific islands are drowning, when in fact they are growing with sea-level rise (shape shifting)

          Use your own brain champ, not tired click bait from the groupthink climate cooked book.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again you show your manifest ignorance of anything to do with science.

          Journals are journalism.. and certainly NO PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

          Papers can be published anywhere. and at the moment, the biggest number of peers is on the internet. Journals are becoming an outmoded, stilted backwater.

          Get with the modern REALITY…..The internet has superseded the journals…..
          …. and don’t the journal gatekeepers hate that.

      • AndyG55 says:

        No-one has every presented a paper showing its not NATURAL VARIABILITY.. because they can’t.

        There is no problem , except that the world is still only a tiny amount above the coldest period of the last 10,000 years.

        We need another couple of degrees of warming an to push the atmospheric CO2 level up to 1000 ppm + That will solve a lot of the world’s REAL problems..

        • cfgjd says:

          Extra CO2 warms up the planet, we just don’t know well enough how much that will be.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Please find one paper that shows that CO2 warms an open atmosphere.

          And it will need to do more than just show a change in the tiny slot of CO2 radiation.

          You already admit that TOTAL outgoing longwave radiation has INCREASED because of the solar maximum through the last half of last century.

          And measurements in the atmosphere show that it has NOT WARMED for some 18 half years as CO2 has thankfully continued to climb..

          So Show us how any warmth is retained , when OLWR increase and the atmosphere doesn’t warm..

          Take many more hallucinogens before replying.. to help you mental state.

      • Gail Combs says:

        CFool says: “Why have skeptics refused to publish a study about the “problem”? Their scientific incompetence is preventing them from making an impact.”
        >>>>>>>>>>

        As usual CFool is showing his ignorance of the subject
        1350+ Peer Reviewed Papers in support of skepticism of AGW

        Notch-Delay Solar Theory includes predictions of cooling.

        New Basic Climate Model The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate. This is the model taught in universities and documented in text book. It has two major errors. This new model corrects these errors. Using this new model to calculate the theoretical equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the surface warming per doubling of the CO2 concentration, gives results that agree with the measured empirical estimates by Lindzen and Choi,[1][2] Spencer and Braswell[3][4] and Idso[5] (blog posts resulted in papers)
        [1] Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705 [abstract, PDF]

        [2] Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011

        [3] Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109

        [4] Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

        [5] Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82.

        The Thermostat Hypothesis (blog posts resulted in paper)

        Surfacestations Project (blog posts resulted in two papers)

      • Gail Combs says:

        CFool says “Their scientific incompetence is preventing them from making an impact.”

        Cfool is not even competent to shine Dr Evans shoes.

        Dr David Evans earned six degrees related to modeling and applied mathematics over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University. He was instrumental in building the carbon accounting system Australia uses to estimate carbon changes in its biosphere, for the Australian Greenhouse Office. He is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) from Stanford University, B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc. from the University of Sydney. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing, and trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University…

        David consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time for the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, and was the lead modeler in developing FullCAM, the world-leading carbon accounting model that Australia uses for analyzing the carbon in Australia’s biosphere for the Kyoto Protocol…

        He is the mathemitician who found the errors in the basic climate model that has been used for the last sevral decades.

        And then there is Dr Happer who also found errors in the climate model this time in the mathematical discription of the wings of the CO2 absorption spectra. The Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. Happer and nobel prize winner Freeman Dyson are co-writing a paper describing their findings. I had the honor of sitting in on a physics lecture for grade students by Dr Happer.

        Happer is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Alfred P. Sloan fellowship in 1966, an Alexander von Humboldt award in 1976, the Herbert P.Broida Prize in 1997, the Davisson-Germer prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award in 2000. In 2003 he was named the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993.

  24. cfgjd says:

    Andy I already showed proof that extra CO2 changed the Earth’s spectra so it definitely has a warming effect over the planet as a whole. Let’s not discuss that again, it’s not very interesting.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I have already shown you there has been a large increase in OLWR

      Co2 is but a tiny, tiny slice of that spectre, and you know that .. so STOP LYING !!!

      Ignore the reality all you like.

      It doesn’t change the reality.

      • cfgjd says:

        Of course there’s an increase in the thermal radiation since the planet is warming up.

        CO2 has a clear warming effect, exactly as predicted. Now the question is whether some negative feedbacks will make the actual temperature-rise small or not.

        • AndyG55 says:

          CO2 has had ZERO WARMING EFFECT on the atmosphere for basically this whole century while CO2 has continued to rise significantly

          You are very obviously VERY misinformed about CO2 warming.. IT DOESN’T.

          Please explain all the NATURAL feedback effects that have CANCELLED your assumed CO2 warming effect this century. or STFU with your LIES. !!!

          Any energy absorbed by CO2 in the lower atmosphere is immediately passed to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere and dealt with just like the warming from a bush fire or from increased solar input (as in the last half of last century when there may have been a tiny amount of warming).

          You have yet to show one single paper that shows that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere. A tiny increase in the absorption of a tiny, narrow band of radiation does NOT show warming. You have to show that it is not transferred to another band as part of the LARGE increase of total OLWR.

  25. cfgjd says:

    The open peer-review happens in open access open review journals, not in blogs.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Oh, who’s rule is that? .. show me where it is written. !!

      is that a new rule the climate cultists have just invented ??

      Its certainly not in the standards of the scientific method.

      Nothing to do with science at all, actually.

      Open review can happen wherever it likes.

      Even if you don’t like that idea.. you cannot stop it, and your opinion is again meaningless

      • cfgjd says:

        Well show me some scientific papers that came out of writing on blogs? Where are they? Where they assessed by experts in the field? How did the author assess the and respond to the comments from the experts? What happened when the authors and the reviewers disagreed (which happens all the time)? Who had the final say whether the paper was fit to be published?

        I have a distinct feeling that you’ve never taken part in any kind of scientific endeavor, correct?

        • gator69 says:

          OK, let’s go again. You are constantly carping on peer reviewed papers. so…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yawn

        EVERY discussion on these blogs is in essence peer-review.. except when ignorant trolls like you interfere with your irrelevant bullshit.

        • cfgjd says:

          You have no idea about peer-review either, surprise surprise.

        • gator69 says:

          We certainly know one thing about peer review, it hasn’t ruled out NV as the cause of climate change.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Its obvious you don’t that the slightest inkling about ANYTHING to do with science.

          You still think peer-review is actually part of the scientific method..

          That’s woefully sad understand of science. But its all you have.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Peer-review is when a peer questions some part of the science within a paper.

          You should try it some time, instead of your meaningless ill-informed rants.

          AW has a paper.. you could review it if you had even the remotest understanding of science, maths or anything.

          But you are not his peer, and never will be.

  26. cfgjd says:

    ” A tiny increase in the absorption of a tiny, narrow band of radiation does NOT show warming. ”

    It directly causes warming. Of course there are other things going on in the atmosphere that might cause cooling at the same time but CO2 clearly has a warming effect.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “It directly causes warming”

      And that warming is immediately passed to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere.

      And dealt with in exactly the same way as any other tiny amount of warming.

      There is absolutely NO MECHANISM that allows the that heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.

      And as has been shown by atmospheric measurements, THERE IS NO HEAT BEING TRAPPED IN THE ATMOSPHERE

      OLWR has increased, no temperature rise for 18 years….. heat is NOT being retained.

      You can ignore this reality if you like.. but you only make yourself look even more the fool.

      • cfgjd says:

        Spectra changed so more heat is getting trapped in the atmosphere. That’s how radiation works.

        • AndyG55 says:

          No it not.. you are ignorant. You have no idea how radiation works.

          Its the TOTAL spectral content that matters, and that has increased a lot.
          It is balancing the incoming heat from the solar maximums that cause the slight warming during the latter half of last century.

          The Atmospheric temperature HAS NOT CHANGED IN 18+ years.

          It is NOT trapping heat. YOU ARE TALKING NONSENSE. !!!

          Please explain how the atmosphere can be trapping heat if the atmospheric temperature is not rising….
          …or are you going to start channelling Trenberth or something ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Come on.. you are missing your opportunity.

          Please explain how atmospheric heat is being retained but the atmospheric temperature isn’t rising. !

          I really want to see how you re-invent physics. 😉

        • Jason Calley says:

          “Please explain how the atmosphere can be trapping heat if the atmospheric temperature is not rising….”

          I am just waiting for some warmist to claim that the CO2 trapped the heat and then teleported it to the deep oceans without warming the atmosphere in the process.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Tell you what, little rock-spider, why don’t you do a quick test to determine what happens to extra heat in the atmosphere.

        Light a candle, gradually move your figure in from the side to get as close to the candle as possible.. that is radiation (and maybe a bit of conduction)

        Now try to put your figure the same distance above the candle.. I dare you..

        You have now learnt a basic fact about the ideal gas laws and convection.😉

        Now you need to go back to junior high, and start learning the rest.
        You have one heck of a lot to learn.

  27. AndyG55 says:

    WUWT that is loaded with published papers and experts in the field.

    As is JoNova….. There was a roll-call there a year or so ago.. a huge number of people with multiple science , engineering degree.

    There are people on here who have degrees in science , maths, engineering, and at least a couple that I know of that work in the climate field. very much a capable of peer-review.

    I do understand why you feel so left out.
    You obviously have NOTHING in the way of science in your background.

    “Who had the final say whether the paper was fit to be published? ”
    NOT some AGW pal-operative, and that is what irks you so much. 🙂

    The climate gatekeepers have been made redundant.. get over it 🙂

  28. cfgjd says:

    Nothing at all came out the solar notch fiasco on JoNova. No paper no nothing. And what came out from WUWT? No reviewed articles of any kind I’m afraid. Are you guys living in a dream-world??

    • AndyG55 says:

      Science papers are discussed all the time at both sites..

      You just wouldn’t understand any of it.

      And the revised notch theory is being published, it is up to about part 20 or something like that.

      And being VERY THOROUGHLY PEER-REVIEWED…..

      Magnitudes more than any climate alarmista paper has EVER been peer-reviewed.

      The first one had a slight error that required a re-analysis….. that is how REAL science works.. but you didn’t know that either, did you.

      You of course could never hope to be any part of that PEER review.

      • cfgjd says:

        LOL, the solar notch theory hasn’t even been presented anywhere in clear and concise form. And pal-reviewed by non-expert skeptics? I’m not holding my breath but I believe nothing useful and publication-quality will ever come out of that.

        It is a funny theory though, here’s some non-pal-review for you from the blogosphere:

        http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/denier-weirdness-magical-mysterious.html

        • cfgjd says:

          That analysis on hotwhopper sure is funny..is the Solar Notch non-presented theory really the BEST science 20+ years of climate skepticism has produced? ROTFLMAO huh huh😀😀

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yep… hotwhopper would be your standard of NON-science. ZERO !!

          You’re not seriously citing that junk , are you??

          Where are their arguments on the site it was publish.

          ….if they posted there, they would get scientifically torn to threads, and they know it….
          … so they don’t.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And that link is BEFORE the revised theory.. so again.. ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS. !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        It has been published

        Its there for all to see and read.. you are just too incompetent to understand any of it.

        Off you go.. go and find it and make some scientific comments on it. ..
        Not going to happen is it, little worm.. all you have is empty ranting..

        Many more people have had scientific input and review of this theory than almost any other paper in the climate science area.

        Not just one or two pals doing the spell-ceheck review a-la climate science™…..

        …but a thorough, nitty-griity adversary peer-review. And it is standing up very well.

        • cfgjd says:

          Where is it published? Single description please. Spread around in 20 blog-posts and comments is not ok.

          …it’s funny how they flip-flopped with the length of the delay, amount of predicted cooling etc. I also loved the “nuclear explosions correction” that was totally ad hoc from their part. Also it looks like their TSI-data was very suspect. Peer-review exists to weed out this kind of bullshitting. Hopefully they get their act together enough to produce a paper about it and try having it published somewhere as at the moment it does not even exist.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, and peer review has weeded out alarmists, clearly showing us that they do not know what they are speaking of…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Find it yourself, bozo. Read it yourself.. make your own arguments.. or you could just regurgitate junk rantings from other moronic alarmista with zero understanding of the subject.

          And again,.. who are you to set the rules of publication….

          You are a NO-ONE, a non-entity.

          IT IS PUBLISHED, and getting a thorough peer-review….. Get over it.

    • wizzum says:

      Anthony Watts presented to the AGU yesterday.

  29. cfgjd says:

    gator, since it’s now measured that extra CO2 has changed the spectra as predicted, please list ALL the feedbacks that prevent the extra CO2 from raising the temperature. A reference even to ONE paper will do too😉

    • gator69 says:

      Sorry child, but I am not trying to claim that for the first time in 4,500,000,000 years there is a new changer of climates. I do not need to prove anything.

      You and your lying priests OTOH have tried to make a revolutionary claim, so you alarmists need to step up and disprove NV, or go home losers.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Quit squirming and lying and tell the truth little child.

      • cfgjd says:

        CO2 is changing Earth’s energy-balance with space measurably. Now explain why this will not warm up the planet in the medium-long term? References please.

        • gator69 says:

          Child, when you can list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all, then and only then can you claim that CO2 is effecting our climate. Until then it is at best a hypothesis.

          And where is that paper?😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          “CO2 is changing Earth’s energy-balance with space measurably.”

          Yep. a large INCREASE on total OLWR. CO2 is helping to regulate the atmospheric temperature.

          You STILL haven’t explain how the heat is being trapped in the atmosphere, yet the atmospheric temperature has not risen in 18+ years..

          In fact, if you discount the large 1998 El Nino events there has been NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING in the whole of the satellite record.

          So come on.. show how heat is retained.. and yet there is a zero rise in atmospheric temperature.

          The ball is in your court… and you are FAILNG MISERABLY

  30. cfgjd says:

    Andy where is it published? In 20+ rambling blog-posts? Are you kidding me? You obviously do not even understand why this is a problem.

    • wizzum says:

      How many times have you been published? what is your history of reviewing?

      • cfgjd says:

        Been doing peer-review for 15 years at 2-3 papers per year. Published a couple of dozen articles, a handful of those in 1st or second author. Not publishing much lately.

        • wizzum says:

          care to share?

        • gator69 says:

          Makes sense. Your peers would also be liars, do you are qualified.

          Child, you claimed AR5 answered my queries, that makes you either a liar or so completely ignorant of facts, that your posts are nothing but childish babblings.

    • AndyG55 says:

      It is NOT a problem…. It is you who doesn’t have the ability to cope with anything outside your very limited range of dogma.

  31. cfgjd says:

    Gator also doesn’t have a clue how science works. Nice demagogic trick to ask someone to list all known and unknown effects that might affect the climate, otherwise they can say nothing. Some clueless skeptics might even think that sounds smart.

    • rah says:

      No what it proves is that as you have just admitted that there are “unknown effects” that have not been accounted for and thus the AGW hypothesis cannot even advance to the level of a theory until those effects can be discovered and their proportion of influence measured. Even now though time and again we see the AGW hypothesis falsified by current measurements of what we do know and can be measured. NO hot spot in the lower troposphere for example. And none of that even considers the historical climate record as we know it which all alone made Catastrophic AGW a nonstarter to begin with. Thus the attempts to eliminate the MWP and LIA by the scammers.

      • cfgjd says:

        Unknown effects can never be accounted by definition. Numerical weather forecasting is still improving rapidly so climate models will also improve. Let’s see what happens when the fake hiatus ends real soon now I predict.

        • rah says:

          The very essence of science if discovering the unknown and defining and measuring it. And “climate models will also improve”? Not the ones the scammers which duped you use I’m sure. If they did the scam would collapse altogether since it has been terrible models that were invalidated and should have never been used as a justification of anything in the real world since they couldn’t even “hind cast”. And it was those miserably performing models upon which the scam was based in the first place.

        • wizzum says:

          The thing I don’t get is that models are a theory and as a theory are expected to be adjusted as real world data disproves the assumptions being made (obviously you would not adjust a model that agrees with real data). From what I can gather, this does not happen with climate models and there seems to be frantic arm waving and name calling when anyone points it out.
          I don’t care if the world warms a degree or so and CO2 goes to 500 ppm as I believe this will be a huge boon to humanity through increased agriculture and desert greening. The millions of acres of arable land that would open up in Russia and Canada are staggering when you think of what a 2degree rise in temperature would do for them.

          The only things to come out of the cooler periods of our modern history were starvation, disease and exploration to find new sources of food and avoid the cold.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “so climate models will also improve”

          roflmao… they are woefully bad at the moment…. MONUMENTALLY FLAWED, would be a kindest description. They are carrying way too much junk from previous assumptions to ever improve to much beyond a pointless joke.

          There is a series of articles currently being PUBLISHED and thoroughly PEER-REVIEWED, (by 100’s of people, not just a couple of pals), that starts from scratch, pointing out many of these FLAWS in current climate models. These articles are pointing the way forward toward a better understanding of how the climate works.

          You should try to get passed your very basic education and actually try to learn something……..

          Maybe you might even be able to have some small input if you had even the slightest idea about anything….. but you don’t. so…. its not going to happen is it.

          You will remain in the very bottom of the knowledge pit, where you are happy swilling about in the putrid slime of places like SkS, hotwhopper etc…

        • gator69 says:

          “so climate models will also improve”

          Not until the grantologists are forcefully removed. And this is why…

    • gator69 says:

      Gator knows exactly how science works, and Gator knew the answers to my queries cannot be found in AR5 or any peer reviewed literature.

      You are the ignorant child who thought AR5 listed, ordered, and quantified all forcings. You are also the ignorant child who thought AR5 disproved NV.

      You continuously make claims that you cannot back up scientifically. What does that make you?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Another cowardly evasion showing that you nothing to offer in the way of rational scientific discussion.

      You obviously cannot answer Gator’s question, so just admit that you are clueless.

      And you obviously can’t explain how heat is trapped in the atmosphere without raising the atmospheric temperature.

      You are pretty much a FAILURE on even the most basic aspects of the non-science that you rant about. You are an empty mess of ignorance.

  32. cfgjd says:

    Where is the scam exactly? Skeptics have done a poor job uncovering scams. Mostly allegations, little proof and even fever improvements on the science.

  33. Gail Combs says:

    cfgjd says: “Questioning science happens via publications. Where are they?”
    ……..

    AHHHhhh Yes the old strawman argument.

    FIrst discussion of publication happens at blogs now.

    Second ‘Peer-review’ is a very young invention. So young only ONE of Einsteins papers was ever peer-reviewed. The constant emphasis on peer-reviewed papers is the refuge of the mediocre academic scientists especially when they refused to include ALL the data so the work can be properly vetted and validated.

    Actually peer-reviewed journals are headed the way of the dinosaurs according to the publishers of the journals and on-line is the up and coming.

    Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world even said

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
    http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

    Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world concurs:


    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

    Journal of The Royal Society Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

    Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review?

    …Isn’t it strange that three features that are inherent to research communication have not been looked at scientifically? There are several possible reasons for this. The most likely is that we scientists have almost complete faith in the journal process as right and unassailable. We thus take a ‘faith based’ approach to research communications. Faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Many of us might view questioning of the journal process as an attack on science itself. Clearly, the scientific journal process is not a part of the scientific method. We are taught early in our training about the importance of learning to write articles (e.g. IMRaD), the power of peer review and a belief in the editorial system. We do not question the process, despite the fact that the essence of science is questioning. Questioning peer review is like questioning the Bible, Quran or Torah. One role of science is to help separate science from dogma, which we should now do with journals, and avoid a faith based approach. New approaches need to be taken—you cannot teach dogma new tricks!….

    OH,
    And just for yucks, It would seem the anti-immunization crowd may not be completely nutso.

    Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic of the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, reveals that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. It is interesting that vaccine manufacturers are held not libel for complications including death resulting from immunizations per US law so there is zero downside to selling snake oil.

    Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic research:
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf

    • cfgjd says:

      There’s absolutely no reason skeptical research could not be subjected to open peer-review in open access journals. If they cannot defend their stuff openly there, their shit is not worth publishing anywhere.

      • Gail Combs says:

        AND there is EVERY REASON why skeptical research could not be subjected to open peer-review in open access journals.

        All you have to do is read the climate gate e-mails to see papers by skeptics ARE NOT WELCOME.
        2003 ClimateGate email

        I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
        Keith Briffa

        That is pretty damn blunt isn’t it?

        In 2003 Michael Mann is even worse asking what “the community” should do to punish a journal that dared to print dissenting views on the climate hoax.

        ClimateGate email 255

        Thanks Mike
        It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and he probably
        supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him.
        I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
        terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels–reviewing, editing, and
        submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
        Thanks,
        Mike Mann

        The rest of the story is in the Wall Street Journal.

        …Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

        This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union….
        http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366

        Of course if it is a ‘Politically Correct’ paper then it is a different matter entirely.
        ClimateGate email 4927

        subject: Thompson et al paper
        to: Phil Jones

        …Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere.
        Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo (i.e., we wouldn’t post any article until the paper goes public) and we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized.
        thanks in advance for any help!
        Mike Mann

        The words, “that the right message is emphasised”, show bias toward a cause, rather than unbiased interpretation of a result.

        ClimateGate emai 4568

        From: Hammond, John [Met Office] Temperatures PR – final

        Hi Annie

        Please find attached what is hopefully the final version of the PR ready for pushing out tomorrow.

        I will give you a call in the morning before we hit the buttons.

        Cheers for now,

        John___________________________________________________________________________________________

        From: Ogden Annie Ms…To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Hammond, John (Press Office…RE: 2007 Global Temperatures PR

        Dear all,

        Have just made a couple of minor suggestions – and one bigger one! As this is a joint release, it seems a bit unbalanced to have three quotes from the Met Office and one from UEA. Can I suggest attributing one of the Met Office quotes to Phil as well as his short point on temperatures? (Please see attached.) Happy to discuss.

        Best, Annie——————————- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia,

        Apolitical scientists at work?!? Yea RIGHTTTTttttt!

        And this last email makes that very clear.
        ClimateGate email 1285

        So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal. I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of “sound science” and Tyndall’s reaction to it some thought recently.
        Mike [Hulme]

  34. Peter Alexander says:

    DROUGHT STRICKEN TEXAS?

  35. Peter Alexander says:

    nye is going to be on CBS sunday morning>>>>*now*

  36. Peter Alexander says:

    HE 180’d ON GMOs But you can see their strategy is to label us all as Creationist 6 dayers…. How long is a “day”? Question professor asked in History of Science class……I took as explanation used as Catholics defended acceptance of policy change…. Liberals I wrestle with here in East Coast is CO2 amounts over time…..is heard Let’s use that to undermine libertards 6 day label & make it our base?

  37. Peter Alexander says:

    Pinocchio report!

  38. Peter Alexander says:

    We need to get Trumps attention to point out the lies put out by MEDIAITES

  39. Peter Alexander says:

    Have you heard of POLARIZATION? I seriously thing the Green Slime push is on to see if it sticks this next week to divert from real issues……

  40. Peter Alexander says:

    ELECTION SEASON PROPAGANDA

  41. Peter Alexander says:

    Still time….Let’s go for Millenials …try for rename their generation GREEN CUCHOLDS

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 )

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