Understanding Climate Science In One Paragraph

Earth warmed from 1977 to 1991 after the PDO shift. There has been little or no net warming since, other than recovery from the Mt. Pinatubo cooling. Obama wanted his Paris CO2 deal, so he told NOAA to make the hiatus disappear. Tom Karl obliged, whistleblowers came forward, and now the fraudsters are panicking and trying to make the hiatus come back – thinking that will save them.

About stevengoddard

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

29 Responses to Understanding Climate Science In One Paragraph

  1. TomE says:

    We long ago lost any faith in politicians, trend started when the first politician was in office around 7-8 thousand years ago, but it is sad that now we can no longer trust the scientists. Anything I read anymore on almost any subject is biased by the thought, “What are they trying to sell me?”

  2. omanuel says:

    May the panic spread to the fraudsters at NASA and DOE who lied to the public after 1946 about the source of energy in:

    1. Heavy atoms, like Uranium
    2. Some planets, like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars, like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. Our expanding Universe . . .

    all powered by neutron repulsion and the conversion of neutrons into H-atoms.

  3. ristvan says:

    It is amazing that Mann is a co-author. Strong presumption that the Karl debacle has loosed a strong disturbance in the warmunist force, as Obi Wan Kenobi would have said. Only two years ago Mann wrote an article titled False Hope in Scientific American (and which is no longer either) claiming the pause was faux. Essay Unsettling Science has details and references, including how Mann’s temperature data was revealed to be ‘unique’.

  4. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    The Société de Calcul Mathématique has established a new web site to store:

    _ a.) Raw data, facts, observations about climate, CO2, hurricanes, and so on;
    _ b.) Discussions about these data;
    _ c.) News about ongoing debates, such as the US Senate and NOAA?

    http://donnees-climat.info/

    The Société posted papers descrbing the battle against global warming as an absurd, costly and pointless crusade. See:

    1. White Paper drawn up by SCM SA (English version):
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

    2. Volume II: Social consequences of the fight against global warming
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_LBRCV2_2015_12_EN.pdf

  5. omanuel says:

    The Société de Calcul Mathématique has established a new web site to store:

    _ a.) Raw data, facts, observations about climate, CO2, hurricanes, and so on;
    _ b.) Discussions about these data;
    _ c.) News about ongoing debates, such as the US Senate and NOAA?

    http://donnees-climat.info/

    The Société posted papers descrbing the battle against global warming as an absurd, costly and pointless crusade. See:

    1. White Paper drawn up by SCM SA (English version):
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

    2. Volume II: Social consequences of the fight against global warming
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_LBRCV2_2015_12_EN.pdf

    • Barbara says:

      Omanuel: Many thanks for posting the French site. I have already seen their first volume, and am so glad to have the volume two followup. Brilliant!

    • Steve Case says:

      Excellent post!

      Our gracious host will no doubt appreciate pages 31 and 32 of the SCM SA White Paper.

      I have the link bookmarked for bedtime reading (-:

  6. gator69 says:

    How could you possibly write a paragraph about Climate Science without using the word “fraud”? I must give you an incomplete.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Come on Gator.. he said ‘;;

      “and now the fraudsters are panicking “

    • markstoval says:

      How could you possibly write a paragraph about Climate Science without using the word “fraud”?

      I agree of course, but I have come to the conclusion that all of science that is supported by the government in any way (even indirectly as in college tuition guarantees) becomes corrupted and mostly dead wrong.

      If Steve ever decided to stop looking at climate “science” and instead concentrate on medical “studies” or nutritional “studies” for example, he would have just as much material as he has now. The FDA alone can match NASA or the IPCC in fraud.

      ~ Mark

  7. li d says:

    Hows that ocean heat content eh!
    Little or no net warming my arse.

    • gator69 says:

      Exactly how much ocean warming, and exactly where?

    • Steve Case says:

      Josh Willis; “Correcting Ocean Cooling”
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

      And now it’s official, the ocean has warmed.

      • Neal S says:

        The bottom line is that if you torture the data long enough, it will confess whatever you want it to confess. These guys are masters at data torture.

      • Neal S says:

        Now having read all the way through the link that Steve Case gave above … here is what I noticed. Domingues talking about ice melting and thermal expansion said “When scientists added these terms, the sum was always less than the observed sea level rise” What perhaps he doesn’t realize, is that the amount of sea level rise being reported is fraudulent because of the data being adjusted. So then to match the false sea level rise reports, they then torture their ocean temp data until they get an acceptable match. All these “scientists” are lying to match everyone elses lies. This is like naughty schoolchildren after an accident conferring with each other to get their ‘stories’ straight. Of course they can’t make any real progress in understanding anything, because they are all reporting and using doctored data and those using that doctored data either don’t know it is doctored or they don’t actually care.

    • Jason Calley says:

      li d says: “Hows that ocean heat content eh! Little or no net warming my arse.”

      Question — why do they report ocean heat content in joules? Why don’t they report it in ergs or maybe even in Planck units? The number would much, much bigger and therefore more frightening to people with little understanding of math or physics.

    • AndyG55 says:

      See that FLAT bit at the end.

      That’s when they actually started measuring it.

      Before that the coverage was less than 5% below 700m and only 20% of the oceans above 700m.
      That means that the rest of the graph before 2004 is purely a work of modelling FABRICATION.

      The whole 0.09ºC (roflmao) rise since 1955 is a joke.

  8. smamarver says:

    Sometimes I think that politicians and some of the climatic specialists and those people who have contributed to recent debates (COP21 included) are possibly as much of a threat to the climate as the pollution caused by industrialization. For almost one hundred years, science has failed to realize that climate and the oceans are one and the same thing. As a result, the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the only true treaty dealing with climatic change issues, was thwarted the moment it came into effect over ten years ago. I found here plenty on information on climate, it might be useful for some people: http://www.whatisclimate.com/.

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