Endless Stupidity At The New York Times

It has been 10 years since the New York Times announced the end of winter in the Northeast US, and the arrival of Magnolia trees in central Maryland. They tied this to the demise of Polar Bears, disappearing Arctic sea ice and global warming.


With Warmer Weather, Different Decisions to Make – New York Times

Here is a big old Magnolia tree at Marilyn DiReggi’s Civil War era house in northern Maryland (which Montgomery County is still attempting to steal.) I’m pretty sure the tree didn’t just arrive there.

2015-11-09-05-58-09.png (648×460)

It is Arctic cold in Maryland and they are expecting more than two feet of snow this week.



There has been no change in winter temperatures in the Northeast over the past 120 years, with last January-March being the coldest on record. Winter temperatures peaked in the 1950s.


Polar Bear populations are up 10% to record highs since that story was written.


polar-bear-numbers-to-2015-sept-1-final1.jpg (766×365)

And there has been no change in Arctic sea ice area over the past decade.

iphone.anomaly.arctic (4)

iphone.anomaly.arctic.png (512×412)

The New York Times got every single one of their facts wrong, but that is the norm for progressives.

About stevengoddard

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

99 Responses to Endless Stupidity At The New York Times

  1. Jason Calley says:

    The New York Times is not in the business of selling the news. In fact, they are not in the business of even selling the truth. “Dissemination of the facts” is nowhere to be found in their business charter. They are in the business of selling advertisements — and the way to sell advertisements is to get a high number of eyeballs readings their rag. If claims that Bozo the Clown was changing the climate would pull in readers, you can bet that the headlines would read, “Bozo! Threat, or menace?” Truth has essentially nothing to do with their publication.

    • Frank K. says:

      “They are in the business of selling advertisements — and the way to sell advertisements is to get a high number of eyeballs readings their rag”

      That business model will be extinct in 5 years…almost no one will purchase “papers” but instead all news will be online. Then it will be Microsoft, Google and Yahoo who give us these false stories.

      • RAH says:

        The old gray lady ain’t what she used to be. But I have to wonder if your prediction of the demise of her dead tree version is not a bit premature because I have been hearing the same thing for years now.

        • Frank K. says:

          Well, when liberals want to preserve the status quo for their own benefit (i.e. $$$), they will find a way.

    • catweazle666 says:

      Anyone else remember Jayson Blair?

  2. RAH says:

    I happened to be out and about yesterday doing some errands when Rush Limbaugh was on. Don’t really listen much to him anymore because I already know what he’s going to say about the issues. But I cracked up when he said something like:
    ‘People don’t watch the MSM or listen to talk radio programs for them to tell them what their opinions should be, though perhaps NYT readers do.’

  3. gator69 says:

    The New York Times got every single one of their facts wrong…

    Since Marty isn’t here to correct you, I will point out that the NYT got the date right.

  4. Edmonton Al says:

    Written by: Anne RAVER. The name suits her..

  5. stephen says:

    When the NYT’s employees went on strike decades ago, they published a parody paper…the mast head read:”All the News That’s Print to Fit”

  6. Gail Combs says:

    Sorry this wanders but the stuff is interesting and bares on how we are mislead by the MSM. I have zero idea whether or not much of this is fact or fiction.

    WIKI on J.P. Morgan


    In 1896, Adolph Simon Ochs owned the Chattanooga Times, and he secured financing from Morgan to purchase the financially struggling New York Times. The New York Times became the standard for American journalism by investing in news gathering and insisting on the highest quality of writing and reporting….

    ….Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW 1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing control over America’s leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the war. Mr. Callaway alleged he had the evidence to prove Morgan associates were working as editors to select and edit articles, with the press receiving monthly payments for their allegiance to Morgan.

    One of the leading papers, The New York Times, printed the story of Congressman Callaway’s call for investigation from Washington, D.C., but the editor chose a curious obfuscating headline:


    Moore Asks Inquiry Into Charges

    on Preparedness Campaign.

    The US Congressional Record of 1917 recorded Callaway’s actions.

    The US eventually followed “opinion leaders” into the war, despite no national security risk from the sinking of a British ship (Lusitania) carrying over four million rounds of ammunition to kill Germans….

    The Church Senate Committee hearings had the cooperation of CIA Director William Colby’s testimony that over 400 CIA operatives were controlling US corporate media reporting on specific issues of national interest in what they called Operation Mockingbird. This stunning testimony was then confirmed by Pulitzer Prize reporter Carl Bernstein’s research and reporting. Of course, corporate media refused to publish Bernstein’s article…


    A bit more on: Operation Mockingbird (from Conspiracy site)

    Which mentions “After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. By this time Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. These organizations were run by people with well-known right-wing views….”

    Which is highly amusing since Allen W. Dulles was not exactly pro-American.

    …Here’s a perfect example of ‘expert’ propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said…

    “Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land…. Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, …can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

    Mr. Dulles is confused about the People’s rights. To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn’t ‘give’ us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away.

    The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit — propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.

    “There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”
    Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.

    Source …http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

    cfr = Council on Foreign Relations
    (John Foster Dulles and Allen W. Dulles were brothers BTW.)

    Another bit from another conspiracy site. ‘The CIA’s Worst-Kept Secret.’ This guy alleges Dulles transferred Nazis to the CIA. —- WTF?

    And this seems to back that up…
    Checkmate on ‘The Devil’s Chessboard’

    David Talbot’s new book The Devil’s Chessboard is an anecdotal biography of not just Allen Dulles but of the national security establishment that he helped create. Talbot gave himself the monumental task of summing up a 25-year slice of important history….

    Talbot writes about the ratlines (escape routes from Europe to Latin America for Nazis), but in the context of one particularly Machiavellian character. He writes about Lee Harvey Oswald from the point of view of one of his friends who sold him down the river to the Warren Commission, likely at the behest of the CIA, a friend who later ostensibly committed suicide just as a member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations was about to interview him. Talbot talks about the CIA’s mind-control programs in the context of Allen Dulles submitting his own son to those horrors.

    Talbot and his research associate Karen Croft, to whom he dedicated his book, have found all sorts of nuggets in Allen Dulles’s papers, his appointment calendar, oral histories, and other less-used sources. In addition, Talbot infuses his book with anecdotes from interviews he personally conducted. While I found some points I could nitpick in various episodes, overall this is a worthy addition and a much-needed perspective that elucidates how we came to have two governments: the elected one and the one that doesn’t answer to the elected one.

    Talbot demonstrates that Dulles always found a way to do what he wanted, regardless of what he had been asked to do, even from his entry into the World War II’s Office of Strategic Services, the CIA’s forerunner. OSS chief William “Wild Bill” Donovan had tried to assign Dulles to London to exploit Dulles’s cozy relationships with high-net-worth individuals like the Rockefellers whom Dulles served as a lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell. But Dulles instead got himself assigned to Bern, Switzerland, at the near center of Europe and a financial Mecca for secret bank accounts.

    Allen Dulles’s older brother John Foster Dulles had funneled “massive U.S. investments” into Germany post-World War I that flowed back to the U.S. as war loans were paid off. Both Dulles brothers enabled the Nazis financially and socially, with John Foster Dulles at one point defending the character of a Nazi lobbyist who threw a party in New York City to celebrate a Nazi victory in France.

    Sparing the Nazis

    Talbot makes the case that Allen Dulles was all but a “Double Agent” for the Nazis during World War II. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew how close Dulles was to the Germans but thought Dulles, as an American, would do the President’s bidding, serving as a lure for high-profile Nazis so they could be identified and neutralized.

    In pursuing victory, FDR pushed for an unconditional surrender, but Dulles had other plans. He told an agent of SS leader Heinrich Himmler that the Allies’ declaration of the need for unconditional surrender was “merely a piece of paper to be scrapped without further ado if Germany would sue for peace.”

    Roosevelt had assigned Dulles to support Project Safehaven, a program to identify and confiscate Nazi assets stashed in neutral countries. But instead Dulles, aided by his friend Tom McKittrick, the head of the Bank for International Settlements, sought to protect his German client’s accounts….

    • Henry P says:

      more and more I find that the news is being manipulated, to fit whatever it is that the “masters” want us to hear or know.
      I have decided to end my subscription to Time Magazine as they just preach what CNN is saying. It is a waste of time even reading their nonsense, especially about the climate.
      I like RT as my main source of information as I think they do their best to get a fair perspective on all of the news. [they also have have Larry King….]
      I also follow the Dutch and Belgian news.

      • Gail Combs says:

        CNN is owned by the Saudis.

        AOL Time Warner is owned by Prince Alwaleed Ibn Talal the Saudi billionaire. Alwaleed already has high-profile stakes in media groupsNews Corp, Time Warner (CNN’s parent company), and Walt Disney.“

        Isn’t it great to know the Walt Disney kiddie stuff comes from muslims….

        • Henry P says:

          just to let you know,
          I also do listen to the South African news, every day, on the radio.
          It just keeps me laughing and laughing, everyday,
          especially hearing our prime minister trying to count,
          2016 = two thousand and one six……..

      • gator69 says:

        I started reading TIME weekly while Nixon was in office, and finally ended my subscription over a decade ago. I watched as TIME cheered on the housing crisis, and could take no more when they depicted an American soldier cowering on the front cover. TIME is an enemy of all liberty loving humans.

  7. Henry P says:

    I told you it is globally cooling.
    Must be.
    It is what all my results for minima, maxima and means are telling:

  8. willys36 says:

    Have you seen today’s Yahoo ‘news’ article claiming all the massive heat generated by Amerikan SUVs is sequestered in the oceans and just hankerin’ to jump out and bake the earth?

      • lectrikdog says:

        Gazillions of joules, LOL WTF

        • Jason Calley says:

          I am waiting for the CAGW zombies to start reporting thermal energy in electron volts. After all, one joule equals 6.24 X 10^18 electron volts. WOW! WHAT A GIGANTIC NUMBER! THAT MUST BE REALLY CATASTROPHIC!

          Seriously, the next time some yahoo tells you that the ocean is absorbing so many joules, just ask them “how much, exactly, is a joule?” If you wish, bet them $20 that they don’t have a clue. If they want to go double or nothing, ask them what that gigantic number of joules in the ocean works out to as far as degrees.

      • Henry P says:

        if this were true
        than we would find temps. rising,
        not dropping

        • RAH says:

          I’ve never hear a satisfactory explanation of how that supposed heat is getting into the oceans.

        • Henry P says:

          both UV and IR has absorption in water,
          so technically [if heat from cars is still IR] it would be possible for some of that heat from earth to be absorbed [= changed to heat] in water.
          However, my finding is that it is rather the UV that contributes to most of the heat that gets sequestered to heat in the oceans and the amount of that UV coming in is in turn dependent on the amount of ozone, N-oxides and peroxides formed TOA.
          In its turn, the amount of ozone & others formed TOA

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is the SUN STUPID! (To Yahoo and boy are they yahoos…)

        • Ted says:


          Jason explained it below. He’s been driving his SUV underwater.

          There simply is no mechanism for getting heat from air to water, without warming the surface of that water. Anyone telling you that’s happening is promoting magic, not science.

      • RAH says:

        The article was written by Seth Borenstein. Nuff said.

      • Dave G says:

        Quote: “Because there are decades when good data wasn’t available and computer simulations are involved, the overall figures are rough but still are reliable,”

    • Jason Calley says:

      In deference to the CAGW supporters, I vow to stop driving my SUV under the ocean where the heat becomes trapped.

  9. Hifast says:

    A real reporter and editor would return to that farm and follow-up on the kiwis. But the 2006 NYT article is written with such a slanted intellectual investment in AGW, Arctic ice, and polar bear decimation, that any follow up could reflect poorly on their investment.

  10. Peter Alexander says:


  11. Ted says:

    I don’t know about magnolias, but I have it on good authority that coconuts could be carried that far north by an African swallow. Of course, African swallows are non-migratory. Maybe two swallows. They could carry it by a strand of tree bark, held under the dorsal guiding feathers…

  12. Dave1billion says:

    Southern Magnolia tress grow in the 7a to 10a zones ( http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/# ). It looks like that area (Montgomery County) is 7a so that would pretty be the northernmost extent that the Southern Magnolia would be able to grow in that general area.

    Gail has posted some interesting information about the migration of these zones in the past century but I have no idea where she gets her information or whether she can access any for this area..

    Magnolia trees grow slowly. Two of my neighbors have ones about that size and they are 50 years old. So that tree probably lived through the cold winters in the late 70s. We’re in Southern Louisiana, so our Magnolias trees would grow a good bat faster quicker here.

    • Dave1billion says:

      “Magnolias trees would grow a good bat faster quicker here.” … sigh

      After looking up all that information I end up sounding like a village idiot by not rereading my final sentence.

    • Gail Combs says:

      For Florida the USDA shows the entire state with the exception of the tip subject to freeze. Some one here in the last year mentioned the Citrus groves have had to move south because the recent colder winters wiped out the trees. You can tell where the groves used to be by the names of the towns.

      ” On his second trip in 1493, Christopher Columbus brought seeds of citrus trees and had them planted near what is currently St. Augustine.”

      From the 1500’s planting by the Spanish settlers to the present time, citrus has played an important, if not dominant role in Florida….

      Disaster struck Florida and its citrus business with the Great Freeze of 1894-95. The vast majority of citrus groves were totally wiped out by that event, with only groves in the Miami area being spared. The vast majority of citrus groves were totally wiped out by that event, with only groves in the Miami area being spared. The resilient citrus growers found the courage to plant their groves again, this time mostly in the southern part of the state and in areas close to the temperature-moderating Gulf and Atlantic waters….

      Timeline of Major Florida Freezes “*Impact Freeze: a freeze so severe that it annihilates entire groves across the state, killing both mature and young citrus trees, while causing a profound economic impact on the citrus industry and usually prompting growers to replant farther south.”

      1940 (coldest on record for state of Florida)
      1989 “This freeze occurred on December 22-26. This freeze was the fifth *impact freeze recorded in Florida history, however it was the second *impact freeze in a single decade, leaving growers little time to recover after the freezes of 1983 and 1985.”

      So during ‘Gore Bull Warming’ in the decade that Hansen started screaming we were all going to fry, Florida had two out of the five impact freezes in over a century of record keeping…. Riiiiggght.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “so our Magnolias trees would grow a good bat faster quicker here.”

      Do bats like Magnolia trees ?

      And how do you tell a good bat from a bad bat… except in cricket.

      • Gail Combs says:

        All bats are good bats as long as the eat insects and not fruit … or blood.

        And yes the little brown bat, common on the east coast likes to roost in trees.

  13. Jason says:

    It appears that the DMI has stopped updating the 30% graph (last update was on the 8th). They are continuing to update the 15% graph, though (last update 1/16/16).

  14. lectrikdog says:

    More Stupid: “it takes two days worth of electricity to de-ice a wind turbine” : http://iceagenow.info/ice-freezes-windmills-sweden/

    • Dave1billion says:

      “it takes two days worth of electricity to de-ice a wind turbine”
      I’m laughing out loud in merriment on that one. Where is the electricity supposed to come from once we get rid of the Fossil Menace?
      If you could make that kind of stuff up I think you’d make a fortune as a comedy writer.

    • lectrikdog says:

      I misquoted, correction: The amount of energy required is equivalent to two days worth of electricity. They use an oil burner to heat the H2O, and a helicopter to spray and melt the ice off the blades. But it’s still quite hilarious.

      • Dave1billion says:

        I understood what you were saying. I was thinking along the lines of how that power generation would be made up during down time in a future that has moved beyond fossil fuels.

        I guess maybe they’ll be using solar powered helicopters and water heaters in the future?

        Plus when do you decide to de-ice the blades? the Spring thaw? A week before a new front is coming through?

        • gator69 says:

          Don’t be obtuse Dave, those helicopters will be wind powered. They already have blades, duh.

        • inMAGICn says:

          Ummm…Good question that “when.” I mean, does spraying water on a frozen windmill actually do the job? Won’t it, like, you know…, I mean…, refreeze?

  15. ntesdorf says:

    120 years with no appreciable change in temperature and still they are not happy. They like the warm weather but are worried that the CO2 which is helping their trees grow, could suddenly become a dangerous temperature feedback cycle after millions of years of rational behaviour. These people are nuts.

  16. Andy DC says:

    I guess it was unusual to see roses, forsythia and cherry blossoms blooming on Christmas in the DC area. Of course, this week it has been bitter cold and the models are saying that on Friday and Saturday, we are going to get a repeat of the Snowmaggedon which took place in 2010, with two feet of snow in places. I suppose we are going to hear a lot about global weirding, when in reality it is just the law of averages.

  17. Oliver Manuel says:

    We face a utopian form of totalitarianism, i.e., communism that promises to end social injustice and delivers even greater injustice and slavery.

    Hitler’s message was much more honest than that of Stalin and current world leaders.

    • gator69 says:

      What an enormous load of horse excrement. These are truly delusional people, both the authors and the journal editors.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And even if it was true.. YOU BEAUDDDY !!!

      Imagine living in a major ice age, rather than in a brief, slightly warmer interlude

  18. ST says:

    Again you are basing climate decisions on 10 years of data! What about the sea ice extent change from the last 35 years? It tells a much different story. It is always easy to cherry pick data. Oldest trick in the book used by people who want to make a point that is contrary to analysis of all the data. This is why the decision to launch the shuttle in cold weather was made – they looked at the o-ring data for warm temperatures only.

    • Ted says:

      You mean like cherry picking 1979 as the start date for the sea ice records?

      Incidentally, what does your accusation have to do with the discussion at hand? There are plenty of other posts here where your comment would actually be relevant. It would still be wrong, though, because you’re comparing the mathematical process of determining the length of a zero trend interval, to the political process of picking the most advantageous start point. If we were doing the latter, we would start with the 1998 peak, and claim 18 years of cooling. But since you can’t look past the political dogma, you insist that we can’t, either.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Its amazing that these mathematically inept drones STILL don’t “get” that the so-called starting point is NOT cherry-picked, but determined by a mathematical back-calculation from NOW.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The have zero critical thinking capacity and just regurgitate talking points from, Romm, Tamino or Cook.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The oldest trick in the book is to use just the upward leg of the AMO as a basis for Arctic sea ice trends.

      (In your case I suspect it is ignorance , rather than a trick)

      You can also ignore the fact that for the first 3/4 of the Holocene, there was often zero Arctic summer sea ice., and that the current level is actually anomalously high compared to all but the period called the Little Ice age.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ST says: “…. What about the sea ice extent change from the last 35 years?…”

      It ain’t climate it is only the warming half of the AMO. To look at climate you need more like 1500 years.

      The Earth is at the top of the warm phase of the AMO and as the AMO starts to cool the arctic sea ice will rebuild, given the down trend of the AMO and the configuration of the Arctic ocean basin.


      • AndyG55 says:

        Gail, I’m at work at the moment. ( computer is running some climate based sims, I can post here while I wait, rather than twiddling my thumbs 😉

        As such, I don’t have links to those AMO vs whatever graphs of mine, but if you have them available, feel free to use them 🙂

      • Gail Combs says:

        Andy G I have these:

        • AndyG55 says:

          What I find interesting is the work done by Don Easterbrook tracking the Mt Baker glaciers.

          Despite being on the opposite side of the US from the Atlantic, they also follow the same pattern

      • Gail Combs says:

        The PDO from Roy Spencer

        What I find interesting is the graphs are not the same for the PDO

        Tokyo Climate Center, Climate Prediction Division

        “The red line represents annual mean values for the PDO index, the blue line represents five-year running mean values, and the gray bars represent monthly valuies.”

        Note: North Pacific (NP) Index probably not identical to PDO. Positive values indicate warm phases of PDO, negative values the cool phases. (NOAA)

        From this article. The title is very telling…
        Long-Awaited ‘Jump’ In Global Warming Now Appears ‘Imminent’ by Joe Romm Apr 2, 2015 4:25 pm

        “The positive phase of PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] index has persisted 8 months since Jul 2014 with PDO index = + 1.6 in Feb 2015.”

        • AndyG55 says:

          Done enough work for today.. 😉

          So I will now post a couple of graphs that “might explain the link between Arctic sea ice and the AMO, and why it is the ULTIMATE cherry-pick to start Arctic sea ice in 1979.

          First. Reykjavik temperatures vs AMO

          Next, NH sea ice levels inverted and put against the AMO

          Now a look at the so-called average and deviation as used on some sea ice graphs. This one requires a bit of explanation

          If you look at the blue shading, that is the period the “average” is based on.. ie the upward leg of the AMO. The pink shade is the approximate 1sd region. Now, as you can see, the blue dot is currently just outside that 1sd region, and guess what, that is exactly where Arctic sea ice levels are..

          Now lets look at the UAH NoPol temperatures since the AMO started to peak. As you can see, apart from the step in 2010, a very distinct COOLING trend.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Again you are basing climate decisions on 10 years of data! ”

      Climate is driven by cycles, unless you understand those cycles and where things are on those cycles, you can make MASSIVE errors, as the climate scientists have, with predictions and news grabs.

      10 years is actually a good length, because it basically represents the “top” of the AMO cycle, (often called a ‘stationary point’ in mathematics).

      PDO also is heading down, as is solar output.

      I hope you currently live somewhere warm, otherwise the next decade or so could be very chilly for you.

  19. ST says:

    Excellent – now we are talkin data and time scale that is meaningful! Thank you! Please be careful in assuming what what my political orientation is. You could be wrong. Actually by making this political as this site does – by name calling and such – you do an injustice to both sides as arguments breakdown because people immediately discredit each other. This is all about the data and models.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I can’t see where anyone called you names.

      ….. this last comment of yours, marks you as an overly sensitive, PC leftist, though.

      We have found over many years that data has very little to do with AGW, otherwise it would have died many years ago..

      The whole scam is now almost totally political, and as such cannot be discussed without bringing politics into it.

    • Ted says:

      Your first comment was plainly accusatory. Don’t jump on me for calling you out on it, when that was obviously your intent. “Cherry picking” is nothing more than a euphemism for liar, and you’re fully aware of that fact. Calling people liars is the realm of politics, not of science.

      If you’d like to start over, and politely discuss science, I’d be perfectly happy with that, as would pretty much all the regulars here.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Personally I HATE POLITICS!

        Unfortunately if you have more than two people you’ve got politics where at the club, the office, local, state or national. And you ignore the politics at your peril.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    Kiwis in Long Island? BFD!

    I planted Kiwis in Taxechusetts up near the New Hampshire border back in the early 1980s and had no problems with them.

    Right now I am trying to track down a cashmere buck for my goat herd. With the temperatures in the teens this week, I am glad all my kids are nice and fuzzy with a nice woolly cashmere undercoat to keep them warm.

  21. ST says:

    Cherry picking equals lying? Now who is the sensitive one? I could easily call you a right- winged ignorant jackass. I’d be lying but does that prove to you that I’m not PC? See how ridiculous the name calling is? One can easily cherry pick and be entirely truthful. The earth is either warming, cooling, or not changing. For the sake of argument – if it is cooling everything will be obvious in time, not changing will also be obvious in time and there is nothing to worry about. If it is warming it is either due to natural or man-made causes. it can be ignored and deal with the consequences or something possible done about it. One can say the data is tampered with and that it discredits everything – fine but that same data cannot be used to make an alternative point. One can cherry pick and find historical exceptions but this is not a hypothesis or a test or a model. If this site says it is not warming – what are the theories, hypotheses and tests for those hypotheses that support the argument and can they stand up to peer review? There are millions of dollars to be made for the first person who comes up with the alternate model, that withstands scientific rigor – that the earth is not warming. That’s what the lefties have done – it’s the opposition’s responsibility to due the same. Actually believe it or not – deep down I don’t believe that the argument of man-induced climate change is the real issue. Poll after poll show that most people believe that the climate is changing and is caused by man. I think the real issue is that many people don’t like possible solutions to it – which will require some level of government intervention/regulation and participation from nations on a global scale. This is where the politics come in.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The earth is certainly not going to warm catastrophically for another 65 kyr.

      Both NASA and WIki use Berger’s MODELS to say the Holocene will continue and the Ice Age the earth is presently in has ended. However more recent research using real data, not models, shoots Berger’s models dead.

      A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records
      Lisiecki & Raymo
      We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

      Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

      The Holocene interglacial is now 11,700 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). So the little Ice Age was about the right time for glacial inception. However we had the Modern Grand Solar Minimum – SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

      Will the earth descend into glaciation or be a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial? That is still being argued although the above paper carries a lot of weight. A newer paper from the fall of 2012 Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? agrees and gives the calculated solar insolation values @ 65N on June 22 for several glacial inceptions:

      Current value – insolation = 479W m−2 (from that paper)

      MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
      MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
      MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
      MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
      MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2

      (Changes near the north polar area, about 65 degrees North, are considered important due to the great amount of land. Land masses respond to temperature change more quickly than oceans.)

    • Gail Combs says:

      CO2 logarithmic absorption ignoring the new data that squashes the curve even flatter at the higher concentrations.

      If we managed to kick the CO2 back up to where plants want it, 1000 to 1500 ppm, reading from the chart you are looking at ~5 Wm2.

      So where are we in terms of the Milankovitch cycle and solar insolation?


      NOAA: (Berger’s calculated numbers @ 60N)

      Holocene peak insolation: 523 Wm-2
      ……………………………………………..decreased = 47 Wm-2
      NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
      …………………………………………….. decreased = 12 Wm-2
      Depth of the last ice age – around 464 Wm−2

      11,000 years ago…………… 523.16 Wm-2 peak insolation
      Wisconsin Ice age- Holocene transition
      12,000 years ago…………… 522.50 Wm-2

      So it took around 523 Wm-2 to kick the earth into this interglacial. Solar insolation @ 60N has decreased by 47 Wm-2 since then putting the earth just 12 Wm-2 of insolation above the deepest part of the Wisconsin Ice Age. I find that a wee bit scary. It means if the earth switches towards the ‘cold attractor’ which is the more stable state, the earth stays there for the next 64,000 years.

      What about CO2?
      It would take about 5 Watts per square meter to raise the worlds temperature from 15°C to 16°C.

      From Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic (2010)

      Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.”

      So even if you are talking 9% of Trenbreth’s “incoming solar radiation… absolute forcing,… around 340 W m–2 at the top of the atmosphere” the reduction in solar radiation since the Holocene climate Optimum is 30.6 W m–2 , and is equivalent to the entire CO2 forcing [32-44 W m–2] with mankind’s contribution being 1.5 W/m 2 for the forcing of anthropogenic CO2 [cf., Reid, 1997].

      So who in their right mind would advocate getting rid of the few W/m 2 that might be the difference between ‘chilly’ and frozen?

      Of course chilly is not anything to write home about.

      So We are either going to have another “extended interglacial”, like MIS-11 did, or we won’t, like MIS-19 didn’t, given that like them we are once again at a 400kyr eccentricity minimum.

      There is a particularly prickly issue that either case is stuck with:

      If the Holocene is to “go-long” like MIS-11 did, what could we possibly deploy to get us through the several thousand years of cold between the first and second MIS-11 insolation peaks… [Even if the Holocene duplicates MIS 11 it ain’t going to be warm.]

      “The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!

      • Jason Calley says:

        Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that the logarithmic charts for CO2 are for CO2 added to a dry atmosphere. When real world H2) is added in, the overlap with CO2 absorption bands wipes out almost all CO2 effects. I am not saying that addition CO2 has ZERO effect — but it is so close that even God has to squint to see it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The other point ClimAstrologists neglect to mention, that my geology prof did, is it is not cold weather but SNOW that is critical to glaciation. And you get snow when the Jet Stream meanders so cold air and moist warm air clash.

      So what are we seeing leaving out the temperature record?

      Snow Cover
      Northern Hemisphere snow cover has soared to record levels.

      There has been a massive Increase in Scottish Snow Patches

      Glaciation starts in Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes are directly south. The European glacier is seen in Scotland and Scandinavia. Therefore major snowfall and lingering summer snow in these areas and not some cooked up ‘Global Temperature’ is the indicator of real changes in the climate.

      Glaciation starts in Hudson Bay

      Hudson Bay was the growth centre for the main ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age. The whole region has very low year-round average temperatures. (The average annual temperature for Churchill at 59°N is -5 °C; by comparison Arkhangelsk at 64°N in a similar cold continental position in northern Russia has an average of 2 °C.[16]) Water temperature peaks at 8°-9 °C (46°-48 °F) on the western side of the bay in late summer. It is largely frozen over from mid-December to mid-June

      August 13, 2015: 2nd highest ice coverage for Hudson Bay since 1971 at mid-August – only 1992 higher

      The sea ice on 25 July 2015. (Note the location of the Great Lakes and think of the record ice the last couple of winters and the 6F below normal summer water temperature.)

      The Great Lakes obliterated all records for springtime ice last year, and this year.

      On March 1, 2014 the Great Lakes were approaching 100% Ice Cover – For The First Time On Record, only Lake Ontario was the only major holdout

      By March 26, 2014 the Great Lakes broke all records.

      March 3, 2015: Great Lakes ice cover over 88%, more than last year

      And on 14th October 2014, Water temperature of the Great Lakes is over 6 degrees colder than normal

      Itally captured the world’s one day snow fall record twice this last winter in March TWICE.
      240cm (7.84 ft) in Pescocostanzo
      256cm (8.34 ft) of snow Capracotta

      A total of 10 feet (3 meters) of snow fell on Passolanciano, Majella burying the chairlifts (6 Mar 2015 )

      Not far away, the Greek islands in the Mediterranean were buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow in January and Saudi Arabia has had snow two winters in a row.

      In Norway they were forced to remove excessive snow from ski slopes – “During the last two days we’ve got more snow than we had in the last two years together,” said Vegar Sårheim. “I had never believed we would experience this.”

      Those are just a few snow events over the last ten years that are ignored by the MSM. I am sure that Japan and South America is hardily sick of the cold weather and snow.

      • Henry P says:

        Good comment.
        I wish Gavin Schmidt would read it. What a load of nonsense he is selling.

        • Henry P says:

          snow deflects/reflects a lot of radiation from the sun, setting us up for an ice age trap.
          when this happens we could counter act by covering the snow with [pure] carbon…..
          Talk about irony.,…?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Hudson Bay Sea Ice

      Sea Ice mid July 2015

      Sea Ice mid July 2014

      Sea Ice mid July 2013

      Sea Ice mid July 2012

      Sea Ice mid July 2011

      Sea Ice mid August 2015

      Sea Ice mid August 2014

    • gator69 says:

      There are millions of dollars to be made for the first person who comes up with the alternate model, that withstands scientific rigor – that the earth is not warming.

      Really? Where? Please provide the available grants for proving the Earth is not warming. Meanwhile the 1.5 trillion dollar climate change industry marches on.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey ST! “If this site says it is not warming – what are the theories, hypotheses and tests for those hypotheses that support the argument and can they stand up to peer review?”

      The test for whether it is warming or not is to look at the data. The data says that globally, it has not warmed enough to be statistically significant in about 18 years. We sceptics believe the data.

      On the other hand the CAGW supporters claim that the measured data is flawed, but rather than just show what the data says and then increase the size of the error bars, they claim that they can change the data (in some cases, change the data more than a century after it was measured) and have a more accurate picture of what the temperatures are doing. They have given some reasons for specific adjustments (and some of the reasons make sense and sceptics would not argue too strongly against them), but for most of the adjustments they have not given either reasons or reproducible methods for calculating the size of the adjustments. In fact, they have adjusted the data not once or twice or even ten times or twenty, but over and over and over, adjustment after adjustment after adjustment. To put it in non-technical terms, the CAGW supporters are simply asserting without facts that it is warming. Simple assertion is not science, even when the person doing the asserting has a nice degree from a noted university. Even worse, when the adjustments (not the measurements!) are graphed against CO2 concentrations, there is an almost perfect match. This is an overwhelming piece of evidence that the adjustments have been made solely to support the argument that CO2 is warming the planet.

    • Neal S says:

      ST writes “Poll after poll show that most people believe that the climate is changing and is caused by man.” The fact that many or a majority of people might believe something, has nothing to do with whether or not that thing is true or false. If people are told a lie often enough they come to believe that lie. We now have multiple generations that have been lied to who accept those lies without question. I am glad that there are still a few who manage to think for themselves and are not fooled by the lies. I am glad for those who think for themselves who post here.

      • Gail Combs says:

        ““Poll after poll show that most people believe that the climate is changing and is caused by man.”
        Actually that is not true.


        …. just 24% of all voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over….

        68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming…..

        Eighty-seven percent (87%) of voters describe their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech as Very Important….

        But only 20% of Americans think they have true freedom of speech today. Seventy-three percent (73%) think instead that Americans have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting in trouble….

        The number of voters who consider global warming a serious problem has ranged from 53% to 66% in regular surveys for the past six years.

        But 41% say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year.

        Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe the president’s new plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-burning power plants will increase energy costs in the United States, and only 33% think it will do a lot to fight global warming….
        When given a choice, 63% say creating jobs is more important than taking steps to try to stop global warming, consistent with regular surveying for over two years now…

        Rasmussen poll results for question:
        Global Warming is Primarily Caused By…

        Date….. Human activity.. Planetary Trends .. Other Reason
        August 2015 …. 44% …………… 39% ……………. 7%
        June 2015 ……… 45% …………… 35% …………….. 8%
        December 2014 .. 42% …………… 42% ……………. 7%
        October 2014 …… 47% …………… 37% ……………. 6%
        August 2014 …….. 41% …………… 32% ……………. 7%
        June 2014 ………… 45% …………… 37% ……………. 6%
        April 2014 …………. 47% …………… 37% ……………. 6%
        Feb 2014 …………. 44% …………… 35%……………. 7%
        Oct 2013 ………….. 44% …………… 39%……………. 7%
        Aug 2013 …………. 43% …………… 41% ……………. 6%
        Jun 2013 ………….. 46% …………… 37% ……………. 6%

        Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found.

        The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming.

        The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.

        Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement

  22. Are there two different people posting under the ST handle?

    ”Actually by making this political as this site does …”

    ”This is all about the data and models.”

    ”I could easily call you a right- winged ignorant jackass.”

    ”That’s what the lefties have done – it’s the opposition’s responsibility to due the same.”

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 )

Connecting to %s