Who Is Steven Goddard?

My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.

I live in Columbia, Maryland – an amazing city where I can ride my bicycle everywhere through the forest, and never need to get in a car.

I am a lifelong environmentalist. I testified at my first Congressional subcommittee hearing at age 15 in Kanab, Utah, in support of  a wilderness area – very close to the one which President Obama recently set aside. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed. I worked as a volunteer wilderness ranger for two summers in the Cibola and Santa Fe National Forests in New Mexico. I worked on the Safety Analysis Report for DOE’s nuclear waste disposal site in New Mexico. I probably have the smallest electricity bill in Columbia, Maryland because I am very careful not to waste. I have never turned on my heat or air conditioning.

I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.

I do not receive any funding other than small donations on my blog, which have worked out well below minimum wage. I have tried to obtain funding, but skeptics with money are terrified of political attacks directed by the White House and/or being targeted by the IRS. They openly state this to me.

My position on global warming:

The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie. Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.

The radiative transfer models used by government climate scientists show that going up to 550 PPM or even 1000 PPM CO2 will make minimal difference to the radiative balance of the atmosphere. The knee of the CO2 curve is at about 30 PPM, and additional CO2 has little first order effect. This is because almost all radiation in the CO2 absorption spectra is already being absorbed by H2O or CO2 molecules. Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed. (This is a bit of an oversimplification because of second order effects, but those are also small.) There is no indication from the radiative transfer models used by government scientists that additional CO2 will cause large amounts of heating.

The temperature record of both the US and the world has been massively altered since older versions, almost invariably to create the appearance of more warming, and in some cases to create warming where there is none.

Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, and is now 400 feet higher than it was when the first humans walked to North America from Asia across the Bering Strait. Most of the apparent sea level rise on the US East Coast is due to the land sinking, not sea level rising. There has been little or no sea level rise on the West Coast.

The weather is not getting more severe. Since President Obama took office, there have been three US hurricane strikes – the fewest of any presidency. While Grover Cleveland was president in the 1880’s, the US was hit by twenty-six hurricanes. The US is currently experiencing its longest period since the 1860’s without a major (category 3-5) hurricane strike. The last one was Wilma in 2005.

Florida is currently experiencing the longest period on record without a hurricane strike. The US tornado count over the past two years has been the lowest in the modern record.

America’s worst forest fires occurred in 1871, when thousands of people burned to death in horrific firestorms around the Great Lakes – on the same day that Chicago burned to the ground.

Is climate change real?

Climate is cyclical and is always changing. People always imagine that they live in the worst of times, as this 1871 article from the Brisbane Courier states.

BkV2czHCQAEkDE0 (1)

10 Jan 1871 – IMAGINARY CHANGES OF CLIMATE. (Pall Mall Gazette.)

If you want to learn more about climate history, I have assembled a large collection of old newspaper articles about the weather below 350 PPM CO2. If you read through this, you will understand that lowering CO2 will not make the weather any better, or worse.

I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge, including the President of The United States. Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.

182 Responses to Who Is Steven Goddard?

  1. Andy Oz says:

    Bravo Tony.

  2. darrylb says:

    There might be more of us than you realize- My background is in physics, math, chem and after having only a cursory idea of what was happening I actually was challenged (by my daughter) to prove it. I am from southern MN and there is not as much ideology here, but a few college profs who counter me in the newspaper.
    Best Wishes—If you were ever traveling through southern Mn and wanted an all inclusive place to stay, leave a note on real science and I would contact you.

    • Hey- I’m at MNSU Mankato :) Are you nearby?

    • aamichael666 says:

      When UNESCO curricula have penetrated even the minds of your own daughter, I totally understand the outrage. This is a religion pure and simple, and with the Pope towing the line now, it should be quite apparent to even the most hardened band-wagon passenger.

      As a 33yr old Australian, I had this religion hammered into me in school, but I seem to be one of the few who value personal exploration of facts over ‘consensus’ announcements. I became a data analyst for primarily financial data, and when I heard about the Michael Mann hockey stick model that produced warming when even red noise was added as input data, I was outraged. The NOAA and NASA data sets being ‘historically cooled’ to prove warming, is Orwellian in the extreme, and it just goes to prove how intense the psychological factor at play in this cult is when tenured ‘scientists’ can stare the public in the eyes, and claim scientific method.

      One does not even have to be a climate scientist to first hand observe and prove for ones self that the ‘science’ is no science at all – my simple data analysis skills have served me well to identify raw fraud – and that a Global Government must be the intention. If the UN are given Sovereignty over the entire atmosphere at PARS 2015, we are basically consigning Nations to the dustbin of history, and elevating an international bureaucracy to sanction any planetary satrapy which it disagrees with on any issue what-so-ever. The UN is even using the listing of the Great Barrier Reef as ‘in danger’ if our current Conservative government does not start playing ball with this fraud … which is international blackmail that Obama and Cameron are partaking in.

      God help us all, because all of the Gen-Y’s in my country are running around shouting Climate Action Now like they are part of a Jim Jones cult on the Green Cool-aid. They’re all denouncing ‘capitalism’ as the problem in my country at present, and the hurdles of the current govt seem overwhelmingly stacked against our future. It’s like a reverse-color-revolution, claiming a color; green … a global coup against all logic and progress to actually bring people OUT of poverty.

  3. Stephen Richards says:

    $50 dollars to keep you going from an old retired physicist, SW contractor and project manager.

  4. WindStrider says:

    Love you man.
    You’ll be remembered as a man who stod up for the truth, Mann will be remembered as the little fat guy that earned a lot of money on lies.

  5. jpattitude says:

    Being right has never guaranteed a good income but there are psychological benefits. Imagine what it’s like to be Mann or Hansen and wake up every morning facing another day of propping up fraudulent science. Blech.

  6. Kalianni says:

    An excellent fiction book on this subject is “State of Fear” by Michael Crighton. The writing is fiction, however he has many old graphs and data and where to find them in the book and the appendix. Including some that were taken down after this book was published.

    • jdseanjd says:

      You’re right, the book is an excellent introduction to the global warming scam, especially for non-scientists like myself. It is deservedly a best seller, but his name is spelled Crichton, to make it easier for people to find.
      It’s worth mentioning that he was a qualified medical doctor, testified before Congress, was responsible for the popular TV program ER, & wrote other best sellers such as Jurassic Park etc.

    • Dick Cobus says:

      I remember reading “State of Fear” when it first came out; I checked the graphs immediately and they were as Mr. Crighton (Crichton) stated, however, once the book began to increase in popularity the graphs were altered and very soon thereafter taken down.
      It is important to note that the CO2 levels, (reported by junk science) is increasing at approximately the rate of the world population growth, 1.4%/year!!!!! Fascinating!
      Further, is difficult to get actual numbers, as in the recent “Annual Report” on global warming published on the Weather Channel, you get a lot of verbal “fear mongering”, but little if any actual facts.

  7. talldave2 says:

    I’m going to keep calling you Steve :)

  8. David Griffith says:

    Regarding hurricane strikes, you seem to have left out Hurricane Ike in 2008. Still thanks for the hard work.

  9. David Griffith says:

    True, but it did occur more recently than Wilma listed as the last strike at the end of the paragraph and it confused me as to when this post was made

    • Everyone believes that humans influence the climate. Please take your mindless straw man somewhere else.

      • James Lemery says:

        “I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge… ” Your words Mr. Goodard. What’s the matter, not up to the challenge after all?

        • I have no idea what you are referring to. But feel free to rant.

        • Florida Jim says:

          In defense of Mr. Goddard, it takes significant money to participate in a proper debate, or trial, of this magnitude, including travel money, hotel, etc. You can be sure the physicist would show up with expensive fancy 3D animations and maybe even multimillionaire Al Gore to create a media circus. The prize offerer knows this and that the dogs of dogma will attack any scientist who shows up in support of Mr. Goddard. Lonely go the brave.

      • Sheikh says:

        Here are your words from above: “I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge, including the President of The United States. Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.”

        I am new to your site, and you had me keenly interested until I read: “Please take your mindless straw man somewhere else.”

        Somewhere else is where I am headed.

        • jpattitude says:

          Labeling something a straw man argument is perfectly fair. If you feel it was NOT a straw man, then explain. That’s how debate works. Perhaps you might start by looking up what a straw man argument is.

        • Aphan says:

          Steven Goddard/Tony Heller understands that humans influence the climate. He’s never stated otherwise. Only a moron who doesn’t know what Steven/Tony thinks on the subject would even suggest that he engage in a debate attempting to prove something he doesn’t believe?

          I’m glad you headed elsewhere as clearly you are not capable of gathering information before you rush to judgements or following even a short exchange and representing it accurately.

    • First define your dispositive data set. That’s how science are work.

    • RH says:

      I’ll pay a hundred trillion dollars if you can prove, using scientific method, that God does not exist.

  10. Jerry Gorline says:

    You are the Real Life Hero, good call on the zombie stations. The increased Tmin trend in the USHCN is most likely the result of contamination from urbanization, land-use changes that disrupt the normal decoupling of the nocturnal boundary layer, changes that prevent the formation of a shallow layer of cooler air near the surface, resulting in warmer surface Tmin, not the GHG fingerprint asserted by SkS. All the Best, JerryG

  11. hazze says:

    Thete are sane people out there with the same ideas as you put up…but..you do it without surplus shit..its clean arrows..and you do it with humor…thats why your blog is the best..we cant thank you enough.

  12. JSBurch says:

    Thanks for your efforts Mr. Heller. You are shedding light on areas I thought looked suspicious too. The temperature records set in the 1930’s seemed to contradict what the GW crowd said of more recent periods as being the hottest on record. Well done.

  13. Big Daddy says:

    80 years is insignificant when it comes to measuring climate cycles. It would fall more under the catagory of weather. Climate takes place on a much larger time frame of Geologic Time. For example; The last Glacial Maximum ( LGM ) took place 20,000 years ago. Scince then, the continental Glacier wich extended from greenland south to St. louis and from the the north atlantic shore to the great pacific northwest up to Alaska. The continental Glacier melted to the extent that only about 1% of the continental glacier remains itoday in isolated,disassocited,tatters and remenants virtually unrecognizable in ice age terms.Further, This 20,000 yr warming trend is characterized by periods of rapid rates of deglaciaiton;periods of extremely slow deglaciation; and even periods of reglaciation under the much larger 20,000 year warming trend. In Geologice time 80 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs is a nano-second of brevity wich can barely constitute a trend in the larger context of geologic time. Here is a movie of the modeled deglaciation of north america in the last 20,000 years. It is interesting to note that virtually 99% of the virtual deglaciation of North america takes place prior to the industrial revolution and in absence of any anthropogenic forces much larger than a camp fire.

    From an even larger perspective of geologic time ,in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth it is interesting to note that Polar Ice and Glaciers on the planet earth occupies such a small amount of time as to almost be an asteric in the history of the earth. This is to say that the absence of Polar Ice and glaciation on earth is the ” Norm ” for the exceedingly vast majority of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history. Further, In absence of any climactic factors of hemispheric or global proportion wich would not only interrupt the warming trend of the last 20,000 years but change to a trend of significant cooling, it is predictable that the tiny amounts of fragmental glaciation in north america and indeed globally will totally disappear thereby reuniting the earths conditions to its long standing historical norm of an Earth without Polar Ice and glaciation.

    Modeled Deglaciation Of North America: Movie: http://www.physics.mun.ca/~lev/glacmov.html

    Again, 99% of the deglaciation of north america occurs prior to the industrial revolution. This is all one needs to know to dismiss the anthropogenic climate change kooks.

  14. RNAngel says:

    I have enjoyed reading your articles. Just curious… Why do you refer yourself to Steven Goddard? Your critics have seized on this.

  15. Tom Moran says:

    Thank you for what you do. I enjoyed your talk at ICCC9 in Vegas.

  16. QuebecCity Oliver says:

    Good to see that you have finally come out of the closet (so to speak).

    It gives one hope, that maybe one day you will accept the evidence.

    • After 25 years of believing global warming BS, I finally accepted the evidence about a decade ago

      • aamichael666 says:

        Did you feel dirty? … even a little raped? I did. I’m 33yrs old and ALL I was taught in regards to climate at a state school in Australia was that CO2 was the main driver of the climate. And they say here that state schools are ‘secular’. This is a religion pure and simple, and thank you for your vocal dissent. We are all sure to burned at the stake as heretics against Green Buddha. Obama said at the Alaska 2015 conference a few days ago that ‘Any leader who denies the science is not fit to lead’: whilst standing next to the Secretary of State John Kerry, who is always present for official Obama warming alarmist fests I have noticed. Secretary of State is domain of Foreign Policy I believe? Meaning this was an open threat against any Nation like Australia currently resisting this tyranny. Harper in Canada is sure to be the next victim of the slow reverse-color-revolution sweeping the globe.

  17. A.smith says:

    If your weather turns humid in MD for a long while, I’d suggest you break down and use some a/c or you’ll be wiping the mold off your walls. If you end up wiping mold…. Use borax.

  18. Stuart says:

    And this is a great read with lots of historical information about the quest for the Northwest Passage and the race to reach the North Pole… http://www.amazon.com/The-Arctic-Grail-Northwest-1818-1909/dp/1585741167

  19. John M says:

    Wasn’t sure where to post this to get it to you, but wanted to let you know that on CSPAN today (8/18), Dan Ashe, Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, just testified in a Senate hearing that he doesn’t think the “pause” in temperatures exists, and that temperatures have NOT Flatlined. This was under questioning from Senator Roger Wicker of Ms. The hearing was titled, “Impact of climate change on Wildlife and Agriculture”.

    I hope you get the transcripts and do a story on this and use Dan Ashes quotes.



    • The US is having one of the coldest years on record. His fish are freezing

      • John M says:

        I find it amazing that the heads of very powerful federal agencies don’t even believe the temps have “paused” or gone flat the last 15 years or so, when many of the leading alarmists have acknowledged it, including Hansen and others.

      • John M says:

        I forgot to mention earlier that Dan Ashe, after denying that temperatures are not rising presently, attempted to offer up a scientific explanation/basis for his beliefs. That’s why I hope you review the transcript and expose how ridiculous his assertions are.

  20. David says:

    Did you catch this article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/19/revising-the-sunspot-number/

    Now they are changing the raw sun spot data as well because it isn’t cooperating with their political agenda.

  21. I am a meteorologist and I am a skeptic or realist. Thanks for the research and the old newspaper articles. I enjoy showing them to my alarmist friends. Keep up the good work.

  22. Chris says:

    Tony, could you please show evidence that additional CO2 concentrations have minimal effect on temperatures as you have stated? I agree that the middle of the absorption band gets saturated at modest CO2 levels…but the absorption band continues to get wider as levels increase – and this is rather important in the H2O window where CO2 is most effective.

    “The radiative transfer models used by government climate scientists show that going up to 550 PPM or even 1000 PPM CO2 will make minimal difference to the radiative balance of the atmosphere. The knee of the CO2 curve is at about 30 PPM, and additional CO2 has little first order effect. This is because almost all radiation in the CO2 absorption spectra is already being absorbed by H2O or CO2 molecules. Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed. (This is a bit of an oversimplification because of second order effects, but those are also small.) There is no indication from the radiative transfer models used by government scientists that additional CO2 will cause large amounts of heating.”

  23. ralphchapman313 says:

    I will take help here from anyone. I cannot find the blog in which you said this, and I have tried it out on friends who are plenty smart, and none of us gets it. Can you please tell me what you were referring to when you said: ‘Faced with a series of very cold winters, climate experts decided to make up some bullshit about missing ice in the Eastern Arctic causing Rossby waves, which made thething of the past fall in the deep south.’ Just the last ten words.

  24. fred says:

    can one write a letter to steve goddard?

  25. James says:

    Just wait. When the earth temperature wil rise up to 2 deg celcius, your unprofessional website wil look like a piece of dog shit in the street of L.A.
    Dear reader, read please also scientfic journal as : Nature, Scientific America, !…before you make opinion, be critic also with this website

  26. James says:

    Your comment is awating moderation…..you filter any critic. Piece of shit !
    En how much Exxon is paying you to say scientifics lies…..

  27. Joe Pomykala says:

    Here is Bill Maher link ” ‘I Am Much More Afraid of Ice [Melting]… Than I Am About ISIS’ ” which you may like
    http://www.cnsnews.com/video/newsbusters/bill-maher-i-am-much-more-afraid-ice-melting-i-am-about-isis-0 , you can probably get an original link and cut to the quote on ice being more a worry than ISIL.
    … Kerry, H. Clinton at Dept. of State same in speeches as most important issue while Middle East is falling apart and people getting beheaded, scary, but guess Halloween is just around corner, but not funny scary the ways these people think.

  28. Peter says:

    I have a question. I like your point about first order effects being limited beyond 30 ppm of CO2. And that made me think of analogies/corollaries that may explain that. I was thinking of a classic, glass greenhouse. If you build it of 1/4″ thick glass, I suspect it would be just as warm as if you made it out of 1″ thick glass (adjusting for insulation effects). Thus adding more glass, just like adding more CO2, doesn’t material impact warming due to the limit of the absorption spectra being reached quickly. Any idea if my suggestion about glass thickness in a greenhouse is accurate and provable with science? Thanks for your insights.

    • CO2 behaves nothing like glass. It doesn’t block convection

    • Menicholas says:

      This analogy may be more better:
      If you paint a window black, so that no light gets through, will putting another coat of paint on it make the room darker?

    • Jerry says:

      You are making the same mistake that the earliest investigators made – men like John Tyndall in 1859. You can’t evaluate the effect of CO2 concentration by just measuring or calculating the amount of radiation absorbed in a column of the atmosphere.
      I suggest that you read the discussion of CO2 absorption at the American Institute of Physics website.
      You can find this at: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0146

      • steve says:

        I have a property near sea level and have taken an interest in the subject of rises over the past few years. The most puzzling question is why NASA chose to use satellite measurement of a surface, which is changing constantly, and how they can possibly be sure that the measurements relate to land levels or average out. The physical tidal markers give a reliable measurement and now apparently show little more than the slow rise, which has been going on for centuries. The AIP article describes the heating of the oceans and attributes the hiatus to this.There is little exchange to depth and these must be surface measurements, yet the graph shows temperature calculations from cores at the sea bed. Now, if the sea has risen in temperature, why has there been no sea level rise through expansion. I believe tide markers and not satellites as they can be related to land movements and must be reliable.

        The article says of icecore measurements- CO2 and methane had gone up and down ROUGHLY with the advance and retreat of ice. The graphs I saw from Greenland showed a delay of about 800 years. Not exactly rough. Any comment?

  29. Hey Tony,

    I am a broadcast meteorologist in Nebraska and I am a skeptic when it comes to AGW. I have been reading your material and research for about a year now. You are brilliant and pretty damn funny as well. Sometimes I get a little down when I see the media spreading half truths, lies and gross exaggerations about weather and climate. I am one who knows that weather extremes are not getting worse nor are they increasing. So I get depressed when I hear things like the drought in California is caused by humans even though there was a 200 year drought during the middle ages. I occasionally have hope that reasonable people will realize that this global warming thing is a joke. When people hear that there has been no warming in 17 years, record sea ice in the Antarctica, increasing sea ice at the North Pole and the many other failed predictions by climate alarmists, I had hoped that people would realize that AGW is a crock. But the alarmists were able to spin it and claim that global warming leads to record cold and more sea ice. It is frustrating to continue to listen to the lies in the media.

    My question to you is, what will it take to convince people that these climate alarmists are wrong, frauds and liars? What will the Earth’s weather have to do to stop the insane amount of money that goes into this political movement ?


    Brad Anderson

    • Brad,

      I think that the only way things can change is when people understand that the nonsense is hitting their wallet or their lifestyle, like in Australia. Most people believe what their political leaders tell them, and Australia has turned the corner. Hopefully the US will get there in a few years, but the level of propaganda here is very high and will be difficult to turn until people really understand the price they are paying.

      • Kevin Casey says:

        Thanks for all you do, Tony! I found somewhere that the sky is not falling! For me, the worst economic effect of this nonsense will be on the poor in under-developed countries. They need cheap energy.

      • TimiBoy says:

        Sadly I think Australia is not turning the corner at all. I think this will be a one term Government, and we will, in another couple of years, be hell bent on blowing what little resources we have left , following the Green Boondoggle down the toilet.

        • Murray says:

          Sadly, I think you are correct. I am very worried what will happen if the current government is replaced at the next election.

  30. Joe P. says:

    Must read

    People’s Climate Rally or People’s Republic of Climate? Gov should imprison those who deny the scam and sham science? More UN for crimes against humanity by denial. ISIL tactics on unbelievers next?

  31. The Gann Man says:

    FINALLY !!! Someone with common sense, who actually looks at the cold hard facts, instead of just following all of the other mindless lemmings off the cliff.
    Please keep up the good work, and never be afraid to speak the truth !

    • jpattitude says:

      From your link: “A new study, just published in PNAS, suggests that the ocean has been surprisingly static since 4,000 B.C.. But that changed 150 years ago.”

      And what happened 150 years ago? The end of the Little Ice Age. This is what the Warmists have been doing since the beginning of this science scam: cherry picking the starting point for their data. Of course the planet is warmer since the last geologic cool era ended. And I am much hungrier now than when I finished eating breakfast but I do not despair, because the cycle will repeat when I eat lunch – please do not extrapolate a long term hunger trend based on what’s happened since breakfast.

  32. KN says:

    Hi, I am also for truth, unfortunately you have also
    TouchWiz Nature UX 2.0 

    mislead your readers by splitting hairs and genral omissions as much as those you charge, who likewise push thier agenda.
    however truth is easier to determin by individuals willing to do the work.
    try this link for total hurricane counts, deaths, years, cost back to late 1800, compiled by data only.
    one thing is certain, frequency and duration of intensity has steadily increased every decade, even the natural spikes of nina and nino ocean temp currents every 7 to 9 years has become more intense.
    if you feel the need here to abolish the notion of human culpability, well… what ever gets you through the nite, I guess. Denial is all the rage regardless of religion, rank, politica or idiology.
    Yes the planet have changing weather patterns and climate spikes, most changed due to large siesmic events changing particulates in upper atmosphere, reflecting heat down wardsor upwards, radiation spikes from the sun, etc etc. Unfortunately on a daily basis, our industrial and commercial synthetics production and resulting polution globally has effectiviley mimiced many of the resultant affects that contribute to climate change. Coupled with inherant natural changes, effectively we have stoked the flames and significantly contributed to climate change, ushering changes that likely would have taken thousands of years to resolve naturally, to instead culminate in less than 1 century.
    Yes climate change is a natural occurance over a millenia. Yes, humans have brought that change artificially over a single century of our highest production towards… PROGRESS.
    Congratulations one and all.
    It doesnt matter what you or I say today. History tells all, even history made a decade from now or even 3. None the less, you have put your points of view here for the future generations to read and judge your intellect, sincerity, denial and culpability from. The internet does thst well. Hopefully, you are too old to recall your lack of urgency to address the climate issue and instead deny it ever really was. Good luck to you all. Good luck to our future children, may they forgive our ego and arrogance.

    • jpattitude says:

      You say “one thing is certain” but based on the chart you link to, it’s not certain at all. There were two hurricanes in 2013 and we have to go all the way back to 1982 to see another number that low. (And this year, by the way, they were starting to wonder, until the last couple weeks, if we would even have a hurricane in 2014.) Are you basing your conclusion on money damage and people killed, because, if so, that would be a silly basis for saying storms are increasing in intensity.

    • Dr Steve says:

      This is a typical use of cherry picked data from an uninformed true believer. I study disaster management and can definitively say the intensity you refer to, at least with respect to deaths and costs, have no proven casual relationship to global warming. Instead if you were to actually review the literature has much more to do with population growth, land use, inflationary effect on building costs, size of structures, and other variables that are in no way related to climate change. Twit

  33. evangelist says:

    good to see you found the pall mall gazette from the climate change back in 1871. i stumbled upon that one a while back, must be over a year. it’s pretty funny really, except that people believe this stuff i wonder, or they just think they can pull the wool. climate change is surely tired and well disestablished by now. quacks still out there trying to talk it up or presume it’s still a mandate to sabotage the economy. but it’s old news where there was not long ago the worst bushfires ever seen is now replaced with wind and rain and even snow. but we’re still told we’ re heading for the hottest southern hemisphere summer on record, despite the out of the ordinary cold weather and rain and even snow.

    my trick is to lampoon that article by telling people all about the climate change and how i read it a great article, heard of the pall mall gazette. it spells it out that man made climate change is a sure thing, and people start to get all excited. until i tell them where i read it. like they haven’t heard of the pall mall gazette, what’s that. it’s the daily paper, back when climate change was first discovered, sure as, scientific fact, in 1871. they shut up then.

  34. “Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation”
    Exactly Steven! Let me add one more thing. Consensus is not science. Seems pretty evident to me, but a lot of GW alarmists point to the “fact” that most experts believe GW is man made (so it must be true!). At one time there was a consensus that the world was flat, but we all know how that turned out. Glad I came across your excellent website!

  35. cbelkins says:

    Why “Steven Goddard” There is an old time weatherman in Cleveland by the name Dick Goddard.
    I am new to the website. Interesting.

  36. These guys still have you listed as Steven Goddard.


    What do I have to do to get on this prestigious list?

  37. john carroll says:

    I am a skeptic, I can’t believe that man is intelligent enough to destroy the planet, the planet will compensate and set us straight if necessary. Now I am of the belief that if one has a hypothesis, then oe should have a evidence to support said hypothesis in order to achieve a theory. Having said that, are you aware of any lab experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does temperatures? Did they do it and trash it because it doesn’t prove the claim? Just wondering, I’m fighting the good fight on message boards, and I stick to my experiment as my proof there is no causation of CO2 to temperature or climate.

  38. Phil Geyer says:

    It is easy to cherry pick individual data items and use them to prove your point, while ignoring the larger picture created by all of the data points. Discussing hurricanes that are category 3-5 when striking the US provides one view. Examining the size of hurricanes or the amount of damage that they cause would give a different picture. However, neither set of facts proves or disproves global warming.

    The 97% figure has little to do with American Meteorological Society members. Th source of the 97% figure lies in Climate Scientists and years of published research. Relatively few (about 15%) members of the AMS would say that their area of expertise is climate. Among those members of the AMS who claim climate as their area of expertise, 93% agree that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over that last 150 years. (2012 survey)

    Decades ago, tobacco companies insisted that smoking was not bad for us and paraded experts to support their assertion. They succeeded in slowly down legislation and preserving profits.

    Now we have corporations who feel threatened by any effort to reduce global warming. They are spending massive amounts of money and parading experts to support their assertion. First it was “it isn’t warming”. Then “it isn’t human caused”. Now – “it will hurt the economy”. They are succeeding in slowing down legislation and preserving profits.

    I am concerned about the world that my grandchildren will raise their children in. I have looked at a lot of data and scientific articles. I am not a climate scientist. However, God gave me a reasonably good mind and as I examine all of this information, I conclude that the overwhelming consensus is real.

    It isn’t going to be easy to address, but the more we try to hide from it, the larger the problem will become. I hope that much of the solution comes from U.S. inventiveness, research and technology. Such development would help, not hurt, our industry and our economy.

    • jpattitude says:

      Your claim about the 97% consensus is so hilarious, so thoroughly debunked long since, that I almost spit coffee on my keyboard when I saw someone still trying to sell that snake oil. Most people know where that number came from, but for those who don’t I detailed its history back in February: http://www.jpattitude.com/140222.php.

    • mike says:

      You’re a moderate and rational human being who is concerned for future generations. I suspect you will become depressed by the weirdness of the responses and posts on here from folks who seem to be on another planet. Don’t waste too much energy on it.

      • Jerry says:

        Mike’s right, Phil. You’re wasting your time. This is a forum for wingnuts.

        • Dr Steve says:

          right so rather than debate on the merits of the pts and evidence presented you use the typical liberal tactic of ad hominem attacks This only proves that not only has the left become the haven for wing-nut behavior and thought they employ fascist tactics to shout down dissenters of their myopic worldview.

  39. Well said, Tony

    Fine content and clear writing easy and enjoyable to read.

    Malcolm Roberts

  40. Teppo says:

    Hi Tony,

    Just wanted to send you link to pretty nice doctoral thesis about UHI in Finland. Well, might be that
    we have it different here: https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/101035

  41. tomwys1 says:

    Keep it up, Tony! You’re on the side of the Angels!
    Never give in, Never give up!!!

  42. katesisco says:

    I believe this debate will be a moot issue after the Paris accords next year where the climate credits will be available in Africa.
    As previously, aid money went to develop mines and the associated water power, this round of funding will wear a new face. Aid money to Africa has been indited as an enabler of the massacres of population in Rwanda and Burundi. These ‘climate dollars’ will be designated to be allotted to development of solar/wind farms contracted to US/Euro developers, specifically to power associated factories/firms located next to them.
    The remaining flat lands and water resources will be redirected to these national conglomerate efforts. The populations of the areas, noted in Tracey Kidders new book as ‘having been described as ‘thickly populated’ in 1910,’ will have no place in the new order. Traditional cow herders and farmers will be restricted and displaced in their homeland.
    Please see WIKI Botswana where the US has located its base of the Africa Corps and the large amount of money that is tied to ” restricting–read banning— cattle from the ‘fragile’ and ‘dessicated’ land that is the populations only source of income.

  43. Larry Fields says:

    Hi Steven,
    I like the approaches you’ve taken in your blog.

    First, there’s nothing like archived newspaper articles to document inconvenient episodes of mindless climate alarmism from the past, which Warmies are desperately trying to put behind them.

    Second, one graph is worth a thousand words. This allows you to keep your articles short and to the point.

    Although WUWT is an excellent blog, many of their articles are far too long for my ADDish brain to handle. Yes, WUWT has graphs. But they also have thousands of words to go along with those graphs.

    There’s another reason why you’ll always be Steven to me. Having to keep track of both an Anthony AND a Tony would be a little confusing for me.

  44. Russ says:

    That is the response we should expect from a typical Kool Aid drinking, big government, ‘do whatever they tell us to do’, liberal, who only gets his news from MSNBC and NPR.
    When all else fails, and the facts are not on your side, resort to hysterics and name calling.

  45. P Geyer says:

    Hmm, Russ, I believe that was hysterics and name calling. Should I therefore assume that the facts are not on your side? :-)

    • Russ says:

      Perhaps a bit of hyperbole…….you got me there ! But no hysterics, to be certain.
      Also, when I said ‘name calling’, I was referring to descriptors of a more derogatory and defamatory nature (personal insults and the like).
      Point well taken though P Geyer,………perhaps I should have just said ‘When all else fails…….etc, etc’ and let it go at that ! : )

  46. fritz chess says:

    I asked this question last week and never got an answer, how do you knuckleheads explain all the melting glaciers around the world? I’ve watched them melting down with my own eyes.

      • Glaciers have been melting since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Visitors to the Canadian Rockies in the 1920s remarked on how much glacier recession had occurred since photos of the glaciers were first taken about two decades earlier. This, of course, was well before the massive increase in carbon output that has taken place since the mid-20th century and continuing today. In fact, glacier recession in the Canadian Rockies has not accelerated over the past century, despite massive increase in carbon output.

    • jpattitude says:

      Some glaciers are melting, some are growing. Stop watching the ones that are melting and maybe you will feel reassured.

  47. Russ says:

    How do you explain that Ice Ages (and glaciers) have come and gone, many times before, many thousands of years ago ?

  48. Edmonton Al says:

    Sorry ………….Tony my apologies.

  49. Thom says:

    Steve/Tony, I appreciate the “debate” here. Here and similar places including some sharp folks up in Canada are about the only place where you can see both sides of the issues. Even critics add value now and then by being proven wrong. It has always been my understanding that a real scientist has to be a skeptic if he is to do honor to the scientific method. I see little of that on the religious cult side of AGW. While egos, invested interests, careers, reputations are not unique to what passes for the scientific community today it does seem to be the main driver of Global Warming/Climate Change energy today. The science, not so much.

    I was introduced in my profession long ago to the phrase, “if you can’t baffle them with BS, Dazzle them with Brilliance” followed later in life by a shorten version of the same thing, “complexity worship”. I’ve noted all too often that when the AGW crowd are confronted with the obvious failures of their theory to hold “heat” literally they resort to some rendition of “weight of paper” chest beating or a version of above to avoid stating the obvious which as I understand it the Founder of the Global Warming Theory admitted before he died that if observed results don’t match the theory than the theory is wrong. The more complexity worship cranked into the debate the more difficult it is for those who don’t swim in this day and night to make informed decisions and ultimately that is where the debate must be won.

    Thanks again for all that you have contributed to both sides of the debate.

    • D. Scofflaw says:

      Interesting. What I heard was just the opposite: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshirts.

      Climate science? Calling something science does not make it science.

  50. istasz says:

    “I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.”

    Not one word of this convinces me that you have any particular insight into climate science. A publication or two in the field would. However, climate deniers seem also seem to be in denial that the universal currency for credibility in any scientific field is just that – a peer reviewed publication. Barrring that, any scientific statement you make is pure conjecture, and likely motivated by one or another deep-rooted psychological factors (did you get turned down to grad school).

    That “Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming” is a brutal testimony to their collective conservatism and ignorance. No respected climatologist would give a rat’s as* about the unlearned opinion of a meteorlogist. They mainly read the NOAO feeds, which most anyone can do, even this nuclear physicist. Note that my training does not give me the hubris to disqualify the coherent, conclusive findings of 1000’s of PhD climatologists, but it does at least make me qualified to comment on those, like you, who are unqualified to earn any other title other than “climate denier”.

    How unoriginal. Too bad you can’t redirect your energy into solving problems, rather than creating or obfuscating them.

  51. istasz says:

    I can’t fix the fact that you can’t get your rants into a respectable publication. Not clever enough – afraid you would be ridiculed by folks who really understand science? Not charlatans, mind you.

    • Instead of you mindless ad homs, why don’t you criticize something specific that I have written? ROFL

    • bongstar420 says:

      Its easy to define yourself as correct in light of extreme complexity surrounded by feeble minds.

    • D. Scofflaw says:

      Implying that you’re a nuclear physicist does not make you one. Calling something a science doesn’t make it a science.

      Me? Majored in mathematics (54 semester credit hours) and minored in physics (18 credit hours). In my case, my claim is true.

  52. istasz says:

    But you haven’t written anything original, just debunked others. It’s actually impossible for me to discover anything new or original in the semi-rants that litter this blog. Time to step up and hit with the big boys. Why don’t you write up your “findings” in a format that is coherent and logical, as if you were going to submit it to a journal, and then share it with your audience.

    How bout this? Pick any one of your pet topics, e.g., use the scientific method (see Bacon) to undercut the flawed methodology used by the authors, counter it with some original research of your own (the hard part), back it up with a dozen or so published references (not blog entries) and post it to this site (unless you feel inspired to reach higher). As they teach them in elementary school nowadays, take care to build a logical argument, buttress it with facts, make it well researched and break new ground.

    Then I will criticize it.

    • spren says:

      What a sanctimonious twit you are. Why do you progs always sound exactly alike. So convinced of your moral and intellectual superiority without any evidence, just like your so-called science. Do you even know what peer review is in this field called climate science? You do know they are little more than literature reviews that the TEAM decides is plausible enough to be published in a journal. They are not attempts to either replicate or validate what has been written. Why should the author of this blog have to earn your right to criticize him? Why don’t you start your own blog and see how many people find it useful enough to visit? All you offered were personal attacks and grade-school level haughtiness.

      • istasz says:

        That’s the problem with reactionaries – they simply hate (don’t understand) the scientific process and so mistake it as haughtiness.

        • Bunk X says:

          I understand snide condescension.

        • Menicholas says:

          I understand the scientific method.
          Find one definition of the scientific method, or “process” as you call it, that mentions pal review.
          Or even publishing. Publishing is an academic goal, not a scientific one.
          Anything that is not falsifiable is not scientific.
          BTW, “Thousands of PhD’s in climatology?”
          I doubt you can find half of one thousand with a PhD in climatology.
          Until recently, it was not even a natural science degree, it was a social science, Humanities department, Liberal Arts degree.
          And the general distribution requirements reflected that.
          There are people working in the climate establishment who have PhD’s after their name, but their field of study was something unrelated to climate of even science. And yet they are called climatologist. (Gavin Schmidt comes to mind.)
          How does that work?
          Since when is creating a computer model counted as real research?
          Since when is an hypothesis which has failed to make an accurate prediction for going on at least twenty years not discarded, but instead said to be settled?

      • bongstar420 says:

        We don’t..some of us are more qualified as geniuses than others.

  53. Gustav says:

    You might be interested in the chart at the link below. It is a comparison of two snapshots of the GISS GLB.Ts file, one from January 26, 2001 (red) and the other from February 9, 2015 (green). The two lines represent the annual temperature anomaly (January-December) from 1880 to 2000. In both cases these are the results that GISS announces to the world after adjusting the raw data. Given that the raw data has not changed and presumably the adjustment algorithms have not changed, it is interesting that over 14 years the “final” published GISS results have changed.

  54. Hi Tony. Love your work. I’ve been looking into the actual mechanisms of global cooling. Re-radiation is obviously not a significant contributor, so the atmospheric gas mix is irrelevant, as you’ve sensibly concluded. Can I send you a copy of my book, “The Art of Science”? (I was going to call it Real Science but hey…) More good stuff in there for your blog and lots of other examples of bad science that “everybody knows”. Email me if you’re interested.

  55. Jerry says:

    You say above that, “Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed.” You are making the same mistake that the earliest investigators made – men like John Tyndall in 1859. You can’t evaluate the effect of CO2 concentration by just measuring or calculating the amount of radiation absorbed in a column of the atmosphere. Heating at each level of elevation affects the temperature of the air below. I recommend that you read the discussion of CO2 absorption at the American Institute of Physics website at:

    • bongstar420 says:

      Is there an experiment which shows CO2 thermal qualities in volumes on the order of cubic miles with boiling rock below and frozen vacuum above?

  56. Jerry says:

    You say above that, “Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed.” You are making the same mistake that the earliest investigators made – men like John Tyndall in 1859. You can’t evaluate the effect of CO2 concentration by just measuring or calculating the amount of radiation absorbed in a column of the atmosphere.
    I suggest that you read the discussion of CO2 absorption at the American Institute of Physics website where they explain that:
    “The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth’s surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily. Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down.”
    You can find this at: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0146

  57. D R Lunsford says:

    You are not a meteorologist, yet you feel free to speak for them. That is just amazing. Everyone’s an expert. (PS, my background is also in science, and there isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind that man-made warming is real. It’s literally impossible for it not to be real.)


  58. P Geyer says:

    Interesting article on an eleven year scientific study of the effect of the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

      • bongstar420 says:

        What time scale is climate defined at?

        …and how long could we call our “measurements” “accurate?”

    • I am new here and am yet to be certain whether Mr Goddard is the dog or the girl in the top collage. I suspect our Provider could indeed be a he and his name could be Tony, although I have been incorrect on gender before today. P.G., you raise a point which Mr Goddard summarily dismisses. His reasons presumably are published elsewhere. If I might insert a note re. SCIENCEDAILY. This publication attempts to report on what a cross section of scientists are doing. The reports tend to be accurate but the source material often has to be corrected and in rare instances is so erroneous and even anti-humanity, it gets corrected or removed.

      Here is a direct extract from the report to which you link: “The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity.”

      Think about that. Firstly, why do they insert these words : “….the greenhouse effect due to human activity”? If a volcano or a comet or a herd of extinct dinosaurs inserted the greenhouse gas, the effect of the gas would be exactly the same as if a motor car inserted it? True? How could the effect of the gas be any different, if the gas is exactly of the same composition regardless of origin? So here we encounter a default in logic. Assume I breed horses. Horses emit a surprisingly large quantity of methane. Because I breed horses and ride horses to work, am I therefore an enemy of the planet? Who is to blame, here? Myself, the horses, my employer who requires I travel to work?

      Let me point out the obvious. If the Creator allowed a situation such as this to develop — environmentally criminal horses, environmentally destructive humans, suffocation, broiling, drowning and ruin the result of bad creative planning — the Creator is at fault. If however the Creator states or implies in writing and via logic that we need not be distressed — he has it in hand and always has had it in hand — then the fault lies …..?
      The fault lies with who? The fault lies with nervous nellies, playing into the hands of vexatious taxation, totalitarianism and knee-jerk absurdity.

      And the SCIENCEDAILY report, when examined, contains zero useful science information. The old 19th Century black body heat transfer/retention methods are assumed to be in force and, lo and behold, when you get a ‘test tube’ and do the measurements, the black body heat transfer/retention with the greenhouse effect, works!

      Do they expect a cheer? The centuries old methods are like attempting the northwest passage in a row boat. Outdated, inadequate. Not one of those ‘test tube’ predictions can be shown to be reliable in terms of the big picture — the planet. The reasons for the inadequacy are obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of — guess what? Climate physics on the planetary scale, and the history of the planet itself — geology.

  59. Jerry says:

    I don’t think you can brush these measurements off as utter nonsense. They wouldn’t have been affected by things such as La Nina and El Nino. As the article says,

    “These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
    Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.”

    • El Nino warms the troposphere, so more LW is emitted. The increase in CO2 wavelengths is due to the fact that there are more emitters as CO2 concentration increases.

      • Jerry says:

        I don’t think you understand. El Nino. El Nino and La Nina have nothing to do with it. They compared the radiation in the CO2 absorption bands to other wavelengths so they could eliminate effects of things like that.

        • Neptune says:

          Jerry, you missed the point. The more CO2 the more CO2-emitted radiation you will see – even if it’s cooling! It only proves that there is more CO2. The fact that you would reach other conclusions tells us that you do not have a scientific mind.

          By the way, the atmosphere is a three phase system. The climate fraudsters haven’t even begun to wrap their minds around the physics at work here. I’m sure you don’t even know what I’m talking about so stop flapping your cheeks about “science.” The science hasn’t even begun.

        • Jerry says:

          To Neptune: Read the articles below. If you can understand them and are capable of discussing them intelligently, get back to me.

  60. Hey Tony,

    I don’t know how to contact you so I am asking my question here, hope you get it.

    Have you ever wrote a book? Do you plan on writing a book? With all of the research you have done over the years, I think you have the material for an informative story. You could include all of the past “climate scares”, disasters of the past, politics behind Mann-made climate change, etc…. I am not a publisher, just a meteorologist who thinks you could write a book with a lot of good information.

    Take care,

    Brad Anderson

  61. Ron Clutz says:

    Help. I am stuck in moderation.

  62. Lee says:

    I am loving your site. Thank you so much for sharing your thinking, research and expertise – it all makes a lot of sense to me. I am curious about your take on the current drought in California? As a Californian, it is of particular interest (and at times worry) to me. Thanks, Lee

  63. “My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.” End quote from the head piece.

    a). I would be in your debt if you would fill out a little on the thoughts raised by the heading extract. Don’t ignore ‘both sides’ as one of the sources of query to the casual passerby. (I must confess to being less than a full-on student of climate blogs. Don’t consult them much — for the obvious reason that there is no such thing as climate science — unless you are either God, or actually seriously understand quantum physics plus the physics of turbulent flow plus all aspects of heat transfer by all natural methods plus stellar nuclear fusion their interactions and effects upon each other etc. etc. blah blah — which makes you God anyway — which is precisely what dictators on a self-created divine mission are always playing at. Climate science the divine right of drips on a rainy day.)

    b). I would also be in your debt, should you, or anyone else, care to do an evaluation of my climate moderation paper, readily found (at least, it was readily found a month ago when I looked, under “Climate Moderation Magnetic Interaction Sun – Earth”, on GOOGLE, etc. Climate/weather is way beyond human technology but the geologic record is testimony to a thermostat built into the system. The mechanism of the thermostat is coming into distant focus? Ta. If it’s any consolation, I have been banned and barred regularly in various places.

  64. Dave B says:

    Hi Steve,
    I have had this itch for almost 20 years.

    8/22/81 Hansen study NYT Saturday 5am Brooklyn, NY
    6am Saturday morning: A collage student working night shift over the summer. I get home and relax, sipping a beer on the stoop of a Brooklyn brown stone, reading the Saturday NYT Science Section. I thought; “AGW, this seems plausible, based on first principles and better than the alternative of an ice age..”

    1997 Al Gore “debate is over”;
    I got the itch, nothing is this simple.

    2006 Al Gore “inconvenient Truth”;
    I got angry at the naivety, the lack of prospective and
    the ignorance of how really complicated the world is.

    2007 “the science is settled”
    I realized this isn’t science, it is about righteousness and political power.

    After 30 year working scientific research and engineering, one thing I have learned, is that the world is much more complicated than it first appears in a first principle.

    2011 Get the pop corn out!
    Every night I watch the clams spinning out into the absurd.
    The liberal politicians spin their “science religion” based on shaky data and models. (Like these folks have ever tried to model anything).

    2014 I found your website.
    I’m done with being polite and reasoned (starting out AGW conversations w/ acknowledging some evidence of warm and taking things in context). That is why I appreciate your in their face approach.
    You are breath of fresh air to me.

    Thank you
    I’m happy to contribute to your hard work, keep it up!
    Dave B

  65. I am still waiting for you to approve my comments on this website?

  66. Eddie George says:


    I am curious about the usage of glacial ice core sample data and its application to this study. I am seeing the samples being used to show that “recent trends are unprecedented” over thousands of years. I am looking to understand more than refute.

    Thank you

  67. Daniel Sanchez says:

    I find this web site very interesting. I also like how several people on this web site believe only individuals with degrees are capable of intelligent, coherent thought. I also enjoy their arguments that science is based on the opinions of others. Since when was fact based on how many agreed on it being fact?

    With that off my chest, I would like to point out a very simple matter that would help clear up a lot of confusion. The world does not have a global temperature. The world is not a person whom you can stick a thermometer into its mouth and get a temperature. We have devices throughout the world that take various temperatures and then average them. We have already started with the false premise that a global temperature exists. It is an average of all temperatures. I could easily manipulate the data by averaging in more of the hotter temperatures than the cooler temperatures, or vice versa.

    Second, have we even been measuring the data long enough to establish if this is a pattern or a deviation from the pattern? Why do we continually bring everything down to the human lifespan level? Patterns could take 100s or 1,000s of years to show but we just assume it has to be shorter.

    Thirdly, people are dishonest. I don’t doubt the machines and equipment for the most part, but does anyone believe that someone who has dedicated their life to something would willingly come out and say I was wrong, I lied and I will return all the awards and money I received for my work? Very few people will tell on themselves. Instead, to avoid embarrassment and punishment, they will lie their faces off.


  68. mike hamblett says:

    Are we responding here to Stephen Goddard or Tony Heller, and are either of you any saner than Anthony Watts?

  69. Michael J. Satterfield says:

    I am a physicist and electrical engineer. I made A’s in the stuff too. I don’t believe the data the government spouts. You can bet if Al Gore and Obama believe in this, then it is a hoax and all I say is follow the $$$$$….as in carbon credits. Carbon credits my ass.

    What I think is going to surprise the hell out of a lot of people is how cold it is going to get in the future! If the current sunspot trend continues, and we slip into another Maunder Minimum, it is going to get, to quote my dearly departed Mama, “Colder than a well diggers ass in the Yukon!”

    Lower sunspot activity correlates with lower magnetic field activity from the sun. This causes more cosmic “rays” in the form of high velocity charged particles (protons) to bombard the upper atmosphere. What does this do? It creates clouds. More clouds cool the planet. They’ve proved it at the CERN super collider! When a simulated upper atmosphere was bombarded with high energy protons it created cloud nuclei!

    For those who don’t believe it, magnetic fields will deflect particles; it is called the Lorentz force and is shown mathematically by this equation:

    F = qE + q(V X B) where q = charge; E = electric field vector; V = velocity vector, and B = magnetic field vector.

    Need further proof, in 1976-77 at age 15, I witnessed one of the most harshest winters I will never forget. In North Georgia where I lived, the ground froze 18″ deep. We had below zero temperatures many times that year. What was the deal? The solar sunspot cycle was at a minima.

    More proof, in 1985, on Jan 21, when they inaugurated Reagan for his 2nd term, it was -4°F in DC–they had to do it indoors for the first time EVER. BTW, it was -14°F that morning in North Georgia. Again the sunspots were at a minimum.

    The winters of 2008, 2009, and 2010 were brutal. Ask about all the snowfall in the Sierra Nevada Mountains those winters; so much that when the spring thaw came the water falls at Yosemite were spectacular!

    Finally I offer one more example, if you have ever read the books of Laura Ingalls Wilder, you will find one entitled, “The Long Winter,” where they endured 7 months of blizzards during the winter of 1880-1881. As an exercise to the reader, I will let you go check the sunspot cycle for that period of time.

    Solar cycle 24 is a dud–that’s the current cycle we have now. You wonder why the last 2 winters up North have been so brutal? Why Boston’s snow pile just melted? Why in Dallas TX they had their first 100 degree day on the 26th day of June and also got 17 inches of rain in May? Why the ice is building in the Artic? The planet is cooling is why. Sorry, but the laws of Thermodynamics prevent increasing heat from making more ice, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a damn fool and more than likely a charlatan out to con you out of your money.

    Tony mentions first and second order effects of things. That’s exactly how we engineers look at things. Here’s a clue: the first order effect on our weather is the SUN. QED.

  70. Chyrol says:

    Steve Goddard/Tony Heller, What are you thoughts on any of James Lovelock;s books (Gaia theory). I find his books (and Lynn Margulis “Symbiotic Planet”) to be scientifically and educationally concrete as an introduction to the potential of the anthropocene effect.

  71. Grant says:

    “The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie. Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.”

    I’m curious as to where you received this statistic? Also, wondering if you have any consensus data on Meteorological/Climate scientist residing outside of the U.S.?

    • Jerry says:

      The information you are referring to probably comes from a misinterpretation of a 2014 study published by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Here is a good discussion of the study which contains a link to it.


      Note that the article says, “Predictably, many climate contrarians have already misrepresented this paper. In fact, the Heartland Institute (of Unabomber billboard infamy) misrepresented the study so badly (and arguably impersonated the AMS in a mass emailing), the AMS executive director (who is a co-author of the paper) took the unusual step of issuing a public reprimand against their behavior.”

  72. Mark says:

    I like to debate too, do you have anything to say about research on population collapse/reduction. Years ago, sometime during 1980, I looked up and found very few studies about overpopulation. I found an article about deer population on an island, a geographically isolated place. I read it, it made observations about the deer population over time after a season where food was hard to come by ((tough winter) and the deer population decreased by a large amount. It seems to me that human overpopulation is the most significant issue worldwide. If a population of critters becomes stressed by food or water shortages, then immune systems might be weak enough to generate an epidemic for some disease that fits the population. Also, any resource stress might cause war to break out, and nuclear or biological war has quick and large casualties.

  73. AJ says:

    It seems that the AGW debate is much like the “early years” of the atheist/creationist debate. A relatively small group of people who believe in evolution (in comparison to the opposing party) debunk creationist rhetoric using ACTUAL logic, and are met with hatred and fury.

    Replace “small group of people who believe in evolution” with “skeptics” and replace “creationist” with “alarmist”, and there ya go.

  74. I don’t know much about climatology but as an electrical engineer working on control systems I know enough about simulations to realize that it’s very easy to build a computer model of a complex system that behaves just as you want it to. Simply keep tweaking it until you get the desired results. But does this “prove” anything? Of course not.

  75. Gary Novak says:

    Four Unquestionable Facts of Global Warming

    From http://www.nov83.com

    1. Each carbon dioxide molecule would have to be 2,500°C to heat the atmosphere 1°C. The reason is because the total amount of carbon dioxide in the air is 400 parts per million. That means there are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule. To heat the atmosphere 1°C, each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500°C—an impossibility.

    No molecule can have a temperature much different than nearby emitting surfaces or molecules. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to determine radiation from the earth’s surface, as climatologists do, shows the CO2 molecules to be heated 5.73°C. The CO2 temperature misses the required 2,500°C by a factor of 436.

    Climatologists missed the dilution factor. If that were the only error, it would not have been overlooked. But the entire subject of global warming is such a total contrivance at the scientific level that nothing real is being studied.

    2. The amount of energy given off by the surface of the earth is claimed to be 79% radiation and 21% conduction and vaporization of water, as indicated by the Kiehl-Trenberth model published in the documents of the IPCC. Only white hot metals give off that much radiation in an air environment.

    A slight correction appeared in the NASA energy budget, which shows 41% of the energy leaving the earth’s surface to be radiation, which again is on the order of white hot metals. In actuality, the cool surface temperature of 15°C global average, with a rough surface and some wind, would emit about 1-3% of its energy as radiation. The exact amount determines the amount of radiation available to be converted into temperature increase as global warming. Guessing that wildly on radiation is guessing that wildly on global warming, and being off by a factor of 40 on the radiation is being off by a factor of 40 on the global warming.

    3. To heat oceans with air requires a ratio of 3483 by volume for same temperatures. The heat capacity for air is 1.2 kj/m³/°C, while for water it is 4180 kj/m³/°C. To heat the oceans 0.2°C to a depth of 350 meters would require air losing 0.2°C to a height of 1,219 kilometers (at constant surface pressure). That’s 100 atmospheres. The oceans cannot be heated by the atmosphere.

    Melting ice with air is even more absurd, as an additional “heat of fusion” is required, which is 334 kj/kg, which is an additional 278,000 m³ of air per °C per m³ of ice. In other words, air in contact with ice sucks the heat out of the air with no effect upon the ice. With a small amount of ice and a lot of air, the cool air gets replace with warm air, but on a global scale, the replacing does not occur. It means ice melting has nothing to do with global warming.

    Hymalayan glaciers are stable, because low level ice melted since the last ice age, 12,000 years ago, and the ice that is left is at such a high elevation that warm air cannot get to it.

    If climatologists would have missed these numbers by a little bit, there might be an argument. They didn’t miss it by a reasonable enough amount to call it science.

    4. The atmosphere is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases. The amount going around doesn’t matter. A gate half open won’t keep in half the sheep. The cooling occurs until equilibrium is established with the amount of energy coming in from the sun.

    The amount of radiation going around greenhouse gases is said in Wikipedia to be 15-30%. Calculations by climatologists are based upon none going around. They calculate the amount of radiation getting to the top of the atmosphere using “radiative transfer equations.” Those equations cannot account for equilibrium, which is an adjustment of every influence upon temperature.

    If the amount going around were calculated without equilibrium, there would be a 100% error in the range (15-30%), while the product of the radiative transfer equations is said to have about 1% error. That product serves as the primary effect by carbon dioxide, which no one in science questions. Only secondary effects are argued.

    But the gate is not 15-30% open. Each molecule in the atmosphere radiates energy, with 15-30% going directly into space. That which is absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-emitted with 15-30% going into space. It means the gate is about 99.99% open. The atmosphere cools as fast as heat enters it leaving very low temperatures in equilibrium with the sun’s energy. The equilibrium temperatures are very cold, because heat leaves in all directions during all hours, while it enters from one direction, half the time. The energy from the sun lands on the surface (mostly), while it leaves from the entire atmosphere at a depth of 12-15 kilometers.

    Details are here: http://nov83.com/gbwm/fourp.html

    Gary Novak
    Independent Scientist

    • Jerry says:

      This essay is full of mistakes. For example, take your first paragraph. The absorption of heat radiation by CO2 can be MEASURED. This was first done by John Tyndall in 1859. For a good explanation of the physics of climate change you should visit the American Institute of Physics website at https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.

  76. ralfellis says:

    Re: Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust-Albedo Feedbacks

    A new paper proving that CO2 is a minor player in the drama that is the Earth’s climate.


    We present here a simple and novel proposal for the modulation and rhythm of ice ages and interglacials during the late Pleistocene. While the standard Milankovitch-precession theory fails to explain the long intervals between interglacials, these can be accounted for by a novel forcing and feedback system involving CO2, dust and albedo. During the glacial period, the high albedo of the northern ice sheets drives down global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, despite subsequent precessional forcing maxima. Over the following millennia CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and atmospheric concentrations eventually reach a critical minima of about 200 ppm, which causes a die-back of temperate and boreal forests and grasslands, especially at high altitude. The ensuing soil erosion generates dust storms, resulting in increased dust deposition and lower albedo on the northern ice sheets. As northern hemisphere insolation increases during the next Milankovitch cycle, the dust-laden ice-sheets absorb considerably more insolation and undergo rapid melting, which forces the climate into an interglacial period. The proposed mechanism is simple, robust, and comprehensive in its scope, and its key elements are well supported by empirical evidence.


    Ralph Ellis

  77. Scott Larsen says:

    Thank you for supporting real science. It is so frustrating to watch scientists sell out on the pure process of scientific discovery where data points to new questions and research with cautious conclusions. It is like science has fallen back 400 years where real scientific research was punished because it did not meet the current consensus. Keep it up.

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