No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record – The Pause lengthens again – just in time for UN Summit in Paris


By: - Climate DepotNovember 4, 2015 2:27 PM with 2022 comments

Special To Climate Depot

The Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again. One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

The accidental delegate from Burma provoked shrieks of fury from the congregation during the final benediction in Doha three years ago, when he said the Pause had endured for 16 years. Now, almost three years later, the Pause is almost three years longer.

It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzen’s former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roe’s model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.

Figure 1a: Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring. Based on Roe (2009).

At the Heartland and Philip Foster events in Paris, I shall reveal in detail the three serious errors that have led the models to over-predict warming so grossly.

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of next year onward.

The hiatus period of 18 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause continues on average to lengthen.

So long a stasis in global temperature is simply inconsistent not only with the extremist predictions of the computer models but also with the panic whipped up by the rent-seeking profiteers of doom rubbing their hands with glee in Paris.

The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).

Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.

The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. If the Pause lengthens just a little more, the rate of warming in the quarter-century since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 will fall below 1 C°/century equivalent.

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 309 months January 1990 to September 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at just 1.02 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to September 2015, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

As ever, the Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. In a rational scientific discourse, those who had advocated extreme measures to prevent global warming would now be withdrawing and calmly rethinking their hypotheses. However, this is not a rational scientific discourse. On the questioners’ side it is rational: on the believers’ side it is a matter of increasingly blind faith. The New Superstition is no fides quaerens intellectum.

Key facts about global temperature

These facts should be shown to anyone who persists in believing that, in the words of Mr Obama’s Twitteratus, “global warming is real, manmade and dangerous”.

  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months from February 1997 to Octber 2015 – more than half the 442-month satellite record.
  • There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since the Pause began in February 1997.
  • The entire RSS dataset for the 442 months December 1978 to September 2015 shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.13 Cº per century.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century.
  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
  • The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted close to thrice as much.
  • To meet the IPCC’s central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.
  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
  • The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century, or 1 C° in 430 years.
  • Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

The fact of a long Pause is an indication of the widening discrepancy between prediction and reality in the temperature record.

The satellite datasets are arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that they show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that the satellite datasets are better able than the rest to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on reference measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The RSS graph (Fig. 1) is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line.

The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression, since summer temperatures in one hemisphere are compensated by winter in the other. Therefore, an AR(n) model would generate results little different from a least-squares trend.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, discusses it at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures.

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:

Figure T1. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is almost entirely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself. The headline graph in these monthly reports begins in 1997 because that is as far back as one can go in the data and still obtain a zero trend.

Fig. T1a. Graphs for RSS and GISS temperatures starting both in 1997 and in 2001. For each dataset the trend-lines are near-identical, showing conclusively that the argument that the Pause was caused by the 1998 el Nino is false (Werner Brozek and Professor Brown worked out this neat demonstration).

Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. The UK Met Office, however, uses the satellite data to calibrate its own terrestrial record.

The length of the Pause, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

Sources of the IPCC projections in Figs. 2 and 3

IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. For the rate of global warming since 1990 – the most important of the “broad-scale features of climate change” that the models were supposed to predict – is now below half what the IPCC had then predicted.

In 1990, the IPCC said this:

“Based on current models we predict:

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 Cº above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors” (p. xii).

Later, the IPCC said:

“The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 Cº by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate” (p. xxiv).

The orange region in Fig. 2 represents the IPCC’s medium-term Scenario-A estimate of near-term warming, i.e. 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K by 2025.

The IPCC’s predicted global warming over the 25 years from 1990 to the present differs little from a straight line (Fig. T2).

Figure T2. Historical warming from 1850-1990, and predicted warming from 1990-2100 on the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A (IPCC, 1990, p. xxii).

Because this difference between a straight line and the slight uptick in the warming rate the IPCC predicted over the period 1990-2025 is so small, one can look at it another way. To reach the 1 K central estimate of warming since 1990 by 2025, there would have to be twice as much warming in the next ten years as there was in the last 25 years. That is not likely.

But is the Pause perhaps caused by the fact that CO2 emissions have not been rising anything like as fast as the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A prediction in 1990? No: CO2 emissions have risen rather above the Scenario-A prediction (Fig. T3).

Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré et al. (2014), plotted against the chart of “man-made carbon dioxide emissions”, in billions of tonnes of carbon per year, from IPCC (1990).

Plainly, therefore, CO2 emissions since 1990 have proven to be closer to Scenario A than to any other case, because for all the talk about CO2 emissions reduction the fact is that the rate of expansion of fossil-fuel burning in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., far outstrips the paltry reductions we have achieved in the West to date.

True, methane concentration has not risen as predicted in 1990 (Fig. T4), for methane emissions, though largely uncontrolled, are simply not rising as the models had predicted. Here, too, all of the predictions were extravagantly baseless.

The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed CO2 emissions outturn.

Figure T4. Methane concentration as predicted in four IPCC Assessment Reports, together with (in black) the observed outturn, which is running along the bottom of the least prediction. This graph appeared in the pre-final draft of IPCC (2013), but had mysteriously been deleted from the final, published version, inferentially because the IPCC did not want to display such a plain comparison between absurdly exaggerated predictions and unexciting reality.

To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central prediction of the near-term warming rate was higher by two-thirds than its prediction is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. T5 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

Is the ocean warming?

One frequently-discussed explanation for the Great Pause is that the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has continued to accumulate heat at approximately the rate predicted by the models, but that in recent decades the heat has been removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and, since globally the near-surface strata show far less warming than the models had predicted, it is hypothesized that what is called the “missing heat” has traveled to the little-measured abyssal strata below 2000 m, whence it may emerge at some future date.

Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys takes just three measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – roughly a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile taken at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork.

Unfortunately ARGO seems not to have updated the ocean dataset since December 2014. However, what we have gives us 11 full years of data. Results are plotted in Fig. T5. The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.2 Cº century–1.

Figure T5. The entire near-global ARGO 2 km ocean temperature dataset from January 2004 to December 2014 (black spline-curve), with the least-squares linear-regression trend calculated from the data by the author (green arrow).

Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication NOAA craftily converts the temperature change into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem a whole lot larger.

The terrifying-sounding heat content change of 260 ZJ from 1970 to 2014 (Fig. T6) is equivalent to just 0.2 K/century of global warming. All those “Hiroshima bombs of heat” of which the climate-extremist websites speak are a barely discernible pinprick. The ocean and its heat capacity are a lot bigger than some may realize.

Figure T6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, in Zettajoules from NOAA’s NODC Ocean Climate Lab: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT, with the heat content values converted back to the ocean temperature changes in Kelvin that were originally measured. NOAA’s conversion of the minuscule warming data to Zettajoules, combined with the exaggerated vertical aspect of the graph, has the effect of making a very small change in ocean temperature seem considerably more significant than it is.

Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change reveals an interesting discrepancy between NOAA’s data and that of the ARGO system. Over the period of ARGO data, from 2004-2014, the NOAA data imply that the oceans are warming at 0.05 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.5 Cº century–1, or rather more than double the rate shown by ARGO.

ARGO has the better-resolved dataset, but since the resolutions of all ocean datasets are very low one should treat all these results with caution.

What one can say is that, on such evidence as these datasets are capable of providing, the difference between underlying warming rate of the ocean and that of the atmosphere is not statistically significant, suggesting that if the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans it has magically found its way into the abyssal strata without managing to warm the upper strata on the way.

On these data, too, there is no evidence of rapid or catastrophic ocean warming.

Furthermore, to date no empirical, theoretical or numerical method, complex or simple, has yet successfully specified mechanistically either how the heat generated by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has reached the deep ocean without much altering the heat content of the intervening near-surface strata or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions relevant to land-based life on Earth.

Figure T7. Near-global ocean temperatures by stratum, 0-1900 m, providing a visual reality check to show just how little the upper strata are affected by minor changes in global air surface temperature. Source: ARGO marine atlas.

Most ocean models used in performing coupled general-circulation model sensitivity runs simply cannot resolve most of the physical processes relevant for capturing heat uptake by the deep ocean.

Ultimately, the second law of thermodynamics requires that any heat which may have accumulated in the deep ocean will dissipate via various diffusive processes. It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere.

If the “deep heat” explanation for the Pause were correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), the complex models have failed to account for it correctly: otherwise, the growing discrepancy between the predicted and observed atmospheric warming rates would not have become as significant as it has.

In early October 2015 Steven Goddard added some very interesting graphs to his website. The graphs show the extent to which sea levels have been tampered with to make it look as though there has been sea-level rise when it is arguable that in fact there has been little or none.

Why were the models’ predictions exaggerated?

In 1990 the IPCC predicted – on its business-as-usual Scenario A – that from the Industrial Revolution till the present there would have been 4 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing caused by Man (Fig. T8):

Figure T8. Predicted manmade radiative forcings (IPCC, 1990).

However, from 1995 onward the IPCC decided to assume, on rather slender evidence, that anthropogenic particulate aerosols – mostly soot from combustion – were shading the Earth from the Sun to a large enough extent to cause a strong negative forcing. It has also now belatedly realized that its projected increases in methane concentration were wild exaggerations. As a result of these and other changes, it now estimates that the net anthropogenic forcing of the industrial era is just 2.3 Watts per square meter, or little more than half its prediction in 1990 (Fig. T9):

Figure T9: Net anthropogenic forcings, 1750 to 1950, 1980 and 2012 (IPCC, 2013).

Even this, however, may be a considerable exaggeration. For the best estimate of the actual current top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing) is only 0.6 Watts per square meter (Fig. T10):

Figure T10. Energy budget diagram for the Earth from Stephens et al. (2012)

In short, most of the forcing predicted by the IPCC is either an exaggeration or has already resulted in whatever temperature change it was going to cause. There is little global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past and present sins of emission.

It is also possible that the IPCC and the models have relentlessly exaggerated climate sensitivity. One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling (go to scibull.com and click “Most Read Articles”). The paper identified errors in the models’ treatment of temperature feedbacks and their amplification, which account for two-thirds of the equilibrium warming predicted by the IPCC.

Professor Ray Bates gave a paper in Moscow in summer 2015 in which he concluded, based on the analysis by Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) (Fig. T10), that temperature feedbacks are net-negative. Accordingly, he supports the conclusion both by Lindzen & Choi (1990) (Fig. T11) and by Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) that climate sensitivity is below – and perhaps considerably below – 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.

Figure T11. Reality (center) vs. 11 models. From Lindzen & Choi (2009).

A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today.

On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T12) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.

Figure T12. The Freedom Clock edges ever closer to 20 years without global warming


  • kentclizbe

    It’s silly to use the alarmists’ terminology.

    Specifically, in this article, “forcings.”

    You show clearly that the actions or substances do not “force” the “climate” to do anything.

    Why then call the actions or substances “forcings?”

    For example: “Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring”

    If no warming at all is occurring, then there was no “forcing,” was there?

    Call it man-made CO2, call it man-made methane, call it man-made soot. But do not call it a “forcing” if there was no effect.

    • monckton

      Note the word “instead” in the cited passage.

      The observed facts do not tell us there was no forcing. They tell us there may or may not have been a forcing, and that, if there was one, it was outweighed by other forcings in the opposite direction.

    • Well Done

      The term “forcing” is intended to give the impression that man’s CO2 is somehow “forcing” the climate to do something it otherwise wouldn’t. Make no mistake, these creeps use linguistics like that. They will NEVER admit that, either.

      • ChocoCatSF

        Can’t fool smart people like you

        • Robert

          Should have added a /s. Here on climdep, some people don’t always get it without a sign.

      • Anaussieinswitzerland

        Let me guess, your real name is Billy-Bob, Timmy-Ray or Bubba-Joe

    • VooDude
  • Tom Robbins

    Good lord when will this new facism end!! The worst president ever…the biggest science swindle of all time! Feels like life in a fun house when our president says this is the greatest national security threat, where his administration purposely and flagrantly use almost every federal resource to breach the Constitution and make a mockery of this proud , generous, beacon of liberty that so much blood was spilled for. People, I know most of you are like minded, but this is not just the misuse of science on the line, it’s something that makes the conspiracy theorist seem like the credible historians

    • jmac

      The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

      The only thing they have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

      “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

      • Well Done

        Lying dip. Fossil fuel companies are not responsible for society using fossil fuel. Creeps like you are just trying to demonize them so we’ll accept your harsh tax-and-spend punishments.
        Won’t work, fool.
        Watch your back.

        • Mobius Loop

          That’s jest plain bad advice, ah done gone and hurt ma neck!

        • jmac

          Any fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

          This scandal—traveling under the hashtag #exxonknew—is just beginning to build. The Inside Climate News series of six pieces is set to conclude this week and be published as a book, but the LA Times apparently has far more reporting waiting to be released.

          The investigation truly came home, when the The Dallas Morning News—read across the oil patch and hometown paper for Exxon—put the ICN investigation on its front page.

          Bring on the RICO charges now.

          http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20151004-qa-former-exxon-scientist-on-oil-giants-1970s-climate-change-research.ece

          • planet8788

            And it’s totally meaningless.

          • jmac

            Yes, Apparently far right wingers think the lives of people on earth is “meaningless” as long as there is money to be made.

          • planet8788

            YOu still haven’t cited a single relevant quote… I’m waiting. Point me to a single smoking gun.

          • jmac

            Oh, you must be confused. I’m not trying to convince you. That would be futile. I hope you rot in hell. I’m trying to show others the evidence.

            If you’re a hardcore climate change denier, it must be rather demoralizing to learn that ExxonMobil’s own scientists expressed contempt for your views behind your back. If you’ve lost ExxonMobil’s own scientists, you’ve lost the scientific debate.

          • planet8788

            You aren’t showing any evidence moron. That’s my point. You keep posting the same two meaningless links. You wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the nose.

          • jmac

            You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

            You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

          • Tyler Durden

            There is no hard evidence of CAGW – not then, not now. There is only conjecture, which carries no weight in court. I say bring ’em in to court on both sides – Exxon, Tom Karl, Jag Shukla – under oath and cross examined. Get the truth out. End of the day it will be Karl and Shukla and a few others on trial for treason. And how sweet that day will be.

          • planet8788

            But they just want to think they are saving the world. Is there anything wrong with that ?

          • Tyler Durden

            Not a bit – as long as they are not stealing my money and weakening the national security of my country to do it.

          • jmac

            So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t?

          • Robert

            “…no hard evidence…
            . . .
            …will be.”

          • jmac

            No doubt Exxon with all their lawyers can tie this up for years, just as tobacco did. But with the former Exxon scientist coming forward along with the documents, the noose is tightening.

            “Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation” The fossil fuel industry—like the tobacco industry before it—is noteworthy for its use of active, intentional disinformation and deception to support its political aims and maintain its lucrative profits. The following case studies show that:

            http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

          • Robert

            The tobacco cases also set precedent, the exxon case may go a bit faster what with the data collected, the world view, ….

          • Tyler Durden

            With tobacco there were millions of deaths each year, both smokers and non smokers, which provided hard data showing the difference between smoking and not smoking. There is no such thing with cli sci. There is no parallel universe earth with no human fossil fuel emissions to compare. Thus conclusions are conjecture only – no real data to point to. Cli Sci claims against Exxon will be laughed out of court so fast it will make even your thick head spin bobby. Cli Sci is just another ridiculous cult religion.

          • Robert

            Sorry, but we have nearly two centuries of research spanning the globe and spanning millennia. Science done by scientists working in countries around the world. Data and its analysis that is accepted by virtual every scientific organization and government .

            Your claims, on the other hand, are good examples of rhetoric. Blog inspired rhetoric. Thanks for showing us how thinon science the denialist position it.

          • Tyler Durden

            Hell of a lot of good money wasted on this crap, that’s for sure. The only thing those wasted dollars have done is create a swarm of leeches that suck down ever more public funds to create more leeches. Time to call the exterminator. His name is Trump. It’s gonna be a great show, get some popcorn and enjoy!

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Usethe CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your reserch!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • jmac

            True and they can’t claim that they didn’t know about the dangers of burning fossil fuels and man made climate change.

          • Robert

            Very true….

          • Jim Young

            Seems the real, hopefully fully prosecuted, conspiracy. Perhaps (I think) 7 non-political investigations to match the political ones they tried to create doubt about East Anglia with.

          • AnAverageJoe

            Yes bring on the RICO charges against this current administration and their czars. Been lied to by O, one too many times.

      • Rosario Barahona


        .❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
        3gai………
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportExpo/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  • Gregson14

    This has been the most current and transformative set of IPCC projected vs actual data comparisons that I have seen to date. The fallacy of the IPCC’s recent (AR-5) warming projections of 2.5-4.5 degrees/century are still shown to be gross over-estimates and the obvious conclusions imply that much of our current “climate angst” is being driven by a false narrative that threatens our emotional and existential security on a daily basis.

    • Mobius Loop

      Which would all be very well if the evidence wasn’t stacking up to show that climate change continues:

      Here is a recent graph showing the rise in average global temperatures provided by NASA:

      http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

    • jmac

      How can anyone be so ignorant? Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS!

  • Common Sense

    The heat is hiding deep in the ocean depths…..like Godzilla. We are doomed.

    • planet8788

      No. They will scream louder and adjust the surface temperature record some more…. just like they always have done.

      • Common Sense

        They can’t adjust it anymore and everyday the projections get further away from the observations. At some point it will be clear to everyone that their is no runaway warming. I think when the Arctic sea ice is back within 1sd then this thing is over. The Arctic sea ice is the easiest way for everyday people to see that nothing is happening. Within five years CAGW will be a punchline and Gore, Hansen, and their ilk will be completely discredited.

        • Mobius Loop

          Interesting to read your statement that Arctic sea ice is the easiest way for everyday people to see that nothing is happening.

          Here is a graph showing the retreat of arctic sea ice:

          https://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20111004_Figure3.png

          And here is a graph showing how fast that is outstripping IPCC predicted ice retreat:

          http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2011/02/Decline_chart.png

          • planet8788

            Chart looks a couple years old. Dont worry the rebound continues.

          • Mobius Loop

            I’ve added links to graphics to support my points.

            If you feel that arctic ice is on the rebound, a link to some data or graphics would help you demonstrate that this not the product of a fevered imagination.

          • planet8788

            Piomass… dmi nsidc for that matter. Use an up to date one.

          • Mobius Loop

            Thanks, that’s most useful

            http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

            Suggest coming back in 10 years time that you can make a more valid point that an undisputed observation that short term variability exists….. see also 1982 to 1986.

          • planet8788

            3 years of solid growth… even though we are in the middle of an El Nino.

            1980 to 2010 is also short term variability… following massive global cooling from 1940 to 1975.

            And if you look at the chart, we’re exactly as we were in 2007 so it’s also 8 years of no ice loss and Antarctica growing strong.

          • Mobius Loop

            Oh goodie, lets play pick the cherries.

            1982 – 1994 = 12 years no loss
            2996 – 2003 = 7 years no ice loss
            2007 – 2015 = 8 years no ice loss

            Hey, even better lets add them up, so in a 35 year period we have 27 years of no ice loss, or put another way, only 8 years of ice loss.

            Clearly this is an accurate reflection of what the overall graph tells us.

            Please don’t interpret this as serious and start spreading it as a meme!

          • planet8788

            You just explained how there are roughly 60 year cylces in temperature… Now you are focusing on 30 years with ice…. We’re at the bottom of the cycle… And record ice growth in the South Pole. cognitive dissonance much?

          • Common Sense

            Why doesn’t your graph include satellite data from the early seventies?

          • Mobius Loop

            I’m thinking its because……

            “The passive microwave sea ice record dates back to 1979, one of the longest environmental data sets we know of.”

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

            Feel free to make a point anytime you feel like it.

          • Common Sense

            The people that wrote the 1990 I.P.C.C. report felt that the early seventies data was important….they included it in their report. It shows that the ice extent was as low as it is today in the early seventies.

          • Mobius Loop

            Well this is the only IPCC (or any) reference I can find to earlier 1970 ice which doesn’t seem to bear that out.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig2-14s.gif

            Feel free to link to something that proves your statement is not wonky memory spit or a product of your imagination.

          • Common Sense
          • Mobius Loop

            OK, that’s better.

            So if you look at the lowest point on the graph approx 1974 it looks like the ice extent was slightly lower than any of the points between 74 & 89.

            However if you compare this with the ice retreat post 1989, your statement about the ice extent in the early 1970’s being lower than today’s is demonstrably incorrect:

            http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

          • Common Sense

            The reality is that your graph starts with a year of peak ice. If it started in the early seventies then the trend would be flat.

          • Mobius Loop

            Which is exactly why I suggest that anyone reading this compare and contrast the graph I linked to with the one you linked to in order to squeeze in another 6 years.

            Taking the two graphs together covers the whole period you raise, and clearly demonstrates that you are talking nonsense.

          • Common Sense

            Not so.

          • Common Sense
          • Mobius Loop

            Drat, you got me there, I thought we were doing something fair like comparing like for like.

            Soooooo, if you are deluded or deceitful or intellectually challenged enough to compare SUMMER ice in 1974 with WINTER ice in 2012 in order to scrape together the festering bones of an argument that there is no evidence of warming….

            …. when to anyone with eyes to see its clear that your graph shows the consistent decline of Arctic sea ice over a quarter of a century, then there is little that any rational person can say…..

            …. other than to observe that comparing snowballs with sun cream is unlikely to provide any sensible answer.

      • Mobius Loop

        Well again no, because despite the fact that in his argument Mr Monckton is cherry picking cherry picked cherries, he then has to go on and admit (and you can almost hear the embarrassed “er” and shuffling of feet)….

        “From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. However, IF there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause MAY return at some time from the end of next year onward.”

        Even when he turns his back to the other data sets and shouts blah, blah, blah I can’t hear you he knows that his argument if failing.

        However, never one to let reality get in the way, Mr Monckton immediately suggests ignoring any such rise as a short term blip, presumably even while he still grips in desperation to 1998 as a reflection of the norm.

        • planet8788

          Nothing to be embarassed about at all. Except the failed models. The surface temp record is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias

          • Mobius Loop

            The surface temp record is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias….. except that THE surface temperature record is actually four surface temperature records prepared by four independent organizations in three different countries all of which are mostly arriving at similar conclusions:

            http://skepticalscience.com//pics/temp_disagreements.png

          • planet8788

            No. They are four different tweaks to the same data.

          • Mobius Loop

            So four independent groups of climate scientists independently evaluate the same raw data and independently come to very similar conclusions ….

            ….. and you think that this is evidence of what exactly?

          • planet8788

            Confirmation bias. All adjustments. Past colder. Present hotter.

          • planet8788

            Why the divergence from the satellite data?

          • Mobius Loop

            One possible reason is that they are looking at different things, the four data sets are records of surface temperature, the RSS is lower troposphere i.e. one part of the atmosphere.

            What is interesting is that the four surface temperature data sets give pretty close readings even though they were prepared by different organizations some of which are in different countries:

            http://i.imgur.com/sMM62OM.png

          • planet8788

            1940 used to be a lot hotter than 1980. What happened. See hansen et al. 1981

          • Mobius Loop

            If you expect a response then please provide a link to whatever is twisting the elastic in your undergarments.

    • Mobius Loop

      Well no, because Mr Monckton is using a highly selective presentation of information to distort the overall picture.

      Note that he says, “The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset.”….. but does not show you the actual data, this is for the simple reason that its clear to anyone looking at it that the UAH data set shows warming across the period during which Mr Monckton categorically states in his banner headline that there has been NO WARMING:

      He for anyone interested in reality and not ideological illusion is the missing graph:

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend

      • Common Sense

        Get real.

        • Mobius Loop

          I don’t know how much realer I can get than providing a link to the data.

          Feel free to reciprocate when you have something to say worth hearing.

          • Common Sense

            The ice is rebounding. Of course the graph that you provided doesn’t show the last couple of years and it doesn’t show the 1970’s. So it is just a cherry pick.

          • Mobius Loop

            Feel free to fill in the information that supports your side of the argument.

          • Common Sense

            Just read my past posts.

          • Mobius Loop

            Read your catalog of past posts?

            Frankly I’d rather have my genitals waxed.

            If you can see the point in an exchange of views then put forward a position and back it up with some sort of evidence…. as you did with the ice graph.

          • Common Sense

            Sorry to hear about your warts. Thanks for sharing.

          • Mobius Loop

            For that matter, I would rather have genital warts than read your back catalog!

            Thanks for not sharing!

          • Common Sense

            Apparently your wish came true.

          • Mobius Loop

            Seriously……. I’m feeding you insult gold here and that is the best you can come up with?

            You might at least have a go at a bad pun, how about Wartsupwiththat?

            …… or AGW …. alarmist’s genital warts…..

            Frankly your pithy retorts are as flat as the temperature trend and earth surface you would have us believe in.

          • Common Sense
          • Mobius Loop

            You say, that my graph doesn’t show rebound, yet present a graph with a 1990 cut off in isolation.

            Here is the most up to date graph I can find:

            http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

            I see natural variation, but think its a bit premature to describe this as a full on recovery.

          • Common Sense
          • Mobius Loop

            And here is a similar image with some context.

            This one was taken Sept 11 – 2015.

            The ice extent on that day was the 4th lowest since 1979, the year when satellite recording began.

            https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2015-arctic-sea-ice-minimum

            I’m not really sure how that fits in with your idea of a dramatic long term rebound.

          • Common Sense

            As I have shown the satellite record goes back to the early seventies.

          • Mobius Loop

            Er….. not yet you haven’t!

            You might be correct, but all you have shown is that a record of some sort exists for the early 1970’s.

            The graph that you linked to shows two data sets stitched together at 1979, with a fracture suggesting that they are not fully calibrated against each other.

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/arctic_sea_ice_1971-2012_c2day_and_ipcc.png

            Look closely at that join and tell me that the data is a good fit.

          • Common Sense

            It is not a record of some sort. It is the satellite record that was in the 1990 ipcc report. That is a fact.

          • Mobius Loop

            OK, lets go with that.

            Your graph shows two satellite data sets that for some reason (format / calibration / advances in technology?) don’t quite fit comfortably together.

            The earlier set shows level or even rising ice extent followed by a period of protracted decline.

          • Common Sense

            So what caused the rise?

          • Common Sense

            So now your are going to argue over the details while missing (or denying) the big picture. The ice is the same as it was forty years ago. Deal with it.

          • Mobius Loop

            Summer – Winter
            Summer – Winter
            Summer – Winter
            Small – Far Away
            Small – Far Away
            Small – Far Away

          • Common Sense

            And now your true colors are shown.

          • Common Sense

            Yeah the ice melts every year.

          • Mobius Loop

            Yes …. and?

          • Common Sense

            And it freezes back every year. There is no long term trend that is driven by CO2. If there was then how could the ice rebound when CO2 is at a record high.

          • Mobius Loop

            And that is probably the closest we will come to agreement.

            It is very unlikely that there will be any rebound, what has happened within the past few years is within the limits of the type of natural variation that can be clearly seen on the records dating back 25+ years.

            If you came back in 10 years and the ice was still growing, you would have a strong argument, but at present you have nothing.

          • Common Sense

            The whole thing is within natural variation. Which is why the volume was just as low in the early seventies or the thirties. Think about it.

          • Mobius Loop

            If you really, really, really think that you can compare summer ice in 1974 with winter ice in 2012 then you are not competent.

            I hope for your sake that you don’t think that, and this is an elaborate joke. One way or the other, my part in our ‘conversation’ is at an end.

          • Common Sense

            The truth hurts. You should be happy that there isn’t a crisis.

          • Mobius Loop

            You win.

            We have entered a zone were basic laws of reality no longer apply.

            I can’t raise any argument against a comment stupid enough to look at a sheep and insist its a piece of candy floss.

          • Common Sense

            Calling me names won’t change the fact that the ice is still there.

    • jmac

      Even Exxon knows that’s BS.

      The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths (like the authors) to mislead the public on the science.

      • Common Sense

        Someone should tell the Arctic sea ice that refuses to melt.

        • jmac

          Looks like it is melting just fine to me. Even Exxon knows that.

          • Common Sense

            No it is actually rebounding and it is at the same level as forty years ago.

          • jmac

            It’s tough on the sociopath deniers with no values that don’t care about the lives of others and want to create doubt on the science, when even Exxon is calling BS on you. Hope you all rot in hell.

          • Common Sense

            You don’t know anything about me.

          • Common Sense
          • jmac

            Cool pic, must be from one of NASA’s satellites right? Amazing how they can do that science stuff. Let’s see what your source has to say about the melting of the Arctic.

            “Through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined 6.9% per decade over the satellite record.”
            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

            Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. :)

          • Common Sense

            You’re thick the ice was just as low in the early seventies or the thirties. It is cyclical. It has nothing to do with CO2 levels. Do you have any idea just how cold it is up there?

          • jmac

            It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

            If anyone has some credible study that will disprove man made climate science, they would have no problem getting funding from Exxon et. al. to complete the study and publish it in credible journals. That research would be worth billions maybe even trillions to the fossil fuel boys.

            Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

            How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • Common Sense

            zzzzzzzzzzzz

  • spepper

    This makes the climate cultists sound like a broken record……

    • Mobius Loop
      • VR

        Yes we have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s that started well before the broad use of hydrocarbons. We are not warming at a faster rate than any of the previous warm periods (Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm, medieval Warm) since the end of the last great ice age around 12,000 years ago. In fact we are cooler than those previous warm periods. The Earth is always either warming or cooling, it is rarely static and unchanging. Just because it warms doesnt mean it was caused by man, it is what our planet does. Do you see any periods of unchanging temp on the graph below?

        • jmac

          It’s never been about the science. Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. Monckton is a paid killer for the fossil fuel boys.

          Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet

          https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • VR

            JMAC it is not BS, it is factual do a little research for yourself about historic temperatures throughout the Holocene (last 12,000 years). Look how warm it was during the Holocene optimum compared to today, and not related to CO2. Or go farther back and look at temp variations since we entered into the great ice age 800,000 years ago. Look how warm it was during the last inter-glacial period (EEmian). It was 3-4 degrees warmer than we are currently and it wasn’t due to CO2, it was natural. So we are being told that recent warming is unprecedented when it isn’t even close to the truth, the whole subject has been politicized. I don’t endorse Monckton any more than I do AL Gore. I have a brain for myself and can research for myself, plus degrees in Geology and Geophysics and I have studied past climates for over 30 years. We cant make a judgment on 100 years of highly adjusted temperature data when our earth has 5 billion years of constant change. 40 or 50 years of warming consistent with past warming is no more significant than 40 or 50 years of cooling.

          • jmac

            BS even Exxon knows your BS is just BS.

          • VR

            prove me wrong instead of just typing an idiotic response. Is that all you got?

          • jmac

            Better question. Why would anybody bother with your BS when even Exxon knows it’s BS?

        • Mobius Loop

          Couldn’t see a graph below.

          That aside, there are elements of truth in what you say but a lot of effort has been expended in the years since Callendar suggested the idea of AGW in the late 1930’s to unpick natural and anthropocentric strands of climate change. Your blunt assertion is starkly contradicted by almost every major scientific institution on Earth.

          Here is NASA on the Scientific Consensus:

          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          Note their links to other organizations that agree with their position.

          • VR

            My assertions on past Holocene & ice age temperatures are fact, just research temperature reconstruction from ice core data, it is extremely well accepted science. Research the Roman and Minoan warm periods as compared to today. The so called consensus doesn’t change what I stated, it is accurate. My point is the Earth’s climate is and has always been highly variable, and much more than what we see today. I maintain the recent 20th century warming is dominantly natural as it started before the broad use of hydrocarbons, but I don’t deny mans activity has had some influence on that warming and we should continue to stride to reduce our impact on the planet. On top of that there are multiple factors that influence warming/cooling on our planet including Green House Gas, Earths orbit/Milankovitch cycles, Solar Irradiance, Ocean currents (PDO/ADO), winds, dust, volcanic activity, etc. CO2 is 400 ppm (0.04%) of our atmosphere and mans contribution is roughly 5% of that, and the computer models that predict warming are continually overstated because they rely too much on the influence of CO2. Its almost impossible to solve a complex equation with so many variables. Look at this article http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054 from MIT Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary
            Sciences and it is examining computer projections of warming vs the satellite temperature data. In summary it says the models overstate heating. Also when they remove other natural factors from the recent satellite temperature data, specifically volcanic cooling and El Nino warming there is virtually no warming shown since 1993 (Figure 1 C). This article is also co-authored by NASA/GISS with the aim of trying to explain why there has been no significant warming in the L. Troposphere since the late 1990s despite rising levels of CO2, and that is a fact. And finally consensus doesn’t change the debate, the foundation of science is debate, especially a subject as complex as out earths climate. True science is never settled, as Einstein said ” No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong”.

          • Mobius Loop

            Thank you for putting in the effort to make a serious point. As its a complicated subject, I’ll break my response into a series of posts:

            CO2 is probably the best place to start. The amount of natural CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly in equilibrium i.e. the amount being generated closely matches that absorbed.

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/img/carboncycle.gif

            Your observation about 5% human generated CO2 is WILDLY misleading. The figure is not fixed, instead human beings are adding a (relatively) small amount of CO2 each year that gets added to and builds up in the system.

            This graph by NASA shows nearly half a million years of a carbon cycle that rises and falls though approx 110ppm repeating approximate every 100,000 years. Then right at the end, (the part that is alarming scientists) …. in less than 50 years human activity has almost doubled the range of variation and reconfigured the atmosphere in a way that has never been encountered by human beings.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-080315.jpg

            What is more alarming, is that this line is set to keep rising.

            Any scientists who can look at the NASA chart and advise with a straight face that this is not a potential concern is not telling you the truth. This concern is real and it is not new. In 1965 scientists were already delivery the following prescient warning Lyndon Johnson:

            “Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment.”

          • VR

            I appreciate the discussion. Your chart goes back only 400,000 years which does encompass humans on this planet, but is a small fraction of earth’s history. But I agree what man has put in the atmosphere is in addition to the natural carbon cycle, and how it behaves after that point is really not well understood, but 400 ppm is not unprecedented (see below). One other human factor is the vast deforestation that has occurred particularly in the rain forests, and would of had capacity to absorb additional CO2, but you don’t really hear much about that side of the equation. My point is that 20th century warming is consistent with cyclical recent warming periods of the Holcene, and is less in magnitude and equal in slope/rate; so to place the warming on man alone is not logical. What would you say was the cause of recent (last 10,000 years) past warming and cooling events? Are those factors still in place today? What was the cause of the extreme warming at the end of the last ice age when temps rose 13-15 degrees C and sea level rose 300ft, and caused vast ice sheets to retreat to the poles? That was only 12,000 years ago, a virtual blink of the eye in geologic time.

            But also keep in mind that the temperature effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic, not linear. There are many technical papers that support this. So the first molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere has a greater heat absorptive capacity than the second, and so on. If it were linear the earth would have overheated long ago when CO2 was much higher than today, and if CO2 was the only driver of heat. The chart below (i hope it shows thru) goes back 600 million years when CO2 was well above 1000 ppm, and there is a disconnect between heat and CO2. Also note how low the CO2 concentration is now as compared to the last 800 million years. Graphs in regards to this subject can be very misleading as it really depends on your starting point. Here is a link to my graph if it doesn’t post.

            http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg

  • VR

    I ran across this article a few months back and I found it very interesting. It is from the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) at Lawrence Livermore/MIT and GISS (no lightweights). Title is :” Volcanic Contribution to Decadal Changes in Tropospheric Temperature” by BD Santer et.al. The goal was to compare climate models to the satellite temperature records, but after statistically removing the ENSO and volcanic events that have a strong influence (positive and negative) on global temps over that time.So basically they were looking for temp trends from GHG, and other factors. Figure 1C on page 22 shows the satellite LT temp trend with ENSO and volcanic events removed (~1degreeC/100 years), and shows no warming since 1993. One of their conclusions is ” We show that climate model simulations without early 21st century volcanic forcing overestimate the tropospheric warming observed
    since 1998.” I found this article very significant but rarely have seen it referenced. Any thoughts or comments?

    Here a link to the article http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054

    • planet8788

      Never referenced because it doesn’t fit with government propoganda.

  • CalUKGR

    I do wonder for how much longer the CAGW zealots will be able to keep presenting their ‘science’ as fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sooner or later even they will have to realise the game is up and the ruse has been rumbled.

    I dunno, with the likes of the BBC’s pro-CAGW hive-mind mentality (and most other msm in the western hemisphere at least) perhaps they’ll get another five years out of the deception. Another five years of stealing taxpayer’s money to fund their on-going research into faeries and unicorns. It defies all common sense.

    • Mobius Loop

      Which might be a valid question if Mr Monckton was showing the whole picture (i.e. telling the truth), but he is choosing a single data set showing just one part of the atmosphere and playing down the parts which don’t support his viewpoint.

      Here is NASA’s take on whether or not the world has warmed since 1998:

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2015/trend

      • monckton

        Frog. 1b shows the small warming on the mean of three terrestrial datasets.

        • Mobius Loop

          So why then does your headline state …..

          ….. NO global warming AT ALL for 18 years and 9 months – A NEW RECORD (?) – The PAUSE LENGTHENS again?

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish. The head posting is quite detailed, and it explains exactly what is meant by the headline.

          • Mobius Loop

            It’s a genuine question, you have answered me several times here in posts that you admit to other data sets showing warming, yet your headline is as crudely, bluntly certain as it is misleading.

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish. The headline is accurate. Indeed, there has been no statistically-significant warming on any of the major datasets for a decade or two.

    • jmac

      Even Exxon knows your BS is BS.

      • planet8788

        Too bad the satellites don’t know it yet.

        • jmac

          Q&A: Former Exxon scientist on oil giant’s 1970s climate change research

          The scientists when I was there were making a genuine effort to understand the science. By the late 1970s, global warming was no longer speculative. There was direct evidence it was not the same type of carbon that was in the atmosphere a hundred years ago. We were looking for something that was a uniquely Exxon contribution to the science, and we had discussions with scientists at Columbia Univ

          What was the nature of Exxon’s research into climate change?

          At the time, the work had only just begun in earnest to really understand the problem rather than make broad-based estimates. If we were to figure out how much atmospheric carbon levels had changed, we needed to know how much CO2 the ocean was absorbing. The ocean, when it gets cold, absorbs CO2, but when it gets warm it releases it, just like a seltzer bottle that’s warm will bubble over.

          How did you go about measuring carbon levels in the middle of the sea?

          Exxon had a fleet of oil tankers traveling back and forth across the oceans. The great thing was the ships always ran the same routes. So we designed the equipment and installed it on board. You could make measurements as the ship was going back and forth, measuring CO2 levels in both the water and in the air at different points in time.ersity, where I was studying….

          http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20151004-qa-former-exxon-scientist-on-oil-giants-1970s-climate-change-research.ece

          • planet8788

            What is your point. Anyone with basic chemistry knowledg3 knows that water absorbs CO2. Basic water like the ocean even more. It then forms carbonate salts and falls to the bottom of the ocean. Making limestone.

          • planet8788

            Seriously, do you think this is some kind of smoking gun? Everyone knows when you burn carbon you get more CO2 and it has to go somewhere. And your link didn’t work for me. But your posts is so idiotic and entertaining, I can’t wait to find out the rest of this spellbinding interview… LOL.

          • jmac

            Link seems to work just fine. http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20151004-qa-former-exxon-scientist-on-oil-giants-1970s-climate-change-research.ece

            Bear in mind, that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. That would be futile. I’m trying to show the evidence to everyone else. In fairness, you’re probably doing a pretty good job all by yourself of convincing people of how even Exxon knows your BS is just BS.

            In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease.

            As this report documents, the two disinformation campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years.

            http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

          • planet8788

            Again. what in that article is a smoking gun. It’s basic chemistry. It is barely even negative as the chemical engineer says the ocean wasn’t playing as big a role as they thought.
            What were you trying to convince anybody with that article?
            Does Exxon control the satellites that show no warming for 18 years.
            DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THE TEMPERATURE RECORD HAS BEEN ALTERED JUST SINCE 1981. 1890-1980 warming has tripled since 1981. DO YOU KNOW THAT?

            Do you research? Read Hansen et. al. 1981. Look at the global temperature chart in that paper…. compare it to today’s… It is completely unrecognizable… Why do you think that is? Because Hansen is an unbiased scientist who hasn’t been arrested three times or more?

          • jmac

            Even Google knows your BS is just BS.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

          • monckton

            What reviewed papers on climate change has Google’s chairman authored?

          • Mobius Loop

            I’m guessing not one in China.

          • monckton

            It is indeed unlikely that the chairman of Google has had even one, let alone two, papers published in the prestigious bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. For one who seems head-bangingly fascinated by authority, citing the chairman of Google as an authority seems odd.

            Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm at anything like the predicted rate.

          • Mobius Loop

            I’m afraid you are getting a bit befuddled old pudding, I think you are talking about jmac.

            As to warming at the predicted rate ….

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

            ….. and what was that you were saying about expected warming? Oh yes …….

            “The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

            From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. ”

            ….. by which time we might expect to see actually temperatures running close to the heart of the modeled range, at least for a while, as no one with any knowledge or sense would expect a complex system tor progress smoothly without variation.

          • monckton

            Why do you paid climate-Communist trolls, who bully everyone who dares to question the Party Line in the hope of deterring others who would otherwise have spoken out by now, fail to quote even the head posting properly? As that posting clearly demonstrates, even a large el Nino will not be at all likely to bring the temperature trend since 1990 anywhere close even to the least warming rate that was then predicted.

          • Mobius Loop

            I’m guessing not one in China.

          • planet8788

            Nope there wasn’t anything more than this earth-shattering news that water absorbs CO2… Wow. How informative. Dumbed down so even a 5th grader is totally dubious to any significance. WOW. Clearly you never studied chemistry. That’s about the first thing you learn. Why the DI water you use has a pH of 5.5 or so instead of 7.

          • jmac

            So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t? Am I right?

            The deniers are just ignorant or immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit. I hope they all rot in hell for delaying meaningful action on an issue that is a danger to all of us on this planet.

          • planet8788

            You are the ones killing Africans by not letting them have real power supplies… Global warming hasn’t killed anyone. Not a single person… It’s probably saved thousands by not freezing them to death. The CLIMASTROLOGISTS are the murderers.

            You are so clueless you couldn’t even tell that the article was totally informationless.

          • jmac

            Even Google knows you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

          • planet8788

            Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool. Another commie just like you.

          • jmac

            “commie” = pretty stupid

            Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. :)

          • planet8788

            Your little diatribe against capitalism gave you away Honey.

          • jmac

            Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

          • planet8788

            The liars are the Climastorlogists.
            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

            Here is the 1981 Temps. Compare them to today.

            You are personally responsible for the death of millions of AFricans. It’s a war crime all the lying the Climastrologists too.

          • jmac

            Exxon knows it’s never been about the science and that your BS is just BS. Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

          • planet8788

            You use this product…. you are just as gulity as they are. or more.

          • jmac

            No one should be allowed to knowingly sell a product that causes people harm when used as directed, and then use profits from such sales to mislead the public on the science of the harmful nature of the product. People and corporations involved in knowingly misleading the public about the science are criminal sociopaths who don’t care about the lives of others, as long as there is money to be made.

          • planet8788

            Who is selling anything that knowingly does anyone harm… Except your communist propoganda?

          • jmac

            That would be Exxon. Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed

          • planet8788

            Are the satellites lying too?

          • jmac

            Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

          • planet8788

            YOU ARE THE TOBACCO COMPANY IN THIS CASE.
            Ruining the lives of millions of Africans which could be brought out of poverty.

            You are the ones killing AFricans… You are the hypocrite that is killing AFricans. You should get the death penalty.

          • jmac

            Tough times for the ignorant and liars like you who have no sympathy for the lives of others as long as there is money to be made.

            Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • planet8788

            You are the ones living on fossil fuel while telling the rest of the world, they can’t have it anymore. Hypocrites to the max. THE MAX… Pounding a way on your plastic laptops powered by fossil fuel… driving your car places every day no doubt. Telling poor people in the rest of the world to go and die.

          • jmac

            Looks like Even Google knows you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

          • planet8788

            The first of three times you post the same stupid factless, dataless tripe.

          • jmac

            The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science.

            Even Google calls you a bunch of liars. I hope you all rot in hell.

          • planet8788

            Knew what exactly? The iPCC still doesn’t know anything more than it knew 25 years ago… maybe less.

            Have you looked up Hansen, et al. 1981 yet? Or are you too afraid?

            You can download the PDF here.

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

          • jmac

            Even Exxon knows it’s never been about the science.

            Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

          • planet8788

            I post NASA links, you right the communistic diatribe while letting millions of Africans suffer. Sad Little human you are… Are you going to ever post facts… you are starting to bore me with your stupidity

          • jmac

            NASA, yeah they seem to be pretty good at that whole science thing. Let’s see what they have to say. Oh, my goodness, they say the same thing Exxon does.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

          • planet8788

            Did you compare the chart from today to the chart of 1981 yet?

          • jmac

            Why would anyone be so stupid to waste their time looking at some chart from a right wing blogger.

            It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

          • planet8788

            Hansen is a right wing blogger? You are completely idiotic.

          • jmac

            word salad

          • planet8788

            ARe the satellites lying too?

          • jmac

            Even Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson during the The Tobacco wars.

          • planet8788

            You are the ones denying and lying about the satelilte data.
            You are the ones killing AFricans by condemning them to more and worse poverty.
            YOU ARE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.

            Have you looked at the temp charts in Hansen, et. al 1981 yet. HEre’s the link.
            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

            Can you read a chart? Your communist education looks like it was lacking.

          • jmac

            Exxon knows it’s never been about the science, only ignorant and immoral people who don’t care about the lives of others pretend it is.

            Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • planet8788

            Did you actually read this article? All it is is about some scientist stating the opinions of a few other scientists… Not about any research Exxon had done… You are an idiot fool. You probably can’t even read… only know contro-C control-V

          • jmac

            There are many scientists that worked on the Exxon project coming forward now. Here is another one. Katherine Hayhoe

            “We’ve known for a long time that Exxon Mobil is one of the chief financial supporters of front groups who sow doubt on climate change and elected officials who vote against climate legislation. If you haven’t heard this before, put some popcorn in the microwave and pull up Merchants of Doubt (film) on Netflix. It will tell you all you need to know.

            What most people didn’t realize, until recently, was that Exxon was also doing cutting edge climate research and using it as input to their business plan. At the same time they were paying people to tell us it was all a bunch of hooey.

            Were they really doing legitimate, top-notch climate science? Yup, they absolutely were. I know, because I was doing it with them.

            My master’s thesis work, and 7 subsequent journal articles, examined the contribution of methane to human-induced climate change. One of my primary collaborators, and the source of at least some of my funding as a graduate student (the bulk coming from scholarships and federal grants), was Exxon. We did the work, we published it in journals like Climatic Change, and we presented it at scientific conferences.

            Were the scientists I was working with aware of what else Exxon was spending money on, at the time? No, I’m pretty sure most of them were not. Were the people who directed the research program, and who were responsible for conveying the results of our research to those who set company policy, aware? Yes, in hindsight I’m pretty sure most of them were. And that is why this is such an appalling story.

            It’s one thing to honestly doubt the reality of something that will affect your business and your bottom line. It’s a very different thing to be entirely convinced of its reality, to the point where you are making business decisions based on its reality, and as part of your business strategy, decide that deceiving the average person is the best and most profitable course of action.

            https://www.facebook.com/katharine.hayhoe/posts/1620770621481152

          • planet8788

            Have you looked at Hansen, et al. 1981 yet?

          • jmac

            You have got be really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

            You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

          • jmac

            Google calls you a bunch of liars.

            Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • planet8788

            I guess that makes you a satellite-data denier then. And we know there is nothing worse than a denier.

          • jmac

            Even Exxon knows you are just trying to create doubt with Lord Moncktons myth (Monckton is a paid shill for the fossil fuel boys and Heartland Institute – who also denied (still denies) the science about the cancer causing effects of tobacco.

          • planet8788

            So you are saying the satellites don’t say the temperature has been stable? What are you saying about the satellites? So yoaure a denier?
            Monckton controls the data coming from the satellites? I don’t think you could understand anything. You have shown no science knowledge at all except to appeal to authority. which isn’t science.

          • jmac

            It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

          • planet8788

            Right… we know it’s not about the science for you communists. It’s about control. We have been saying that for years.
            The satellites are controlled by a right wing blog?

          • jmac

            Exxon calling BS on you again.

            You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

            You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

          • planet8788

            So all you have is ad hom attacks… No data…No nothing.

          • planet8788

            Please… tell me… where was the smoking gun? That interview was bumpkus and you are too stupid to know any better.

            The question isn’t whether we are making more CO2 or whether the concentration is rising…. It is.

            The question is… what does it do to the climate? And so far, absolutely nothing, you know why? Because CO2 absorbs the same infrared frequencies that wator vapor does and it becomes effectively saturated at levels much lower than we are at now.

            That is why all the models have been wrong.

          • jmac

            Even Google knows your kind are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

          • planet8788

            Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool. Just like you. Are you going to post any facts or data or just appeal to the same stupid authorities all day long.

          • jmac

            Even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

          • planet8788

            They know the satellites are lying too? Oh no… They are just stupid…. And actually Exxon said no such thing… You are too stupid to even understand what Exxon said…. or Even exxon’s ex-scientist who didn’t seem so bright himself.

          • jmac

            Even the Koch bros know you are lying.

            Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

            How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

    • Tyler Durden

      It’s what happens when welfare kings and queens outnumber productive citizens at the voting booth. It will end when productive citizens wake up and stop allowing public leeches on society to vote, either by barring them, deporting them, or killing them. I’m fine with any of the above. Of course obummer wants to give 11 million illegal alien leeches instant citizenship, that’s 11 million votes to continue the madness. It will change soon – either Trump will be elected and clean out the leeches, or productive people will leave and the leeches will starve.

      • planet8788

        It’s more like 20 million. Because just like they can’t verify Obamacare applications… they won’t be able to verify that anyone has actually been here or not… they will hand them out like candy. if we let them.

  • PhD

    Just in time to destroy any credibility of the Paris Conference…. I suggest we get all of the warmists at the conference to help cut CO2. They need to hold their breaths for an hour. If they can rise from the dead, then we will listen to them.

    • Mobius Loop

      Except that Mr Monckton has zero credibility, as he systematically misrepresents the issue by a highly selective editing of the available information. For example HADCRUT4 is one of the datasets that he fails to mention or that this shows warming during the period that he asserts with blunt certainty that non has occurred.

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1997/to:2015/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1997/to:2015/trend

      • planet8788

        Liar. He has a Hadcrutch chart in the article. He even mentions methane which is a big reason why the models could be wrong. Real scientists change their hypothesis when the experiment fails.

        • Mobius Loop

          Apologies, you are partially correct, Mr Monckton does indeed mention HADCRUT4 though the graph is a combined mean lumped in with other surface datasets.

          Hardly sits well with the banner headline though, no warming, …..er…… um……. apart from these guys!

          • planet8788

            When you can explain why 1940 used to be hotter than 1980 and now its much cooler.

          • Mobius Loop

            This does not make sense as a piece of english language let alone raising a valid point.

            Feel free at any point to clarify if its a question or statement, and/or add enough information to give some hint on what you are talking about.

          • planet8788

            That is climastrology for you. Read Hansen et. al 1981 and look at the temp. graph. It’s on Nasa’ s website.

            1940 is hotter than 1980.

          • Mobius Loop

            As far as I’m aware, there has never been any doubt or even debate that temperatures do not rise in a direct linear fashion. If you look at the temperatures for the whole C20th there seems to be a 30 year cycle of switching back and forward:

            1880 – 1910 stable

            1910 – 1945 warming

            1945 – 1970 cooling

            1970 – 2000 warming

            For this reason I was not remotely surprised by the possibility of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming, and in fact had thought it likely that we would see stable temperatures until 2030 followed by some serious warming.

            That we are not seeing a pause in the surface temperatures is worrying.

            As to why temperature rises and falls while CO2 rises, the influence of the PDO seems a likely driver. Throughout much of the C20th temperatures and PDO seemed to react in a similar way, with temperature peeling away from PDO towards the end of the century.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/scale:0.2/offset:-0.5

            This peeling away is important. If my suggesting is correct and the PDO has a large impact on surface temperatures then with the PDO now in its cooling phase we might expect to be seeing a much more pronounced pause or cooling period.

            If the PDO in cooling period is no longer able to restrain warming, then we are potentially in real difficulties when it switches to warming mode, i.e. the 1930’s are likely to be a tough time.

          • planet8788

            While I guess you’re a lot smarter than your average Climastrologist and computer model. That’s why none of us believe them. They are either lying, stupid or both.

          • Mobius Loop

            Nope, my views are simply based on a fair rather than an ideologically driven reading of what climate scientists have been saying calmly and consistently for decades.

          • planet8788

            All the models have bern wrong period. And 15 more years of a pause, which you are predicting makes it more so. Period.

          • Mobius Loop

            I’m not predicting anything. I am not a scientist.

            All I said was that I would not have been surprised by a pause, even one lasting another 15 years, and that I find the lack of one ominous.

            As to the models, it is blunt and premature to state that they are wrong. They are running at the low side of the range of possibilities at present but as we appear to be in the grip of a strong El Nino event, it is likely that temperatures will rise, as suggested by the abrupt rise in temperatures recorded on this NASA record ….

            http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

            …. which is likely to bring temperatures towards the center of the model prediction ranges. I can’t see anything out there yet that composites most recent model predictions with most recent temperature, so neither of us can say for certain we are correct.

          • planet8788

            If you take away the meddling they are very wrong. If you look at the satellite data they are very very wrong.

          • planet8788

            We’ll also be greatful for every Hiroshima bomb of heat we stored when we hit the Maunder-like minimum in 15 years.

          • Mobius Loop

            That’s a conversation to pick up in 15 years time.

          • planet8788

            Warming is likely to bring less severe weather if it works like most Climastrologists think… by warming the poles first.

          • Mobius Loop

            Feel free to develop this thought into something more than wishful thinking.

          • planet8788

            So far it’s worked. Severe weather is way down.

          • Mobius Loop
          • planet8788

            Ahhh. Peer-reviewed newspapers?
            Tell me what was responsible for the 200 year drought in the Southwest 800 years ago?

            What California is experiencing is only significant because so many people live there. You have no historical perspective. NONE. That and it will all be over probably in 3 more months.

          • Mobius Loop

            I showed you mine, now its only polite to show me yours. Feel free to link to something credible when you can scrape up enough energy.

          • planet8788

            Google historic California droughts.
            You’re the idiot here criticizing the work of a real scientist. you should be doing the research before showing your ignorance.

          • planet8788

            Have you used that thing called google yet? Have you informed yourself. Or do you want me to post the 300 links?

          • Mobius Loop

            On you go then.

          • planet8788

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

            Here’s the link so you can see how the 1981 temperature chart has been modified. All of course in the name of science. LOL.

            Yet all four datasets are totally independent. Yep. Right.

          • Mobius Loop

            OK so now we have a link to a paper that is nearly 35 years old, that I am in no way interested in reading, so …..

            …… if you feel that it is misrepresent data then you’ll need to point it out, as my interest in an early document now decades out of date does not stretch very far at all.

          • planet8788

            OF course not, You have no interest in seeing how big you have been duped. Your fine with trusting the consensus and not doing your own research… Understood… go about your merry ignorant way.

          • planet8788

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

            Again, the raw data doesn’t show the warming of which you speak.
            The fact that the data used to say 1940 was hotter then 1980 but now all datasets show 1980 hotter is proof that the data is not independent.

          • Mobius Loop

            Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory but that’s not true.

            This from the NASA website shows 1940 is warmer than 1980

            http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

            Also, this from Woodfortrees:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/scale:0.2/offset:-0.5

            And these are 4 independent summaries of the raw data by 4 independent institutions all in agreement the warming continues:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

          • planet8788

            i showed you the Hansen paper. In 1981…. 1940 was hotter.
            The data is not independent.

          • Mobius Loop

            No you didn’t you alluded to it…..

            ….. and I in turn linked to two recent data sets that record 1940 as hotter than 1980.

            Hansen may have said something different but all that shows is that there is independence and debate among the scientists studying this issue and they are not lock step propagandist as you suggest.

          • planet8788

            No.. Hansen now buys off on the data…. It’s being constantly adjusted. If you were paying attention and looking into history, you would know that. 1880-1980 warming has tripled since 1980. Showcase example of confirmation bias if not fraud.

          • planet8788

            What happened to the global cooling you referenced from 1940-1975?
            Were you lying… or was it erased…. to make the hockeystick.

          • Mobius Loop
          • planet8788

            In the 1970’s they were saying it had cooled about .6 or .7C. I don’t see that drop… Were scientists too stupid to be able to read thermometers accurately?

            That’s a pause… not cooling. 0.2C cooling is noise. Again, reference Hansen et. al. 1981 and every newspaper and magazine from the time. The temperature data is totally incompatible with the ice data as well. If the 1890’s were really 1C cooler, we would have been in an ice age.

          • Mobius Loop

            As we’ve reached a point where you have to split hairs between the words ‘pause’ and ‘cooling’ or go back almost 35 years to drum up some tired outrage, it is really the end of any useful of vaguely interesting discussion.

            End.

          • planet8788

            Because you can’t account for the changes… And without all those temp modifications you have nothing. The satellites have called your bluff.

          • Mobius Loop

            For that to be true, 4 independent scientific institutions in 3 separated countries would have to be engaged in an elaborate decade long fraud that involved considerable co-ordination between them and required the entire scientific establishment turning a blind eye.

            Feel free to either provide some proof to back up this stunning conspiracy theory ….. until then I’ll stick it in the file labelled “Delusional Ranting”.

          • planet8788

            What happened to Hansen’s data? If all four datasets are independent… what happened to the chart in Hansen, et. al 1981?

          • Mobius Loop

            I neither know nor care.

            Feel free to explain its relevance or for that matter why you can’t come up with anything more interesting or convincing than what you feel is a single error(?) in a single decades old scientific paper.

          • planet8788

            It shows how the temperature record of today… doesn’t look anything like it did 35 years ago. And you can see all the changes have been in one direction. Past gets colder… present gets hotter. Yet you claim all four datasets are independent… How can that be… if they all deviate from the true historic original datasets?

          • planet8788

            It’s okay… I know you’re not interested. You’re happy being a dumb ignorant fool.

          • planet8788

            And all it takes is peer pressure and confirmation basis… no conspiracy or fraud needed…. but some of them probably know the gig is almost up.

          • Mobius Loop

            So, no proof, just more delusional keyboard slap and wishful thinking from a back room grunt ….

            ….. if you can come up with something more substantial I’d be interested in seeing it, until then, this is just a bit dull and childish.

            End

      • jmac

        Monckton is another shill from the Heartland Institute. He will lie for money. This short entertaining video should set anyone straight who doubts that he is anything but a hired killer and a snake-oil salesman.

        • planet8788

          Point me to one lie in this article. ONE.

          • jmac

            Bear in mind, that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. That would be futile. I’m trying to show the evidence to everyone else. In fairness, you’re probably doing a pretty good job all by yourself.

            That video speaks volumes to the type of people that have been lying and trying to create doubt about the science.

            Even Google calls you just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

          • planet8788

            When are you going to start posting evidence? I’m waiting to be enthralled.

          • jmac

            So even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

            Email from Former Exxon Employee Lenny Bernstein http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-Leonard-Bernstein-Email.pdf

            Deception Dossier #1: Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Smithsonian Contracts https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/global-warming/Climate-Deception-Dossier-1_Willie-Soon.pdf

            Deception Dossier #2: American Petroleum Institute’s “Roadmap” Memo http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-2_API-Climate-Science-Communications-Plan.pdf

            Deception Dossier #3: Western States Petroleum Association’s Deception Campaign http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-3_WSPA-ppt.pdf

            Deception Dossier #4: Forged Letters from the Coal Industry to Members of Congress http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-4_ACCCE-forged-letters.pdf

            Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf

            Deception Dossier #6: Deception by the American Legislative Exchange Council http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-6_ALEC.pdf

            Deception Dossier #7: The Global Climate Coalition’s 1995 Primer on Climate Change Science http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-7_GCC-Climate-Primer.pdf

          • planet8788

            Please… Point out to me the smoking gun in each of these cases…. The first one… Corporations are out to make money and keep up their image…. Duhhhhh.

            Please be specific so I can address specific points… Please start with the most damning.

            You kill more Africans with your hyprocrisy than Global Warming ever will.

          • jmac

            Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

          • planet8788

            Posting it a hundred times doesn’t make it any less false. You communist hypocrite pig. African Killer.

          • jmac

            Exxon = communist now = pretty stupid comment.

            Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

          • jmac

            It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knows that.

            Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

          • planet8788

            You are right. For communists like you, it’s about the power and how nice it feels to think in your puny little insecure mind that you are saving the world with your stupidity.

          • jmac

            It’s Exxon calling your BS, well BS!
            Exxon = communists = ignorant

          • planet8788

            Where did Exxon call my BS. Give me the exact quote and a link.

          • jmac

            Oh, I doubt Exxon has ever even heard of you. But they know your BS is just BS, as does Google and the Koch bros.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • planet8788

            Hansen et.al 1981 says it’s all BS.. Have you looked at it yet?

          • jmac

            You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

            You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

          • planet8788

            Are the satellites lying too you moronic communist.

          • jmac

            communist = pretty stupid too.
            Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. :)

            Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

          • planet8788

            YOu are killing AFricans by the millions. More than global warming will ever kill.
            Hypocrite. You gave away your colors in your anti-capitalist rant.

            Have you looked at the 1981 temp graph yet? COWARD.

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

          • jmac

            Even Exxon, Google and the Koch bros know it has never been about the science.

            Do you seriously think that you have info of some credible scientific study that disproves man made climate change? How stupid of you not to get Exxon et al and Koch bros to pay you billions for such a study?

            The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

      • planet8788

        And you ignore the satellite data and have zero explanation for the deviation between the satellite data and the highly skewed temperature record.

      • monckton

        Fig. 1b of the head posting shows the small warming on the mean of the three terrestrial datasets. One of them is HadCRUT4. Try learning to read.

      • PhD

        Mobius, you have loops in your brain…..Lord Monckton is a very brilliant antagonist who is very careful in the vetting of his information….. it is your HADCRUT4 et al that have selectively been pruned to remove all mitigating temperature information. The University of East Anglia (CRU) is the laughing stock of the entire scientific community after the release of their severely warped leftie emails….. we all know that their info (also helped by the Hadley Center) is carefully modified to support AGW….. why on Earth would anyone still believe those wack jobs.

        • Mobius Loop

          Monckton is a fantasist.

          He is only person I’ve ever heard of that the UK House of Lords has felt compelled to write and publish a letter to publicly stating that he is a liar and demanding that he stops lying.

          • PhD

            The UK House of Lords are complicit in AGW. AGW is complete and utter hogwash. Monckton knows this and combats it.

          • Mobius Loop

            I didn’t know it was possible to type with your tongue!

          • PhD

            Wow !! You know that talking to yourself in jibberish is a serious psychological problem. You need help. I think Loopy that you should hold your breath for 10 minutes as an exercise to reduce you carbon footprint. Let me know how that works out for you. HA HA HA HA HA HA

        • Mobius Loop

          I should really be more specific. Look at the two graphs in his article showing IPCC predictions. You may notice they show different times spans?

          If you composite them together you see that Monckton uses different starting points for the 1990 & 2005 graphs, so he is not comparing like for like but manipulating the information to exaggerate the mismatch between the green line and the RSS data set.

          The purple line allows a like for like comparison. This is typical of the man.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

  • Mobius Loop

    So, with all the skill of a second rate magician Mr Monckton is engaged in clumsy misdirection.

    He focuses heavily on one data set dealing with one part of the atmosphere with only a brief and dismissively worded reference to any of the other data sets that do not support his argument.

    So, just for the record, here is the temperature record from the Japanese Meterological Agency which clearly shows warming during the last 18 years, 9 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 30 seconds…… or whatever figure Monckton has to use to try and make his claims stack up.

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/11/oct_wld.png&w=1484

    • planet8788

      No misdirection at all. He tells both sides of the story. Even noting how one of the reasons the models would be off is because they overestimated methane concentrations.

      You are a blind delusional fool.
      Read Hansen et. al 1981…. Look at the temperature charts… What happened to them?

      • Mobius Loop

        I would have no objection to Mr Monckton if he laid the information out clearly e.g. setting terrestrial and satellite data sets side by side, then explain that between 2000 & present 2 of the data sets show warming and one does not.

        Instead he launches into his banner headline of no warming, dwells a lot on RSS, dismisses GISS as fraudulent and then, perhaps most tellingly, mentions UAH but …….. er um does not let you see the graph itself…… I wonder why ……. could it be because UAH actually shows warming and is closer to GISS than RSS.

        In fact, if Monckton laid his information out as follows I would be less inclined to dismiss him as a pedller of snake oil.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:-0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.2

        • planet8788

          Spare me the righteous indignation. In most of the article, he averages RSS and UAH together… You didn’t read it… You skimmed it at best. A quote:

          To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

          RSS and UAH start in 1980… after a 35 year period of global cooling. So seeing a trend upward after that for a few years should be expected. THE FACT IS THEIR IS NO EXPLANATION for the divergence… Except that the surface temps keep getting fudged every other week.

          • Mobius Loop

            Again thank you for deciding my reaction for me, and back in the world of reality I’m not remotely indignant, I’m simply making a point that 4 terrestrial data sets are broadly in agreement:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

            I’m also pointing out that the UAH data set is in pretty close agreement with them, and that the RSS shows a small recent divergence that is hardly enough to tear down 30+ years of scientific research.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:-0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.2

            Again you have no evidence that surface trends are being falsified nor do you make any reference to the fact that the satellite records also have to be adjusted to allow for a range of factors including the cross calibration of different satellites.

            As to the divergence, there is temporary variation in all the data sets even the terrestrial ones based on largely the same raw data. If there divergence were to continue for another 10 years or become more pronounced you might have a point but you are at least 5 years away from being able to make a valid point……… while even Monckton admits that he is expecting to see a rise in the RSS figures shortly.

            If we accept your argument that AGW is not occurring I’m at a loss to understand why warming post 1980 is an absolute given.

            Ultimately though it comes down to whether we trust our scientific establishment or put or faith in a backroom grunt like yourself cheerleading for a notoriously eccentric fantasist…..

            http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5509/14208730053_2999c0d7e3_o.jpg

            ……. who the UK House of Lords has taken the EXTRAORDINARY steps of writing to and publishing their letter effecting calling him a liar……

            http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

            …… and who has no qualms about parading his slender grasp of reality in public:

            Stick with your fantasist if you want, I prefer science and reality.

          • planet8788

            Why did the temp record look so different 35 years ago in Hansen et. al, 1981.
            I guess scientists were too dumb to read thermometers back then.

          • Mobius Loop

            Having finally found the correct graph, there are minor variations but nothing that contradicts the main thrust of modern graphs>

            The pause / cooling between 1940 & 1970 is evident on both graphs.

          • planet8788

            Yep. Sure. And the total warming has nearly tripled

          • monckton

            The UAH dataset shows no warming for 18 years 6 months.

          • Mobius Loop

            Here is a plot of the UAH data sheet from 1995 to as close to present as is available.

            I’ve overlaid trend lines for 1997, 1998 & 1999 to present and every single one shows a rise.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015/trend

            So unless you are trying to say that the hottest point of an extreme year is typical, then I don’t see where you are getting the no warming from.

          • monckton

            The UAH dataset shows no warming at all for 18 years 6 months from May 1997 to October 2015. The basis for calculation of these graphs is clearly explained in the head posting. Try reading it. The start-date for each zero-trend graph is simply the earliest date from which a zero trend runs. Not exactly a difficult concept to understand, is it?

            The further graphs supplied in the head posting show that the discrepancy between the rates of warming predicted by the IPCC and the rates that are actually observed continues inexorably to widen. For some of the reasons why this exaggeration is happening, read my papers in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

          • Mobius Loop

            Hmmmmm, can’t see where you’ve explained UAH without lumping it in with RSS except in the “Key Facts About Global Temperatures” bit where you include a UAH graph that clearly shows warming.

            To make it do anything else you would have to work really hard. I tried with a 1997, 1998 & 1999 trend line and they ALL SHOW WARMING.
            .
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015/trend

            The gap between model predictions and observed temperatures continues to widen. Don’t really see that, recent warming is bringing the temperatures back towards the center of the predictions.

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

            MY paper’S’ …… you’ve had more than one paper published in China? Do the ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS whose coat tails you hung off not get really peeved by your arrogant dismissal of their contribution?

          • monckton

            It is a simple matter to anyone but a bought-and-paid-for climate-Communist crook to calculate the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH temperature data for the past 18 years 6 months. The trend is zero (or actually a tad below zero).

            As to my papers on climate sensitivity, they are proving highly popular with the scientists who read the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The first paper is, by a factor ten, the most-downloaded paper in the entire 60-year archive of that distinguished journal of the world’s largest academy of sciences.

          • Mobius Loop

            You missed a trick.

            I was using the wrong information (thank you to Odin2 ….. presumably heir to Odin 1).

            Apparently UAH5 has been replaced by UAH6, the first showing a rise and the second not:

            https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-24.png

            Strange that you reject the terrestrial data sets because they have been ‘tampered’ with but are more than happy to include this one which has also been adjusted.

            Time and again, a close look or a scratch of the surface reveals the type of dishonesty in what you do or say that the UK Government skewered you for in public.

            http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

          • The

            Not true; UAH shows a warming trend of 0.104c per decade since 1997. http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

            You must be referring to the heavily adjusted and officially unrecognised UAHv.7.0 dataset. The humongous adjusts on this data set have not been peer reviewed, unlike the minor corrective tweaks to the their other based data.

          • monckton

            The warming trend from May 1997 to October 2015, a period of 18 years 6 months, is a zero trend on the UAH v.6 dataset. There is no v.7.

          • Icarus62

            Cherry-picking dishonesty. You have deliberately chosen a period which least represents the true overall warming trend in the data. A year or two either side, and the data shows virtually the same warming trend as the entire dataset – a perfect illustration that short term trends are not robust. You know this perfectly well, and your cherry-picking nonsense is about as effective an admission of your intention to deceive as it’s possible to make, without actually stating it outright.

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/4da10997a42bed09840fa28e4a536b04d51a60cbc7768b430e3630cb/original.jpg?w=800&h

          • Robert

            Well done!

            (Now we’re going to be named as co-conspirators..

            “As Lenin used to say, where should we be without the useful idiots? It is not a crime to be an idiot. But it is a crime knowingly and persistently to lie with the intention of deceiving others, either with intent to profit or with intent to cause loss. Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. No small part of that evidence is to give the trolls fair warning that if they depart from the truth in future they may face jail. Then, if they persist in their lies and deceptions, their intent can be more easily demonstrated.

            Since the fraud of which these creeps are a willing and profiteering part is arguably the largest fraud ever perpetrated, their punishment will not be small when they are eventually brought to book. They can expect long prison sentences. And that will serve them right. They thought anonymity would protect them. Well, it won’t.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2350370887 )

          • Mobius Loop

            I think and I hope that a lot of people will have a long memory on this issue.

            There are signs that may be the case.

            http://www.saffronwaldenreporter.co.uk/news/saffron_walden_student_wins_art_prize_1_4078710

          • Robert

            Great piece of sculpture!

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish, and don’t be repetitive. The basis on which the calculation for the graphs in the head posting are conducted, including the determination of the start date by calculation, is explicitly and carefully set out in the head posting. The truth is that by now there should be 0.3 degrees/decade warming, if the IPCC were correct in 1990, but for the last couple of decades there has been more like zero, and the warming rate since the satellite data began in 1979, is equivalent to little more than 0.1 degrees/decade, little more than a third of the IPCC’s predicted rate.

            Every six months at WattsUpWithThat I prepare an analysis of all the principal terrestrial and satellilte datasets over all timescales, so that the complete picture is available for those who want it. These monthly reports concentrate on the RSS dataset, which reports first each month, and they constitute a valuable resource for those who are genuinely interested in what is actually happening to global temperature. So don’t be silly.

          • Mobius Loop

            Monckton stacks one dishonesty on top of another, see also his double standards in happily accepting the adjusted UAH v.6 data set while rejecting ALL of the terrestrial ones because they have been adjusted.

          • Icarus62

            Of course – anything that appears to lessen the actual warming rate, Monckton and his co-conspirators welcome with open arms, unquestioned. It’s so transparent…

          • Mobius Loop

            At times it seems there is no comment so daft, no fact so shaky or no tactic so low that they will not embrace it to shore up a failing argument.

          • Mobius Loop

            What we definately have are the UAH V.5 & UAH v.6 datasets which provide different interpretations of the same information.

            Much of the argument for using satellite records is that they are direct observations and yet here we have a very clear example of them being adjusted or ‘tampered with’.

            https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-24.png

            Do you think that this intervention by scientists invalidates UAH v.6?

          • monckton

            For some time I had been concerned that UAH was running hot. I had conveyed those concerns to the operators of the dataset. They had themselves realized some corrections needed to be made. They made them.

            There is a simple calibration test one can use. Because the lower troposphere occupies the lower 5 km of the atmosphere (or thereby, and varying with latitude), heat transfer by evaporative-convective processes should lead to a greater warming with altitude, as far as the mid-troposphere, than at the surface. Accordingly, on the basis of well-understood physical principles, the surface temperature change should be about 83% of the mean lower-troposphere temperature change and only 33% of the temperature change in the mid-troposphere (Santer et al., 2003, cited by IPCC, 2007). Yet the terrestrial tamperature datasets do not – as they should – show less warming than the satellite datasets: they show more warming.

            And the amount of extra warming they show is approximately equal to the sum of the urban heat island effect (quantified in Michaels & McKitrick, 2007, as an overstatement of land surface temperature changes by double) and those elements in the terrestrial-temperature corrections that appear fictional and inadequately justified by science.

            Bottom line: since the warming rate in the quarter-century since October 1990 is only 0.25 Celsius (mean of UAH and RSS datasets), the mean of the surface datasets should be 0.2 Celsius – equivalent to a centennial rate of only 0.8 Celsius. Not exactly a problem.

          • Mobius Loop

            So is Spencer’s data set peer reviewed?

            On the other point, I have an admission…..

            ……strange though it may seem, it would not in any way surprise me if you are correct and there has been a recent pause in the rise of surface temperatures, given that the C20th was marked by 30 year long periods of warming followed by 30 year long periods of stability or even cooling e.g.

            1880 – 1910 stable
            1910 – 1945 warming
            1945 – 1970 cooling
            1970 – 2000 warming

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

            If that were indeed a pattern and projected forward it might go something a little like this

            2000 – 2030 stable / cooling
            2030 – 2060 warming

            I had been wondering about this for about 5 years and was very interested to recently come across the excellent Wood for Trees site which allows us plebs to check the data ourselves.

            What I found really interesting from this was the similiarities between surface temp and the PDO throughout much of the C20th century.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2abb2d951fbd956508d5f5ad6d2584188d34cf310dcd87120f0bad73abbceab.jpg

            Interesting that your reliance on the RSS and unchecked UAH v.6 data sets would fit this pattern pretty well.

            Oh, and having put forward this idea, had a quick browse, and here is a real scientists saying something very similar:

            https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-take-global-warming-hiatus

            Here is a quote from Shang-Ping Xie in the article that seems pretty appropriate to our discussion.

            “Because of natural cycles of various timescales, global temperature rises in a staircase-like manner instead of shooting up straight”

          • monckton

            The furtively anomymous “The” is apparently incapable of determining a least-squares linear-regression trend on a time-series. The trend on the UAH v.6 time-series shows no global warming, at all, for 18 years 6 months from May 1997 to October 2015. Try doing your own research rather than lifting it from propaganda sites.

            Had you done your own research, you would perhaps have discovered by now (for this is at least the third cut-and-paste of the same posting by you, which is a breach of site rules) that there is no UAH v.7.

            Conclusion: whichever climate-Communist advocacy group is paying you $98,000 p.a. to troll for totalitarianism at sites like these in the hope of scaring off others who might otherwise find the courage to express dissent from the Party Line on climate is not getting good value for its money.

          • The

            My anonymity is perfectly reasonable. I make no false claims as to my identity. For instance, I wouldn’t claim to have been a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher if I hadn’t been nor would I claim to be a member of the House of Lords if I weren’t.

            I admit my mistake re. UAH v7. I meant the one you quote from, UAH v6. This data set is not officially recognised as the gigantic adjustments to UAH v5.6 have not been peer reviewed. There appears to be no just cause for these adjustments other than to eliminate the 0.104c per decade warming trend recorded by UAHv5.6.

            You do yourself no favours by calling me out on my anonymity but then claiming you know I am paid by communists. I can confidently and honestly say I receive no payment from any group or person regarding what I write or say about climate change. Christopher Monckton can make no such claims, having been paid by the fossil fuel funded heartland institute.

          • monckton

            Delivering cheap insults from behind a cloak of anonymity is cowardice. You are no more an expert on the peerage than you are on the climate. According to the legal opinion I obtained when I had received notice from journalists that the Clot of the Parliaments had opined that I was not a member of the House, the Clot is wrong and I am a member, albeit without the right to sit and vote. There is nothing the Clot can do about it.

            As to the advice I gave to Margaret Thatcher, I advised her on a number of scientific questions during my period at the Downing Street policy unit from 1982-1986. It is not clear to me on what basis you assert the contrary: but it is certainly no basis in fact.

            You have at least conceded that there is no version 7 of UAH. However, version 6 is close to the RSS dataset, which is peer-reviewed, so no doubt in due time Dr Christy and Dr Spencer at UAH will give an account of their changes in a reviewed journal in the usual way.

            If you behave like a paid climate-Communist troll I am entitled to state that that is what you are. By directing falsehoods and insults at me from behind a cloak of craven anonymity you are certainly a coward.

          • egriff5514

            LOL – Monckton is citing a clot as an authority. One clot citing another… hohoho

          • Mobius Loop

            You mean to say that Spencer has not even explained why he ‘tampered’ with his data set and yet you still accept it?

            I think your pith helmet is on a little tight.

            http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5509/14208730053_2999c0d7e3_o.jpg

          • CB

            LOL! So cruel!

            …but funny as well…

            “Oh, the grand old Duke of York”…

            Is Chris a birther as well? It’s difficult to keep track of the crazy…

            It’s a conspiracy of the Clot of Parliaments and the paid Climate-Communist Trolls! lol!

          • monckton

            Glad you like my Gilbert & Sullivan costume. I wear it for Victorian evenings around the piano.

            But, on any view, that is off topic. The fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months is the toplc. And on that topic you appear to have nothing to say: an admission, perhaps, that the head posting is in all respects true.

          • Mobius Loop

            Yes I do like your Gilbert & Sullivan costume, it’s very fitting….. though not in the supply of blood to the brain sense.

            Oh, and here are four terrestrial data sets prepared by four different scientific institutions on three different continents, all of which show warming in the last 18 years & 9 months:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

          • Mobius Loop

            Lord Haw Haw Monckton does not set out to do himself favours.

            He sets out to bait, happy to insult others though at times his bottom lip comes out for a quiver when people are rude back to him.

            As far as anonymity is concerned, he is perfectly happy for the Heartless Institute et al. to channel secret funds through anonymous channels, presumably because a little bit falls into his pockets to sweep him off on round the world junkets and keep him in sherry.

          • Mobius Loop

            Why do you accept the UAH v.6 figures when they have been tampered with?

          • monckton

            I was one of those who asked for a re-examination of the dataset because statistical tests showed it was running artificially hot. Those of us who thought that were right: indeed, the proprietor of this website, when the new version came out, contacted me to say I had called it correctly.

          • Mobius Loop

            So, a well known classicist peddler of nonsense, gets the thumbs up from the political ideologue who runs a propaganda project for a conservative think tank ……… spare me your self adulation, and let us all know when anyone gets round to peer reviewing Spencer’s latest offering.

          • The

            No, UAH shows a warming trend of 0.104c per decade since 1997. http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
            It seems the mods won’t allow me to inform you that v.7.0 of this dataset has been massively adjusted and that these adjustments are not officially recognised as they have not been peer reviewed, unlike the minor corrective tweaks to the surface data. Odd.

          • monckton

            UAH shows a warming trend of zero from May 1997 to October 2015, using the standard least-squares linear-regression model recommended by the IPCC and by Phil Jones at East Anglia.

            And I’m not surprised that the moderators would not allow you to inform me about v. 7 of the dataset. The last adjustment, several months ago, took the series from v. 5.6 to v. 6.0, where it is at the moment. As part of my usual due diligence before adopting the new version, I wrote to Dr Roy Spencer, who keeps the dataset, and he confirmed what I had long suspected: that there had been some errors in his data that did not exist in the RSS data. When the UAH data were corrected for that error and for various other, smaller errors, the result was the new dataset. Dr Spencer made no attempt to push the data in one direction or another: in his words, in a splendid email to me, “It is what it is.”

          • monckton

            I do congratulate Planet8788 on having given the paid climate-communist trolls who regularly infest sites such as this a run for their money. The purpose of the environmental-Socialist extreme advocacy groups that pay them is to ensure that here, as everywhere else, anyone who expresses skeptical opinions is terrorized into silence by a barrage of co-ordinated, lavishly-funded hate-speech. The technique, invented by Goebbels and perfected by Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of the Desinformatsiya directorate of the KGB, does work well to silence dissenters, who, not being paid as the climate-Communist trolls are, eventually tire of trying to express their own legitimate viewpoint. By methods such as this, a kind of dismal, enforced “consensus” has been inflicted on the world.

            The reason why the totalitarian trolls are so very angry with me is that I can’t be silenced, and they have at last begun to discover that even their systematic attempts to trash my reputation (see e.g. my Wikipedia entry, which is vile untruth artfully dressed up) have backfired on them, because third parties watching this debate, and not participating because they fear that they will be subjected to the same hate speech, threats etc. that every effective climate skeptic is compelled to endure, are beginning to realize that in my case, as in many others, the hate speech is a little too shrill and a little too obviously co-ordinated, with a few key web pages that can be endlessly linked to, etc.

            But the money for climate hysteria is beginning to run dry, and no small part of the reason is the failure of the usual suspects to produce credible, scientifically serious answers to the growing and now embarrassingly large discrepancy between prediction and reality.

            So, well done Planet8788. You have been more than usually persistent and courageous in facing down these paid climate-Communist trolls, who spread their poisonous hate-speech and their ingenious falsehoods from behind a cowardly safety-curtain of anonymity. However, the prosecuting authorities are now taking a real interest in the many complaints from skeptics that a serious and elaborately-coordinated fraud has been practised, and their net is beginning to widen to take an interest in how the climate-Communist advocacy groups have paid large sums in fraudulent attempts to silence dissenters from the Party Line.

            I confidently expect that, in due course, some of the regular merchants of falsehood who appear over and over again on these threads, often making rebarbatively repetitive cut-and-paste postings, will discover that the anonymity they thought they enjoyed will not protect them from eventual prosecution as the fraudulent aspects of the climate scam begin to reach the criminal courts.

            That is not to say that every believer is a fraudster. Far from it. As Lenin used to say, where should we be without the useful idiots? It is not a crime to be an idiot. But it is a crime knowingly and persistently to lie with the intention of deceiving others, either with intent to profit or with intent to cause loss. Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. No small part of that evidence is to give the trolls fair warning that if they depart from the truth in future they may face jail. Then, if they persist in their lies and deceptions, their intent can be more easily demonstrated.

            Since the fraud of which these creeps are a willing and profiteering part is arguably the largest fraud ever perpetrated, their punishment will not be small when they are eventually brought to book. They can expect long prison sentences. And that will serve them right. They thought anonymity would protect them. Well, it won’t.

          • Robert

            “paid climate-communist trolls “

          • Robert

            “…environmental-Socialist extreme advocacy groups that pay them “…

          • Robert

            “..a barrage of co-ordinated, lavishly-funded hate-speech. The technique, invented by Goebbels…”

          • Robert

            ” climate-Communist trolls”

          • Robert

            “…a kind of dismal, enforced “consensus” has been inflicted…”

          • monckton

            I am grateful to Robert for his acknowledgement of the dismal effect that his bullying in these threads appears calculated to achieve. It is failing, though.

          • Robert

            Last poll I saw showing even Republicans not quite so wiling to follow their ‘party line”….

          • monckton

            I don’t get my science from opinion polls; I get it from studying the theory and the data, and reading papers in the learned journals, and sitting at the feet of learned professors and doctors. I certainly don’t get it from some political party or another. But the Republican Party has shown itself uniquely courageous in standing up to the sneering hate-speech of the climate Communists and stating, quietly but firmly, that the science is not settled.

          • Robert

            Thank you….

            ” Republican Party has shown itself uniquely courageous in standing up to the sneering hate-speech of the climate Communists”

          • Robert

            “The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9}”
            SPM AR 4

            “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. ”

            SPM AR5

            “…the science is not settled.”

            Oh, who to accept? Some blogger who won’t cite anything or the well researched statements of a team of scientists with demonstrated expertise in their specialized fields?

          • monckton

            Don’t shift your ground. You denied that there were major differences between the forcing charts in AR4 and AR5. Now that you have looked at both graphs and seen some major differences, you suddenly drop all mention of the graphs and talk about Man having caused some warming instead. Not very intellectually honest, are you? Not very competent, either.

            Meanwhile, the world continues not to warm by very much.

          • Robert

            Actually, if you read, I asked for the evidence.
            Then obfuscation…..

          • monckton

            The evidence is in the two graphs. Compare them.

          • Robert
          • Robert

            “totalitarian trolls are so very angry with me “

          • Robert

            “spread their poisonous hate-speech “

          • Robert

            “rebarbatively repetitive cut-and-paste “

          • Robert

            “As Lenin used to say, …”

          • Robert

            “Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence”

          • Robert

            “They can expect long prison sentences. And that will serve them right. ”

            Must have been talking about Exxon.
            Or maybe those ’19 year’ posts.?

          • Robert

            And previously, you claimed I made 150k, amended to 155k, then amended with 35k expense account.
            And named an organization.

            And then showed no evidence.

            “Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. “

          • monckton

            Since you lurk behind an incomplete name, because you are too cowardly to declare who you are, I shall say exactly what I like about you, and you will have to take it, because it is not directed at a person: merely at a cult. That cult employs useful idiots like you to disrupt these threads with numbingly repetitive, futile and hate-filled comments.

            Meanwhile, the world continues not to warm at anything like the predicted rate. And that is a fact that you should no longer seek to deny. It is the truth, as even the IPCC has accepted.

          • Robert

            Again, said wo evidence;
            “..not to warm at anything like the predicted rate. “

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. All the evidence, in detail, with references, is in the head posting. Get someone to read it to you, or perhaps to draw some nice pictures if that’s easier for you to understand. I hear your library burned down the other day. Both books were burned – and one of them hadn’t even been colored in. So grow up, and accept the overwhelming evidence that the predictions made in the Holy Books of IPeCaC were false.

          • Mobius Loop

            Is this you pretending that the IPCC is working to their 25 year old projections without acknowledging that within 5 years they had revised these and that their subsequent projections where significantly more accurate.

            http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%20Verification%2090-95-01-07%20vs%20Obs.png

            So did you know that and just fancy sticking the lie in anyway or was it a case of not actually looking at the information for 25 years yet thinking you were competent to make a valid point?

          • monckton

            Try getting Nanny to read the head posting to you in words of one syl-la-ble. You will see that not one but two graphs comparing IPCC’s exaggerated predictions with real-world data are given: one commencing in 1990, another in 1995. Both show that the predictions are considerable exaggerations.

            Your graph above, which is not sourced, leading to the suspicion that it comes from a climate-Communist website, displays the various predicted trends, but does not display the changing actual trends to provide a proper comparison. The trend in both predictions and in observed temperatures has fallen, so that even the IPCC’s more recent predictions continue to be very substantial exaggerations.

            It would be better if, instead of parroting the climate-Communist talking points that have long since been discredited (and some of them are the subject of fraud investigations), you did a little thinking. To you and your paymasters, perhaps, this is a childish propaganda war. To skeptics, this is a scientific question, and that requires a combination of study, understanding, and intellectual honesty.

          • Mobius Loop

            Well Lord Haw Haw, if your own Nanny had spent some time instilling a sense of honesty into you instead of beating out any trace of socialism, perhaps you would not be distorting information to shore up your failing argument:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

            As this doctored piece of nonsense demonstrates, you are a dab hand at manipulating graphs to show what you want them to.

            GIven you obvious ‘skill’, I wonder that instead of complaining, you don’t just rustle up your own version showing the observed trend lines relative to the IPCC projection lines.

            Perhaps I could then respond by providing another graph showing the rather closer match between the IPCC projections and the terrestrial data sets.

          • Robert

            So, basically you are saying you are just making up stuff.

            Interesting to see what you say next time you take questions at one of your slideshows.

            “Since you lurk…
            . . . .
            …and hate-filled comments.”

          • monckton

            What I am saying is this. Some years ago I was made aware that various climate-Communist advocacy groups were spending very large sums of money trying to trash my reputation, because they had concluded that my commentaries on the climate question were proving effective in high places (I advise several governments). So they set up a number of people to follow me and my writings full-time. They paid them a lot of money to do this. And they indulged in various interesting techniques to see to it that my speeches did not go viral on the internet.

            On one occasion, I received a phone-call from Texas A&M University, from a professor who used to monitor the internet there. He told me had had come across clear evidence that someone (he did not know who) had spent at least $250,000 trying to stop a single speech of mine from attracting more than the 5 million hits it had already received on YouTube, spread across several sites.

            Till then I had no idea of the lavish funding that these environmental-Socialist advocacy groups had available to them, still less of what vast sums they were willing to spend to try to silence me. Well, all that money was wasted. It got to the point where the sheer hatred shown to me by the climate Communists became so obvious to all that hard-Left websites are now the best recruiting-agent for the truth: people read the hate-speech about me and realize its perpetrators have gone way too far, and that nearly all of them are anonymous cowards like you – the lowest of the low.

            So they contrast the detailed scientific answers I give to comments with the yah-boo from the likes of you, and they draw their conclusions. And their conclusions are not at all favorable to the climate-Communist cause. Which is why I take the trouble from time to time to reply in detail on these threads.

            The fact, the undeniable fact, is that the rate of global warming since 1990 is a small fraction of the rate predicted by the IPCC in that year. It is all set out in the head posting. And when ordinary, unprejudiced, non-socialist, freedom-loving, open-minded people read these postings, they can see for themselves who is trying to tell the truth – and it isn’t you. You are paid a lot, and paid to lie, but the money is wasted, because you are so bad at it.

          • Robert

            “Some years ago I was made aware …”
            Vague, unsupported assertion.

            “..various climate-Communist advocacy groups…”
            Unnamed.
            And semantically loaded namecaĺing.

            “were spending very large sums of money ”
            No numbers €, £, ¥..

            “..trying to trash my reputation, ..”
            No examples.

            “…because they had concluded..”
            No evidence.

            ” that my commentaries on the climate question were proving effective in high places”
            No evidence

            ” (I advise several governments).”
            No evidence.

            And that is just the first sentence…..

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish. When you are asked to produce evidence, you run a mile.

            The science is clear: the world is not warming at anything like the predicted rate. See the head posting for details. And the fact of the long pause in global warming, almost unknown two years ago, is now known to all, thanks in no small part to these regular monthly updates. So you are going to have to produce some serious science if you wish to refute the evidence. Behaving like a small and more than usually unintelligent child will convince no one but yourself and – one hopes – your climate-Communist paymasters, who must be becoming more than a little concerned at your ineffectiveness, your repetitiveness, your stupidity, and your obvious lack of any knowledge of or interest in objective scientific truth.

          • Robert

            D. Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

            monckton, “..I shall say exactly what I like…”

          • monckton

            I am entitled to any facts I like about a hate-speaking, paid climate Communist troll who is too terrified and craven and cowardly even to admit who he is. That is the conspicuous fact: the cowardliness of those who post their hate speech here under pseudonyms. Most well-run websites ban trolls like you from making rude comments about your betters unless you are prepared to say who you are. But you are not man enough to admit who you are. You snipe childishly from behind a contemptible curtain of anonymity.

          • Mobius Loop

            Most well run website would not allow your nonsense web space.

          • monckton

            Many well-run websites print these graphs, which is why they have gained such a very large currency, and why they appear so often on television. After all, that is why your climate-Communist paymasters pay you to try – unsuccessfully – to disrupt the discussion threads here. The huge audience now watching these exchanges is 94% supportive of the truth as expressed in the head posting.

          • jmac

            If anyone has some credible study that will disprove man made climate science, they would have no problem getting funding from Exxon et. al. to complete the study and publish it in credible journals. That research would be worth billions maybe even trillions to the fossil fuel boys.

            Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

            At this point, the deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

          • Robert

            I had to keep looking to make sure that screw was posted by ‘monckton’. Out of context, many of the statements fit to what Lord Monckton and Exxon have been doin.
            And both well documented.
            The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)

            Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.
            http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

            https://youtu.be/fbW-aHvjOgM

          • jmac

            Monckton is a criminal sociopath and pitiful excuse for a human being. As long as he can make money, he doesn’t give one slime ball about the lives of others. He is just that slimy. Those right wing values voters version of hell was made for him.

            The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

            The only thing they have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

          • Mobius Loop

            I hope that some of the invetigations that seem to be in the offing start to shine a light on the network of funding agencies used by the likes of Exxon & the Kochs.

            It would be really useful to have the full extent and nature of these exposed to public scrutiny.

          • monckton

            Jmac, as usual, puts its foot in its mouth. The problem is indeed that climate “science” – or at least the notion that global temperatures are rising as predicted, when it is blindingly obvious that they are not – is man-made. It is fabricated. The evidence, however, is clear. The world is not warming as predicted, and even Dr Muller, the author of the BEST study, acknowledges that that is the case. Shortly before he published the results, I met him at the Los Alamos climate conference, at which he and I both gave talks. He seemed surprised when I told him what the results of his research would be. I said that he would broadly find the terrestrial data accurate. He asked what I thought of that conclusion. I said it did not much concern me, for at that time I had little reason to doubt the accuracy of the terrestrial data.

            However, there has been considerable tampering since then, on a scale that does seem more than a little suspicious. Close analysis of the changes suggests that they were co-ordinated between the three longest-standing terrestrial datasets with the intention of falsely eradicating the pause in global warming, which all three datasets had previously shown. Suddenly, all three of them ceased to show that result, while the two satellite datasets continued to show it.

            So, try making some scientific points rather than trotting out the tired climate-Communist insults you are paid to make. Those insults may well deter others from joining these threads, and no doubt that is your fell intent, for totalitarians have never believed in free speech, and when they are losing an argument, as they have completely lost this one, they resort to various tactics to try to deny or delay the truth. But, as the apocryphal Book of Esdras says, “Great is truth, and mighty above all things.” The world is not warming at anything like the predicted rate, and that fact, which cannot legitimately be denied, casts more than a little doubt upon the future predictions of doom that the climate Communists peddle.

          • jmac

            I’m calling BS. What Los Alamos climate conference. Who sponsored the conference? Were you a paid speaker?

          • monckton

            At scientific conferences, speakers are paid by their institutions. Having no institution, I was not paid.

          • jmac

            When was the conference? Who sponsored it? What did you do to have such a nice retirement, that you can fly around the world at your own expense?

          • monckton

            Perhaps you have not heard of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. They organize a climate conference every few years. I attend several such scientific conferences every year, including an annual visit to the seminars on planetary emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists. This year I shall also be going to a scientific conference in Paris, and another in Essen. For my work on climate sensitivity and on climate economics is interesting to those who are genuinely curious to know the truth, and the vast majority of scientists try to keep an open mind on subjects they have not themselves studied, so they are intrigued to hear a well-marshalled case for the skeptical position.

            What I did was to be very successful with a series of inventions that other people thought were mad. But they worked. And they were profitable. For it is one thing to be able to invent something, and quite another to bring it to market successfully.

          • jmac

            Monckton, nobody could make this stuff up.

            1. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

            2. The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.” Maybe some of you physicians out there can help me interpret this, but it looks to me like Monckton is claiming that his Wonder Cure will 1) wipe out any virus without harming the patient, and 2) cure auto-immune disorders that may (or may not) have initially been triggered by a viral infection. It is unclear to me whether bacterial infections are supposed to be affected since, for instance, food poisoning could be caused by either. [UPDATE: Monckton apparently is saying the miracle cure should be effective against both viral and bacterial infections, as well as prions.]

          • monckton

            Off topic. Asked and answered. Get over it.

          • Mobius Loop

            “Get over it!” ……….. was that the cure you invented?

          • Mobius Loop

            What about flights, accommodation & expenses for your Heartless junket or the Australia trip.

          • monckton

            None of your business, and off topic. However, my last Australia trip was a three-month Christian mission that I preached to the Pentecostal churches of the state of Victoria. And that was paid for by the love-offerings of the large congregations that attended my popular sermons. As for the American trip, I visited several destinations and the cost was, therefore, divided among those audiences before whom I had the honor to speak. All of this is quite normal, and it happens a thousand times as often for believers as it does for questioners.

          • Mobius Loop

            None of my business …….. or in other words, the expenses were pretty generous thank you, a wee bit of a velvet lining to the old pocket eh?

          • Mobius Loop

            The world is not warming as predicted ……….. only when you lie by omission and ignore model projects that are less than 25 years old.

          • monckton

            Get Nanny to read the head posting to you in words of one syl-la-ble. Fig. 3 shows the IPCC predictions made in 2007, just eight years ago. Failed again. If you were only interested in the truth, you would be interesting yourself. But you are only interested in peddling the climate-Communist propaganda you are paid to peddle, and that is merely laughable, though no doubt profitable.

            Meanwhile, millions in Africa starve and die of disease because environmental Communism won’t allow them cheap, clean, reliable, base-load coal-fired electricity. Just as the environmental Communists killed 50 million with their half-assed ban on DDT, now they are killing tens of milliions more by denying them electricity. It is time to make all forms of totalitarianism illegal on the ground of the crimes against humanity that they have committed and, alas, continue to commit.

          • Mobius Loop

            My word you are right!

            Apologies, I was so caught up in observing that one of your posts which stated …..

            “Meanwhile, the rate of warming since 1990, on all three longest-standing terrestrial datasets and on both satellite datasets, is below the IPCC’s least warming rate predicted in 1990. That will continue to be the case if the coming el Nino is followed by a la Nina.”

            ……..contained such a deceptive omission of the subsequent predictions that I forgot to look at your many graphs.

            However, I was studying these with renewed interest when it struck me as interesting that they had different starting dates and I was curious to see what would happen if you overlaid them, so here you go, a composite:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

            So you have raised the green line showing the 2005(7?) prediction, exaggerating the mismatch between this and the RSS data set, whereas the purple line allows a like for like comparison against the 1990 IPCC prediction.

            Bickmore was right, you pile on a dense layer of information, but just look carefully at it and there is always the error, or the lie.

          • Mobius Loop

            How fantastic it would have been to be a fly on the wall at the meeting where the results were presented.

          • jmac

            No kidding! Just found this article, thanks to some unwitting denier. You may have seen it already. dated Oct 23
            How Exxon Shaped the Climate Debate – Steve Coll
            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/

          • Mobius Loop

            There is a strange pleasure to be had when a denier presents you with something genuinely interesting that they haven’t realized skewers their nonsense.

            Thanks, for passing on the link, looks really good, I’ll try and read it over the next couple of days.

          • jmac

            Nothing really new in it but it was from 2012 and it does mention Heartland specifically. Maybe the author has some solid evidence somewhere though.

          • jmac

            Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. :)

            Even Exxon is calling BS on your BS.

          • monckton

            The only comment mentioning me that any senior executive of Exxon Mobil has made, as far as I know, was by Rex Tillerson, the then newly-appointed chief executive, in 2006, when I had published a letter to Crowe and Boxer telling them not to try to stifle the free speech that the United States Constitution guarantees to its citizens. He said to one of his board meetings: “That letter seems to have gone everywhere.”

            Apart from that, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. However, no serious scientist would dispute that the temperature records are as I display them to be, for it is a simple matter to download the data, perform the calculations and publish the graphs, which will not look any different to mine. So don’t be childish. If you have a serious scientific point to make, then make it. If all you can do is repeat mere yah-boo, then don’t bother.

          • jmac

            I’m talking about your childish fetish for calling people “communists”. Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. And I seriously doubt you ever met Rex Tillerson. Prove it, show us some written documentation, otherwise I call BS on that too, since everything else you say is BS.

          • monckton

            And where did I say I’d met Rex Tillerson?

            I call the anonymous, paid, climate-Communist trolls that infest these sites cowardly anonymous paid climate-Communist trolls for the good and sufficient reason that that is what they are. It is an unfailing mark of the Socialist – whether National Socialist, Communist Socialist or Environmentalist Socialist – to believe whatever Party Line is handed down, and to go on believing it and parroting it for long after it has reached its sell-by date.

            If there had been a little more intelligent comment from jmac or Robert or CB or Icarus62 or any of the others who appear not only here but on dozens of other threads with depressing regularity and still more depressing lack of the slightest interest in the objective truth, one would suspect that perhaps they were not, after all, paid trolls. But they are – and lavishly paid at that. And all for nothing. For, in order to get this particular scam going, it was necessary for the climate Communists to make lurid predictions. They first did so in the late 1980s, and the IPCC joined in the fun in 1990.

            But now, inevitably, those prejudiced and baseless predictions are not coming to pass. On the satellite data, there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. The terrestrial data would have shown something similar, had there not been a co-ordinated arrangement between the controllers of the datasets to make adjustments that had the effect of falsely getting rid of the Pause that all of them had shown until a couple of years ago. The RSS and UAH data continue to show the Pause, but the three terrestrial datasets, with less universal coverage and inadequate standardization of methodology and equipment, do not. Something is wrong somewhere, and my postings provide the data that allow people who are interested in the truth to see the data for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

            And I do not thing the climate-Communist trolls would waste so much of their time with their hate-speech here unless they and their paymasters in the various lavishly-funded environmental-Socialist advocacy groups did not think these graphs were wrecking what little is left of the credibility of the Party Line.

            In the end, like it or not, those original exaggerated predictions will prove to be the undoing of the IPCC. For they will not come to pass. And, in your heart of hearts, you begin to suspect that that may be true.

          • jmac

            Well, if even Exxon knows your BS is just BS, are they communists too. :) Didn’t you have one paper you couldn’t get published anywhere except by some sort of Communist China organizations?

        • planet8788

          Did you see the sixth chart in this article.

          Monckton lays out all the data… You didn’t even read it.

          https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mJ0fi3TjmgY/VjpQRyxyeCI/AAAAAAACa8g/6S1GhkYdLg0/s720-Ic42/monckton1980.png

          • Mobius Loop

            So this is the tampered with chart that you elsewhere advise that Spencer has not given out any reason for changing.

            How is this different from the terrestrial data sets that you reject because they have been altered?

        • planet8788

          Notice that is .4C since 1980 soooo…. .4 degrees cooling after 1940… and now .4 C warming after 1980.. No NET global warming. NONE.

          • Mobius Loop

            grunt & sniff.

        • monckton

          Fig. 1b plainly shows the small warming on the mean of the three longest-standing terrestrial datasets.

          • Mobius Loop

            This does not contradict my post or its comment on you presenting the information in a skewed way e.g. you will note that I did not explicitly mention that you include the RSS graph either.

            My argument is simple, if you want to understand what is happening, then compare the information on a like for like basis without scary mood music telling you what to think.

            As an example here is an overlay showing the GISS, RSS & UAH data sets with trend lines.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:0.25/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:0.25

            Can heartily recommend the Woodfortrees site. You don’t have to take my word or Monckton’s for anything but can check yourself.

          • monckton

            The graphs since 1979 show warming at a rate equivalent to just 1.2 K/century: but that is well below half of the central estimate predicted by IPCC in 1990.

            And determining a trend from 1979 tells us nothing about whether a trend from 1997 to the present has been accurately determined. The trend since 1997 is zero, even though the anthropogenic forcings that are supposed to be driving the warming are supposed to be increasing at what is supposed to be an accelerated rate.

            The widening discrepancy between prediction and observation, between theory and practice, does not inspire much confidence in the over-politicized process of the IPCC. There is at present no basis whatsoever for alarm about Man’s influence on climate.

          • Mobius Loop

            The graphs since 1979 …… that seems a bit vague, best to look at some, first, one of the early ones ….

            http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2015/09/gr-climate-report-137-300.png

            …. that actually looks pretty accurate, what about another, again some older models ….

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/1/1380599335494/ProjvsObs450.jpg?w=605&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=8303b34642b603f93bd359c55da93ed5

            …. which again look pretty good, so what about more up to date models ….

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

            …. running a bit low but as you yourself admitted in the article we are heading into a strong El Nino period that is likely to bring temperatures back towards the center of the model predictions.

          • monckton

            As the head posting makes quite clear, even a strong el Nino will not bring global mean surface temperature up even to the lower bound of the prediction that the IPCC made in that year. The scare was based on the original predictions. Those predictions have now been proven to have been wild exaggerations. On the CMIP5 models, the much-adjusted recent predictions, one would not expect to see more than 0.5 degrees’ warming by 2100, which is scarcely a problem, is it?

          • Mobius Loop

            Deeply dishonest misdirection.

            Yes the initial predictions where high but the IPCC addressed this by the second cycle of research and publishing.

            Don’t you think you should give an accurate overview of the issue if you want people to understand.

            This chart is a really useful summary:

            http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%20Verification%2090-95-01-07%20vs%20Obs.png

          • monckton

            The above chart is deliberately misleading – indeed, it is the subject of an ongoing fraud investigation. The reason why it is fraudulent is that those who compiled it deliberately omitted to show the trend-lines of observed temperature change alongside those of predicted change; for, had they done so, it would have been apparent to all that each of the successive predictions of the IPCC has been excessive – a fact that the graph you reproduce was falsely intended to conceal.

            Of course, this is a relatively small fraud, but it is part of a connected series of far more serious frauds that the security services and police forces of several nations have been investigating ever since the Climategate emails that let so much daylight into the corruption of the academic climate-science establishment.

            One should try to find peer-reviewed sources wherever possible. Reviewers would – and certainly should – have made the points I have made about the self-evident defects in the above graph.

          • Mobius Loop

            What a load of old tosh. The graph shows a range of IPCC predictions against the actual recorded temperatures. Anyone wanting to make a further point can add trend lines.

            For it to be fraudulent it would have to misrepresent the information

            ………. and on that point your own graphs as displayed in figs 2 & 3 are a much better example of fraud.

            A close look reveals something very odd about the second one, so I overlaid them:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

            You have hiked up the green line showing the IPCC temperature predictions from 2005 exaggerating the difference between this and the RSS data set.

            The purple line positions the 2005 prediction line with the same starting point as the 1990 red prediction line allowing a like for like comparison and aligning more closely with the overlay with all the prediction lines I posted previously.

            http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%20Verification%2090-95-01-07%20vs%20Obs.png

            On another note, your grand investigation of Climategate fraud has had 6 years to work it out, so where are the prosecutions? Or is this just one more lie from the big book of Monckton fantasies?

            Or perhaps the 9 separate investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrong doing in this ludicrous non scandal are more relevant.

    • monckton

      Fig. 1b shows the small warming rate on the mean of the HadCRUT4, GISS and NCDC datasets. Try learning to read the head posting.

      • Mobius Loop

        And I said that you FOCUS on one data set and have a BRIEF AND DISMISSIVELY worded reference to the others.

        Given the central importance of the temperature data sets I would describe combining three data sets into one, while ignoring the Japanese Meteorological Association’s information all together as a very BRIEF summary of a lot of core information.

        • monckton

          Don’t blub. If you want to produce your own graphs, write your own software or borrow someone else’s. My graphs, which are correctly determined and presented, show quite well – on all datasets, even the terrestrial tamperature datasets in which no one can now place any credence – that global warming (if it is happening at all) is not happening at anything like the predicted rate. Some of the reasons for the ever-growing and damaging discrepancy are to be found in my published scientific papers.

          • Mobius Loop

            Graphs?

            Here is a summary of the 4 main terrestrial data sets all of which show warming post 1998:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

            Here is the UAH data set from 1995 to 2014 with the trend lines for 1997,1998 & 1999 overlaid, all showing warming post 1998:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015/trend

            Here is an overlay of temperature trends on model projections.

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

            Interesting that even you agree that we are likely to see warming in the months ahead that would bring the temperature trend back towards the center of the model projections.

            “The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

            From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. “

          • monckton

            Why do the paid climate-Communist trolls endlessly repeat the lies they are paid so handsomely to tell from behind a safety-blanket of anonymity? The warming of the coming months will not even lift global temperatures to the lower bound of the extravagant 1990 prediction, equivalent to a near-linear warming of 1 degree by 2025, that was made by the IPCC in 1990.

            And if you are incapable of determining the least-squares trend on the UAH data from May 1997 to October 2015, a period of 18 years 6 months without any global warming, precisely as I had said, then don’t parade your ignorance here. Go and learn some math.

          • Mobius Loop

            It’s a mark of how pathetically threadbare your argument is that you have to resort to such a cheap trick to come anywhere close to making a point.

            For anyone interested in reality, Monckton here is referring to the IPCC’s VERY FIRST projections carried out TWENTY FIVE Years ago.

            What Monckton DOES NOT TELL YOU is that the IPCC corrected their projections in 1995, significantly reducing the projected warming, nor
            does he tell you that the IPCC further refined their projections three more times over the following 20 years. This diagram provides a neat summary.

            http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%20Predictions%2090-95-01-07.png

            And this one shows the current model that Monckton doesn’t like, related to temperature showing the most recent temperature rise as reflected in the terrestrial data sets that Monckton really, really, really doesn’t like.

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

      • The

        All surface temperature data show a statistically significant warming trend since 1997 http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

        • monckton

          The rate of warming since February 1997 is exactly as I have shown it in the head posting. It is a warming of 0.21 degrees. This counts, statistically speaking, as “barely significant”, since the published combined coverage, bias and measurement uncertainties are 0.16 degrees. It is equivalent to just 1.1 degrees/century, which is little more than one-third of the 2.8 degrees/century predicted by IPCC, as its central estimate, in its 1990 First Assessment Report.

          The central point is not only that the two datasets with the most complete coverage – RSS and UAH – show no global warming at all for getting on for 19 years, but also that the terrestrial tamperature datasets, despite numerous adjustments that account between them for just on half of all 20th-century warming, still show so very much less warming than had been predicted.

          • Mobius Loop

            In anticipation of being called childish …… liar, liar, pants on fire.

          • monckton

            When I was six I was taught not to chant Socialist slogans such as yours. You are unable to refute any of the fact stated above, and, accordingly, you tacitly concede that they are correct. So kill the sloganizing, learn some science, and grow up.

  • jmac

    This is the same Heartland Institute the Tobacco companies used to deny the science that tobacco causes cancer. Millions died. These people are the most vile among us. They have no values whatsoever, and are willing to lie their butts off about anything, as long as there is money to be made.

    Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

    • planet8788

      And you guys are letting Africans die like they are animals.

    • Woodfords Frog

      Get your facts straight Jmac!
      It was already well established in the late 1950’s that smoking caused cancer. In 1964 the Surgeon General recognized smoking could cause lung cancer. The Heartland Institute didn’t even exist back then. It was founded in Chicago in 1984. GET EDUCATED!

      Banerjee the lead reporter of that article from Inside Climate News stated: “We never said Exxon stopped its research, nor suppressed the results.”

      Exxon didn’t know about AGW decades ago, because there was no scientific certainty. Even today there isn’t any empirical evidence that CO2 is the driver of climate.

      In response to Inside Climate News, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers responded, showing that the article was inaccurate and left out numerous examples where Exxon is still conducting research.
      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2487075-jeffers-statement.html

      Did you know that Inside Climate News is funded by anti-oil and gas foundations?
      No bias there what so ever! s/.

      • jmac

        Did you know that even Exxon knows your BS is BS?

        Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

        • planet8788

          So i take it you don’t use any electricity made by coal/oil/or gas?

          Ahhhh now the truth comes out.. you are just an ignorant socialist utopian.

          • jmac

            Even Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

          • planet8788

            Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool.

          • jmac

            So even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

          • planet8788

            Exxon certainly hasn’t said that. And Schmidt is your communist butt buddy… Totally not a climate scientist… nor a chemist. Are the satellites lying too? Did the Koch bros. program them?

          • jmac

            Even the Koch bros know you are lying.

            Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

            How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

          • planet8788

            The satellites are lying too?
            You are the ones killing AFricans.. The Kochs build hospitals.
            You are nothing but a big fat communist hypocrite.

          • jmac

            Exxon = communist now = pretty ignorant comment.

            Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

          • Robert

            Following monckton’s lead….

            “You are nothing but a big fat communist hypocrite.”

          • planet8788

            only a communist keeps repeating the same mindless propoganda.

          • Robert

            monckton prefers “climate communist”, so your “communist” is weak sauce.

          • Jim Young

            My old Republican party does most of that now (I left when the Cato Institute suggestion to use “Leninist” propaganda, and implied soft sabotage, seemed to be so corruptly implemented in the 1996 Newt Gingrich/Frank Luntz GoPac memo, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control).” See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

            Though implemented by the Republican party for political purposes, it seems the model Exxon likes as they try to create doubt about their own science now. Why not ask their original scientists whether they think the current efforts are science, politics, or just plain propaganda for profit?

          • Robert

            Well, we are at monckton’s homesite…. and the sycophants are following his best examples….
            “…communist butt buddy.”

          • planet8788

            When the troll starts to post something of substance. I will respond with something of substance.

          • Robert

            Another example…”troll”

            monckton claims he knows I earn 155k +35k in expense account and even names my employer….
            That sounds like trolling….

          • planet8788

            Still waiting for a post of any substance…. It’s getting kind of old.

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluaing Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • Robert

            And more examples of copy pasting…

          • planet8788

            Ill stop when you stop.

          • Robert

            ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
            Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

            “Exxon funded the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker, who cast the single no vote earlier this year against a symbolic “sense of the Senate” resolution that climate change was real and not a hoax. The resolution passed 98-1. Wicker, who received $14,000 from Exxon, voted no.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

          • planet8788

            That’s meaningless tripe. Not science.

          • Robert

            Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}
            Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist (Figure SPM.1a). {1.1.1, Figure 1.1}” SPM ipcc.ch

          • planet8788

            In 1981, The 1940’s were the hottest… The temperature record has been massively manipulated.
            Read Hansen et. al 1981. See what it looked like then.

          • Robert

            Said wo a cite.
            Well done!

            No, wait…

            University of Wisconsin – Stout

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            0 points
            “Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence.”

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

          • planet8788

            I schooled you on Antarctica… Now I am going to school you again.

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

            Note page 961. NASA again.

          • Robert

            Tell us exactly how much. When. Where.
            Seems a bit odd that in a field full of new research, you have to go back a third of a century to show us something you think sports your claim….

          • planet8788

            How much what?
            Page 961. Temperature chart.
            Compare it to today’s.

            Is that hard to understand? It will show you how much it has been adjusted.

          • Robert

            Oh, eyeballing.. so sciency.

          • planet8788

            You can take out your ruler if you want.

          • Robert

            Or you could do an analysis of the data.
            And show the sources that have been informing your opinion.

          • planet8788

            I have analyzed it. It is a chart. It shows 1940 being much hotter. It shows significant cooling after 1940. That cooling has been erased.
            You can’t read a chart? You are just as smart as that other dolt on here aren’t you.

          • Robert

            Show us the “I have analyzed it”. Funny how you can’t cite something actually published….

            Actually, not funny.

          • planet8788

            I am citing published work you moron. Hansen, et al. 1981. I posted the link 5 times.
            LOOK AT IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

          • Robert
          • Robert
          • Mobius Loop

            Still banging on about a 35 year old research paper?

            The reason no one is looking at the paper is because it is 3 decades old and at this stage utterly, utterly, utterly irrelevant!

          • planet8788

            It is completely relevant and aleays will be. All the modifications correspons perfectly with CO2 concentrations.

            All 4 independent [hahahahah) databases have been modified the same way.

          • Mobius Loop

            So you have analyzed the chart on P961 of the geriatric report.

            It shows approx. 0.5 deg C temp rise between 1880 & 1940 followed by a fall of approx 0.4 deg C between 1940 & 1970.

            Here are the collected modern terrestrial charts:

            https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimate.nasa.gov%2Fsystem%2Fcontent_pages%2Fmain_images%2F1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg&key=tQU3_OETqJ4TazpYud5dWg

            They differ from the Hansen chart during the early C20th but the rise in temp between 1880 & 1940 is approx. 0.5 deg C, followed by a fall of approx 0.4 deg C between 1940 & 1970.

            So basically two charts prepared 35 years apart separated by over 3 decades of scientific & computer technology development show very similar information.

            This is what you have been wittering on about.

            This is beyond idiotic.

          • planet8788

            The total temp change has more than doubled.

          • planet8788

            I know, you don’t want to be bothered by such facts. Then you have to explain them.

          • planet8788

            Hansen, et. al 1981

          • Robert
          • planet8788

            I know… I expected that you could read a chart from a published paper… my bad.

          • planet8788

            They aren’t independently produces. What happened to Hansen et. al 1981?

          • Robert

            ???

          • planet8788

            Look it up… It’s on the NASA website. Look at the temperature chart. THis was right before he turned into a raving lunatic and started changing the record drastically. (ACtually he had already started probably.)

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and laced supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resource

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • Robert

            “…communist butt buddy…
            “https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2347415217

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidenc

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            Your kind are killing more Africans than Global warming ever will.

          • jmac

            The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

          • planet8788

            Yep… You are the satellite data denier… and you describe yourself perfectly… Congratulations.

          • jmac

            Exxon knows your BS is just BS. Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

    • Robert

      You may have already seen this from the Union of Concerned Scientists
      The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)
      Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

      • jmac

        The evidence just keeps on mounting. Lot of evidence there in those dossiers.

        ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge

        Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story.

        ““In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

        • Robert

          Thanks for the link. Kinda surprised ‘snowball’ Inhofe works so hard for what exxon pays him, …

          • jmac

            That’s only the amount in that one traceable document. But of course Inhofe has been stump broke for fossil fuel boys for years.

          • Robert

            I was figuring that ‘snowball’ has convinced himself that he believes what he’s shoveling so it doesn’t seem so much a bribe. Then the acountants cut back on the payments….

          • jmac

            Yes, and with Citizens United in place it is difficult to track the PAC money.

          • planet8788

            So now Citizens United is controlling the satellites?

          • jmac

            It’s reassuring to watch you represent the side of the deniers. Find another wingnut who’s out of bullets, and form a self-esteem building club.

          • planet8788

            Out of bullets… I don’t need any… you are already full of holes.

          • jmac

            You are just ignorant or you are a truly vile person that doesn’t care about the well being of others. And yes, you are out of bullets. Even Exxon knows it.

          • planet8788

            You are killing AFricans every day.

  • Well Done

    Enviroliars have been trying to explain “the pause” for the last dozen years or so… now, funny enough, they’ve decided to just announce there was no pause. These guys have no respect for themselves.

  • planet8788

    http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-07-03-21-221.png

    Record ice growth this fall in the Arctic… All those Hiroshima bombs of heat doing their thing. Now above 2005 levels for area… 19 years with no warming. 10 years with no melting.
    Greenland also having a second stellar year of snowfall.

  • planet8788

    JMAC,

    When are you going to post actual facts? Never… Got it.

  • planet8788

    I’m going to dissect this post which the anti-capitalist JMAC troll down below keeps posting. Here is the link.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

    It quotes an Exxon “scientist” giving a presentation. Apparently these neo-communists think this is some type of smoking gun because they are brain dead.

    “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later. It was July 1977 when Exxon’s leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis. A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon’s Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.”

    Just like now… all of this is pure speculation. The past has been cooled more than present has warmed. UTTER GARBAGE.

  • Robert

    ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
    Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

    “Exxon funded the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker, who cast the single no vote earlier this year against a symbolic “sense of the Senate” resolution that climate change was real and not a hoax. The resolution passed 98-1. Wicker, who received $14,000 from Exxon, voted no.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

    • planet8788

      Did you read the article? There is no warming. The satellites say so. And the only warming in the surface temperature record is MANN-Made.

      • Robert

        Yes, Monckton makes that claim.

        No actual scientist says that, even the guys in charge of those satellites.
        That should give you a clue.
        Though I doubt it does…

        • planet8788

          That’s because the guy in charge of satellits would probably get fired. The data is what the data is… and even the guy in charge of the satellites doesn’t have a good explanation… If he does… what is it? WHAT IS IT?

          • Robert

            Start by reading how the sat data Ned adjusting. On the sat website.

            “WHAT IS IT?”

          • planet8788

            Not every other week like the surface data. They are on rev 6. Surface record on rev. 6000… all in one direction. Whatever it takes to support global warming.
            Meanwhile sea ice stable. Antarctic ice stable. yada yada yada.

          • Robert

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

  • planet8788

    Arctic Ice Volume about the same as 2007 according to PIOMAS. http://neven1.typepad.com/

    Arctic Sea Ice Area… about the same as 2005 according to DMI. (see chart below).

    Satellites show temperatures stable for almost 19 years. (see this article).

    https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

    Antarctic Sea ice reached a peak in 2014.

    Antarctica gaining ice overall.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/04/antarctica-ice-global-warming-climate-change/75155630/

    Despite all this, Climastrologists keep continually calling it the hottest month ever….

    The data tampering has been massive. Here is Hansen’s paper from 1981. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

    Look at what the temperature record looked like then. Compare it to what it looks like now. If ice is stable now, 1890’s must have been an ice age.

  • jmac

    Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

    • planet8788

      What did they know? Don’t just put a link.
      We don’t know anything except that the temperature record has been mangled. And all the models have been way off.

      • jmac

        So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t? Am I right?

        • planet8788

          You are the one denying the satellite data, the sea ice data. The Great Lakes data.
          You still haven’t summarized for me, or anyone, what exactly Exxon knew….
          You are too stupid too even be able to write a scientific sentence. the best you can do is: I hate capitalism.

          • Robert

            Ah, still using insults instead of citations…

          • jmac

            Has he called you a communist yet? This guy is apparently some kind of wannabe understudy to Monckton, as you well know that is one of Moncktons fall back positions. :)

          • Robert

            As of now, it looks like you are the sole recipient….

          • jmac

            Bummer. lol

          • planet8788

            Hansen et. al, 1981… Page 961

          • jmac

            Capitalism? Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

    • planet8788

      Satellites = NO warming
      Surface Temp. Record = massively manipulated.

      Exxon doesn’t know squat…
      Climastrologists dont know squat.

      every model has been wrong… Just like AR5 showed.

      • Robert

        Hmmm, Chapter 9 says you are lying.
        Which would be a real good reason why you didn’t actually quote the source

        Previously spewed by planet8788, “…every model has been wrong… Just like AR5 showed.”

        • planet8788

          http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/

          This increase in confidence in the main conclusions in the AR5 SPM seems unwarranted based on the text, figures and analyses in the main WG1 Report, and also in comparison with the conclusions from the AR4. Several key elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human influences:

          Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
          Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
          Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
          Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
          Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming

          • Robert

            Ah, the unpublished blogging v the rest of the scientific community…
            Gee, so hard to decide..
            Wait, no.
            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?
            Examples:

            Outdated Information: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm

            Current Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?
            Examples:

            Questionable Depth:

            http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/popsci.html

            http://www.timeforkids.com/

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?
            Examples:

            Example of why you should examine the URL and the sponsoring organization:

            http://www.python.org/~guido/

            Example of a more reputable website:

            http://heinzhome.heinzctrinfo.net/index.html

            Accuracy

            Are there statements you know to be false?
            Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
            Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
            What citations or references support the author’s claims?
            What do other people have to say about the topic?
            Examples:
            Example of why sources should be verified:

            http://www.improbable.com/airchives/classical/cat/feline-nov2001.html

            Purpose

            Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
            Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
            Are alternative points of view presented?
            Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
            Does the author use strong or emotional language?
            Examples:

            Examples of websites with possible bias:

            http://www.zip4tweens.com/

            http://www.beefnutrition.org/

            http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

            Information used courtesy of University of Maryland University College Library and Creighton University Library; modified by Gettysburg College Musselman Library August 2012
            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

          • planet8788

            Judith Curry is published. Thank you very much… She is much more qualified than you.
            You are clueless.

          • Robert

            Not the blog post you cited.
            Now you are doing logical fallacies.

          • jmac

            I give you Lord Monckton a paid shill for the fossil fuel boys, the man that created the myth about the lack of warming for the ignorant denier blogs. A short video of the sociopath in action.

          • Robert

            That should be reposted early and often!

          • jmac

            I believe that the emerging story of what Exxon knew, and when they knew it, shows that the differences have never really been about the science questions – even the major oil companies knew the basic science truths 4 decades ago. They simply made a moral decision that the lives of the next ten thousand generations of human beings were not as important as their own profits, and we are now witnessing the early impacts of that decision.

            At this point the deniers are just immoral creatures with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

          • planet8788

            Nobody knows it now. That’s why the IPCC can’t nail down the number.

          • jmac

            Even Exxon knows it and Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

          • planet8788

            What is the number? If everybody knows it. If we double CO2, how much warming?

          • planet8788

            Yawn… You’re killing AFrican children every day.

          • Robert

            Seems your responses are generating a lot of replies that don’t point to any evidence of any sort.
            That is a pretty good indictment of the denialist position.

          • planet8788

            There is no evidence to refute except ad hom attacks. Probably you are JMAC. You have the same low intelligence.

          • Robert

            Well, no need to watch Comedy Channel….
            “…refute except ad hom attacks. Probably you are JMAC. You have the same low intelligence.”

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lackedsupporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            Meanwhile, all the data except the data that is manipulated every two weeks, shows AGW is full of bunk.

          • planet8788

            19 years… 19 years no warming… It’s not a short period. You are a moron of the highest degree.

          • Robert

            Also, it isn’t a claim supported in the science. Just this blog….

          • planet8788

            It’s supported by the data from the satellites. It is supported by the science. It is the science.

          • Robert

            It is monckton’s cherrypicked science.

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP est to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • Robert

            If you are going to copy paste , at least fix the urls..

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?
            Examples:

            Outdated Information: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm

            Current Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?
            Examples:

            Questionable Depth:

            http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/popsci.html

            http://www.timeforkids.com/

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?
            Examples:

            Example of why you should examine the URL and the sponsoring organization:

            http://www.python.org/~guido/

            Example of a more reputable website:

            http://heinzhome.heinzctrinfo.net/index.html

            Accuracy

            Are there statements you know to be false?
            Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
            Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
            What citations or references support the author’s claims?
            What do other people have to say about the topic?
            Examples:
            Example of why sources should be verified:

            http://www.improbable.com/airchives/classical/cat/feline-nov2001.html

            Purpose

            Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
            Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
            Are alternative points of view presented?
            Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
            Does the author use strong or emotional language?
            Examples:

            Examples of websites with possible bias:

            http://www.zip4tweens.com/

            http://www.beefnutrition.org/

            http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School
            https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented contet which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • Robert

            The irony of copy pasting continues unabated….

          • planet8788

            Just following your moronic lead.

          • Robert

            Again, If you are going to copy paste , at least fix the urls..

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?

            Accuracy

            Are there statements you know to be false?
            Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
            Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
            What citations or references support the author’s claims?
            What do other people have to say about the topic?

            Purpose

            Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
            Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
            Are alternative points of view presented?
            Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
            Does the author use strong or emotional language?

            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

        • planet8788

          Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

          Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

          Evaluating Information

          How to Evaluate Resources

          The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

          Research Process Rubric – Middle Schuul

          . . . .
          0 points
          Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

          https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • Robert

            Seems you forgot something…..

      • Robert

        “Climastrologists” would be those who belive in Cosmic Rays and “other forcings in the opposite direction.”, right?
        https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2343823568

        • planet8788

          No.. Climastrologists are the ones predicting doom but only can create it in models while the rest of the world’s weather keeps improving and sea levels continue rising at the same boring rate they have for the last several thousand years.

          • Robert

            Ah, so a strawman. Thanks!

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 point
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

        • planet8788

          Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

          Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

          Evaluating Information

          How to Evaluate Resources

          The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

          Research Process Rubric – Middle School

          . . . .
          0 points
          Presented content which was ufocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

          https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

      • jmac

        Even Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

        Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

        “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

        • planet8788

          Eric Schmidt is the most scientific person you have quoted today… but still no science.

          • jmac

            Oh yeah, even the scientist that worked at Exxon even call BS you you.

          • jmac

            If you’ve got some kind of credible science that will disprove man made climate change, you have got to be some kind of stupid to not get a billion dollars from Exxon and have such study completed, published and peer reviewed in a credible scientific journal.

            So, yeah, you represent a bunch of liars trying to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco had their sociopaths working for them to create doubt about the cancer causing properties of tobacco.

    • planet8788

      http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/la-times-refuses-to-show-so-called-smoking-gun-against-exxon-here-it-is.html

      In its reportage on climate change research at ExxonMobil, the Los Angeles Times made a very telling editorial decision.

      The paper chose not to publish the document it cites as Exhibit A in its case against us: a 1989 presentation to Exxon’s board of directors by senior company scientist Duane Levine.

      I have no doubt why the newspaper doesn’t want the public to see this document.

      When you read it – which you can do here – it soon becomes clear that the document undercuts the paper’s claims that ExxonMobil knew with certainty everything there is to know about global warming back in the 1980s yet failed to sound alarms.

      By deliberately hiding this report from readers (while simultaneously citing it to make damaging claims about our corporation’s history of scientific research), the Los Angeles Times undermines the already low levels of trust in the media and in the media’s ability to cover issues of science and policy with accuracy and fairness.

      Here’s what the L.A. Times wrote in its most recent piece:

      Duane Levine, Exxon’s manager of science and strategy development, gave a primer to the company’s board of directors in 1989, noting that scientists generally agreed gases released by burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures significantly by the middle of the 21st century — between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise, “with generally negative consequences.”

      Case closed, or so the Times would have you think.

      But here’s the crucial part the L.A. Times left out from the very first page of Levine’s presentation (PEG stands for “Potential Enhanced Greenhouse,” by the way):

      http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics8/PEG-climate-clip_11-2015-420×513.jpg

      What else did the paper neglect to quote from Levine’s presentation? Consider this passage from page 31:

  • planet8788

    Arctic Ice Volume about the same as 2007 according to PIOMAS. http://neven1.typepad.com/

    Arctic Sea Ice Area… about the same as 2005 according to DMI. (see chart below).

    Satellites show temperatures stable for almost 19 years. (see this article).

    https://www.nasa.gov/content/g

    Antarctic Sea ice reached a peak in 2014.

    Antarctica gaining ice overall.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/

    Despite all this, Climastrologists keep continually calling it the hottest month ever….

    The data tampering has been massive. Here is Hansen’s paper from 1981. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/

    Then look at what the temperature record looked like then. Compare it to what it looks like now. If ice is stable now, 1890’s must have been an ice age.

    • Robert

      Demonstrating a lack of knowledge between land and sea ice, but not a lack of knowledge in using cherrypicking.
      Thanks!

      • planet8788

        http://www.weather.com/science/news/antarctic-ice-growing-nasa-data-finds

        There are two types of Antarctic ice scientists use to gauge climatic activity: sea ice and land ice on the continent. This year, satellite data found both to be increasing in mass, rather than shrinking, a reflection of the complexity of global climate change and Antarctic weather patterns.

        A recent analysis from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center showed a net gain of 82 billion tons of continental ice per year between 2003 and 2008, a net gain due to snowfall in the region. This runs contrary to some past data, including theIntergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s 2013 report, sparking some controversy.

        • Robert

          Especially if one makes the conscious choice to believe blog analysis…

          “runs contrary to some past data”

          • planet8788

            You have a reading comprehension issue.

            http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

            Or is NASA just another blog spot for you.

          • Robert

            You are citing a press release.
            I’d suggest reading on past the headline. Para on provides some details that don’t fit your claims.

          • planet8788

            I read the whole thing.

            Para what?

            A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

            The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

            According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

          • Robert

            Para 6

          • planet8788

            So not everyone agrees… The science isn’t settled… It should be by now… When so many models have failed.

          • Robert

            Chapter nine IPCC

          • planet8788

            What about it moron.

          • Robert

            “moron”
            Sciency….

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Pesented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general ategories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            I didn’t make any claims… a NASA scientist did.

          • Robert

            Again, you are citing a press release…. the paper’s author is quoted further into the pr.

          • planet8788

            And what did he say?

          • Robert
          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked upporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Pocess Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content whih was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

          • planet8788

            It’s okay… Climate Change is impossible to disprove… you can always fall back on the excuse that Global Warming Theory actually predicted this…

          • planet8788

            Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

            Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

            Evaluating Iformation

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School

            . . . .
            0 points
            Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

            https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

  • planet8788

    http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

    A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

    The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

    According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

    “We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

  • planet8788

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png

    Forget El Nino… Sea ice extent at 2005 levels.

  • planet8788
  • Robert

    How to Evaluate Resources

    The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

    CRAAP
    Questions to consider
    Currency

    When was the information published or last updated?
    Have newer articles been published on your topic?
    Are links or references to other sources up to date?
    Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

    Relevance

    Does the information answer your research question?
    Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
    Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
    Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

    Authority

    What are the author’s credentials?
    Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
    Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
    Do other books or authors cite the author?

    Accuracy

    Are there statements you know to be false?
    Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
    Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
    What citations or references support the author’s claims?
    What do other people have to say about the topic?

    Purpose

    Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
    Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
    Are alternative points of view presented?
    Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
    Does the author use strong or emotional language?

    https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

    Research Process Rubric – Middle School
    https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

    • planet8788

      For example the left’s attack on Exxon which you moron’s keep referring too.

      http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/la-times-refuses-to-show-so-called-smoking-gun-against-exxon-here-it-is.html

      • Robert

        Oh, you mean this?

        The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)

        Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.

        http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.Vj5KiGjTnMI

        • planet8788

          How to Evaluate Resources

          The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

          CRAAP
          Questions to consider
          Currency

          When was the information published or last updated?
          Have newer articles been published on your topic?
          Are links or references to other sources up to date?
          Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

          Relevance

          Does the information answer your research question?
          Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
          Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
          Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

          Authority

          What are the author’s credentials?
          Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
          Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
          Do other books or authors cite the author?

          Union of Concernced Scientists are bunch of Communist whackos… Haven’t been write on a single issue since they were formed.

          • Robert

            I’m not sure what you are attempting,, at least get it complete… and include the url

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?

            Accuracy

            Are there statements you know to be false?
            Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
            Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
            What citations or references support the author’s claims?
            What do other people have to say about the topic?

            Purpose

            Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
            Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
            Are alternative points of view presented?
            Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
            Does the author use strong or emotional language?

            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School
            https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

          • planet8788

            The fundamentals of global warming have been well established for generations. Fossil fuel companies have almost certainly been aware of the underlying climate science for decades.

            As early as 1977, representatives from major fossil fuel companies attended dozens of congressional hearings in which the contribution of carbon emissions to the greenhouse effect was discussed. By 1981 at least one company (Exxon) was already considering the climate implications of a large fossil fuel extraction project.


            Yet here we are, 2015 and the IPCC still doesn’t know how much the earth will warm… 1.5C 4 C? Who knows. 30 years after the science was already “Established” still nothing but guesses and wrong predictions.

            PATHETIC.

        • planet8788
          • Robert

            Thank you for providing a source invaluable for teaching rhetoric, semantics, and logical fallacies!

          • planet8788

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?

            Union of Concernced Scientists are bunch of Communist whackos… Haven’t been write on a single issue since they were formed.

          • Robert

            Don’t be childish….

    • planet8788

      The only one that doesn’t site science is you.

      • Robert

        Example?

        • planet8788

          Every one of your posts. See above.

  • planet8788
  • planet8788
  • planet8788

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/11/Figure5.png

    Ozone hole comes back…. More settled science.

  • Robert

    Some tools to use when analysing the op above

    How to Evaluate Resources

    The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

    CRAAP
    Questions to consider
    Currency

    When was the information published or last updated?
    Have newer articles been published on your topic?
    Are links or references to other sources up to date?
    Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

    Relevance

    Does the information answer your research question?
    Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
    Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
    Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

    Authority

    What are the author’s credentials?
    Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
    Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
    Do other books or authors cite the author?

    Accuracy

    Are there statements you know to be false?
    Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
    Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
    What citations or references support the author’s claims?
    What do other people have to say about the topic?

    Purpose

    Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
    Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
    Are alternative points of view presented?
    Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
    Does the author use strong or emotional language?

    https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

    Research Process Rubric – Middle School
    https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

    • planet8788

      Notice the word. Relevance.

      • Robert

        And?

      • Judi Loy


        .❝my neighbor’s momy is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
        3tpe…..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportEdu/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

    • CB

      Here’s a simpler crap test:

      Is Christopher Monckton saying it?

      …then it’s probably lies.

      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/files/2015/06/no-slow-down-in-global-warming-720×546.jpg

      • Robert

        I’d like to see his walk through of
        http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
        &
        http://climatekids.nasa.gov
        showing the evidence he thinks proves EPA’s and NASA ‘s evidence is wrong.

        • planet8788

          Hansen et. Al 1981

          • Robert

            Hah, right.
            That’s why you can’t walk us through how.

          • CB

            “That’s why you can’t walk us through how.”

            I’m pretty sure the law of identity is why Interplanet Janet can’t do that walk-through.

            “NASA is unreliable because NASA is reliable” pretty much defeats itself logically.

            I guess it could be considered performance art… if one were feeling generous about what one considers art…

            “the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998.”

            climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224

          • Allen Eltor

            Here’s how it shakes out: there is a LAW written SPECIFICALLY FOR ATMOSPHERIC THERMODYNAMICS. It FORMALLY FORBIDS your RELIGION being TRUE. Do you KNOW the NAME of the LAW written for the thermodynamics of the atmosphere?

            LoL The atmosphere warms the earth, are you one of those GuBMuNT SkuLeRs who thinks that along with

            ‘Pot is Like Heroin’ and there’s thousands of pages of peer review to prove it? LoLoL what a buncha

            Hicks.
            Gubmunt Skool HicKs.

          • Robert
          • DavidAppell

            No law of thermodynamics forbids anthrogenic warming. Warming from CO2 has happened throughout Earth’s history, and it’s happening again because the laws of physics require it.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’re a hick. The calculation of temperature doesn’t INCLUDE reference to the frequency light diffracted by the gas.

            Total energy is temperature.

            Spectral resonance – the frequency light diffracted – is a function of BOND ANGLE.

            Your crying out repeatedly, DOES TOO, DOES TOO, DOES TOO,

            scientific dialog, does not make. If the frequency light diffracted by a gas determines temperature, hillbilly, then what’s the spectral resonance factor in calculation for temperature?

            Be sure and include lots of peer reviewed studies on how Pot is like Heroin, too, so we can know the depths of your blind authority worship even about

            FRIGID FLUID BATHS
            HEATING the SENSORS they shade/scrub/phase change refrigerate.

          • DavidAppell

            You’re just an accountant, right?

            You are really lost when it comes to science. Stick to balancing books.

          • Allen Eltor

            My field is radiation communications and instrumentation electronic engineering.

            You are a member of ”The Magic Gas Made A Frigid Gas Bath A Heater” church,

            a religion that teaches the atmosphere warms the earth, not chills it.

            And that the main cooling gases are the core of the ”giant heater in the sky from the magic gases.”

          • DavidAppell

            Whatever your field, your understanding of physics is atrocious. (And I say that having a PhD in physics.)

            You need to take a few real classes in physics, and this time, pay attention.

          • Allen Eltor

            ALL you HAVE to DO is EXPLAIN how SOMETHING IMMERSED in a FRIGID
            FLUID
            SELF REFRIGERATED BATH
            got

            WARMER than when it was WARMED with MORE LIGHT in VACUUM

            and you’ll be thermodynamically competent.

            Emote that sh*** like you’re on a big stage so we all FEEL you believing in it the way you SAY you believe in it being possible.

            They fact you’ll even say it marks you as a f****g public school kid who simply repeats what you’re told.

            MAKE US SEE A REFRIGERATED BATH
            WARMING an OBJECT heated with MORE LIGHT without a
            REFRIGERATED BATH.

            We’ve all been waiting for W E E K S . You’re STALLING again.

          • DavidAppell

            Diffraction in a gas? What the hell are you talking about? You are writing gibberish, literally.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’re a magic gas billy who thinks the atmosphere is a heater.

          • DavidAppell

            The atmosphere isn’t a heater. This isn’t difficult to understand.

            Why are you warmer when you put on a coat? The coat clearly isn’t a heater….

          • Allen Eltor

            Stop your pathetic attempt to make adding more of the GREEN HOUSE GASES creating 20% diffraction COOLING will MAGICALLY create magic because you wish it did, warming.

            You need to be able to explain your CHURCH in means any other thermodynamicist can understand and not have us,
            have the entire thread,
            mocking you for your inability to predict ahead of time what happens to a thermometer output when MORE and LESS energy hit it.

          • Allen Eltor

            There is a sphere rotated in vacuum, illuminated by a nearby glowing object. Surface embedded with sensors, energy in is maximum, energy out is minimum: modes of energy in are one; modes of energy out are one.

            An insulating gas envelope is suspended around the sphere such that through diffractive or diffuse, reflective losses, 20% energy never reaches sensors which previously did.

            This reduction of energy to sensors is described as:

            (a) warming
            (b)cooling

            Energy sensors reflect this loss of energy through depicting

            (a)less energy arriving than when, more energy was arriving,

            (b)more energy arriving, than when more energy was arriving.

            How many modes of cooling have been created by the atmosphere?
            Name them.

            How many modes of warming have been created by the atmosphere?
            Name them.

            When 20% energy in has been reduced through diffraction the temperature of the insulating envelope is still many degrees COOLER
            than the temperature of the surface. Incidental turbulent contact between COLD gas molecules and WARM surface molecules
            creates a SECOND MODE of COOLING called CONDUCTION.

            When COLD GAS washes a WARM sensor this contact creates

            (a)cooling

            (b)warming

            How many modes of cooling have been added by the atmosphere?
            Name them.

            How many modes of warming have been added by the atmosphere?
            Name them.

            Don’t be wrong because you’ve only got one more shot at even proving you know the difference between hot and cold gubmunt schooler.

            One of the species of gas molecules lies chilled to the liquid state across 70% of the surface of the sphere.

            It evaporates from the surface changing phase, taking energy with it to higher regimes. Upon loss of energy it condenses changing phase again – and returns to the surface more rapidly than if it didn’t solidify to ice.
            This ACCELERATION of COOLING is called CONVECTION. It represents an ADDITIONAL MODE of COOLING created by the atmosphere.

            This is the THIRD MODE of COOLING c.r.e.a.t.e.d. by the atmosphere.

            Named they are Diffraction (shading) Conduction (scrubbing) and Convection (phase change refrigeration)

            What is the number of modes of warming created
            by the turbulent, frigid, insulating envelope? Name them.

            Discuss your belief in a frigid, turbulent gas bath, warming the sensors it shades/scrubs/phase change refrigerates.

            Do so in such way the entire thread doesn’t laugh at you to your face.

            Name the law of thermodynamics written to describe the atmosphere.

            What is the centerpiece of that law that makes it possible for it to bridge and bond, the physics and calculations of all the gas laws into one?

            What is it’s name, and what does it represent?

            C’mon, HiLLBiLLY
            let’s HEAR it from the GuBMuNT SCHuLe HICK
            who has HUNDREDS of AUTHORS
            who has HUNDREDS of PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES
            who has MILLIONS of PAGES of CRITICAL REVIEW
            about how Pot is Like Heroin and if you don’t think so, you go to jail.

            Your CHURCH has told you about a FRIGID GAS ENVELOPE
            that Magically, turned into a big old giant heetur up thair! Ya’W!

            That’s the problem with you low information voters, you seek a government employee to think for you because one PUT YOU through
            POT
            is
            like
            HEROIN
            school.

          • DavidAppell

            No law of thermodynamics forbids anthrogenic warming.

          • Allen Eltor

            The gas law of thermodynamics written FOR the atmosphere formally forbids green house gas warming or any other type warming by atmospheric gases.

            The atmosphere is many degrees colder than the surface of the earth and the reason the temperature of the earth is less than at Emax conditions if there were no atmosphere
            is firstly due to the presence of the green house gases blocking about half the sun’s infrared.

            If there were more green house gases they would block more incoming infrared, it’s how they reduce energy to the surface of the earth 20% when they create the cooling mode known as diffraction loss or diffraction reduction of energy to the surface of the earth, a sphere rotating in vacuum, illuminated by energy from a nearby glowing light.

          • DavidAppell

            You have a completely wrong understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Sad.

          • DavidAppell

            “diffraction loss???” This is utter gibberish.

            It’s well know how the greenhouse effect works, and it has nothing to do with diffraction. For Pete’s sakes, please take a physics course.

          • DavidAppell

            “The atmosphere is many degrees colder than the surface of the earth and the reason the temperature of the earth is less than at Emax conditions if there were no atmosphere is firstly due to the presence of the green house gases blocking about half the sun’s infrared.”

            Utter drivel.

            The temperature of the surface of the Earth is GREATER (288 K) than if there were no atmosphere (255 K). This 33 K difference IS the greenhouse effect.

            Seriously, have you ever studied any physics at all?

          • Allen Eltor

            You’ve got the thermodynamic chops of a ”Magic Gas Made A Heater In The Sky” church member

            in good standing.

            Several hundred years men searched for a law of thermodynamics which predicted accurately the observed physics of industrial processes such as combustion.

            After many hundreds of years they wrote the law that bonded ALL the OTHER gas laws.

            The SOLE inclusion by mankind to make the law that bonded, bridged, and made ALL the OTHER GAS LAWS WORK

            was to assign every single gas in the atmosphere

            from
            nitrogen
            to
            Carbon Dioxide
            to
            Oxygen
            to
            Methane
            to
            Argon
            to
            Radon

            all the EXACT SAME ENERGY in JOULES per MOLE of GAS.

            That ENERGY is REPRESENTED in the law of thermodynamics WRITTEN for the ATMOSPHERE
            is the

            ‘ ‘ R ‘ ‘ in

            PV = nRT

            P is obviously Pressure
            V is obviously Volume
            n is simply the number of moles gas
            R is the UNIVERSAL GAS CONSTANT named for Frenchman Renalt/Renault and the RATIO he used, in his work that contributed greatly to the WRITING of the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS
            WRITTEN to DESCRIBE the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

            When SOLVING for TEMPERATURE
            ALL the GASES get the SAME IDENTICAL GAS CONSTANT
            and for those situations where a gas is pure such as in a volcanic vent or lab flask
            the individual species are given INDIVIDUAL energy constants based on TOTAL ENERGY.

            Not BOND angle which is the parameter determining what frequency light a gas interacts with.

            You’re a member of the ”Magic Gas Made A Heater In The Sky” church.

            The same one that taught the same public school graduates that pot was like heroin, and they had the critical peer review and endorsement of scientific researchers worldwide, to back it up.

            Only problem is
            the same class dolts defending that scientific hogwash

            sound the same way the ones talking about how Magic Gas Made A Heater do.

          • DavidAppell

            This rant is incoherent. Literally.

          • NiCuCo

            Buried in there, someplace, is a partially right, partially wrong, misunderstanding of the equipartition therom.

          • DavidAppell

            GHGs aren’t “heaters.” They block heat from escaping out the TOA.

            A lower cooling rate makes an object. That’s why you sleep under a blanket at night.

          • DavidAppell

            Why do you sleep under blankets at night? Blankets obviously aren’t a heater…. So how to they help you stay warm?

          • waxliberty

            Absolutely. When a scientist successfully and accurately predicts a strengthened modern warming surge before it happens, it proves he’s wrong if we didn’t want to believe it in the first place. They don’t teach reason in these gub’mint schools anymore.

            “To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then”
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Only they didn’t, because most of that ‘surge’ was on paper only, as we’ve told you. The evidence is there. Everyone who’s bothered to look at it has seen and understood it.

          • planet8788

            I am not talking about his projections… I’m talking about his historical temp data from 1880 to 1980 that he published in 1981. NASA has more than doubled the warming during that period from all their adjustments. Doubled it… from .35C to over .7C. IF this keeps up, 1880 will have been an ice age.

          • VooDude

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c0143ddba3f23367bfec74ffda85ad45b016bc6b73fbaa3c3f8569b8fa95981.jpg

            JH: “Homogeneity adjustments are made to local time series of temperature with the aim of removing non climatic variations in the temperature record [Joneset al., 1985; Karl and Williams, 1987; Easterling et al., 1996; Peterson et al., 1998a]. The non-climatic factors include changes of the environment of the station, the instrument or its location, observing practices, and the method used to calculate the mean temperature. Quantitative knowledge of these factors is not available in most cases, so it is impossible to fully correct for them.”

            Hansen, J., et al. 1999 “GISS analysis of surface temperature change.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 104.D24 (1999): 30997-31022.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD900835/pdf

          • planet8788

            So what’s your point… we’re still learning about temp stuff in 1880?

          • VooDude

            I think that is the Hansen you spoke of … though the dates disagree.

          • planet8788

            Again. you missed the point. the warming has doubled since 1981… as in… history continues to be jacked with to make the hockeystick.

        • CB

          “I’d like to see his walk through… showing the evidence he thinks proves EPA’s and NASA ‘s evidence is wrong.”

          I’m not sure I would… He should be home knitting by the fire with kind and competent carers by his side to make sure he doesn’t hurt himself… maybe finger painting on Saturdays if the mood strikes.

          I find Mr. Christopher Monckton sad.

          His dissociation from reality is a little bit more severe than one would find in most Climate Deniers.

          “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”

          http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

          • Tom Robbins

            oh you poor sheep..will follow him to the gates of hell I guess… the evidence is CLEAR – they all agreed it had paused for almost two decades, and then, right before the summit (or a year before) – OH we have “artifacts” in the data….. but FIRST you must understand that NOAA and NASA are government entities that only publish to support the president – if you can’t and won’t believe that, then at your own peril – it’s fascism 101 – control the press, who through out all kinds of hysteria, control the government line on the science and you have the former soviet union, all pre-made for people like you that won’t look at the evidence of 2 Billion dollar satellites that were put their to measure changes in global temps – and yet they have seen no rise in almost 20 years.. now that is a science denier, and a politically blindfolded person. Meanwhile the Arctic had the shortest melt season on record, and is blasting through 15 years of ice records, Antarctica has been growing for 15 years, Greenland is putting on record ice not seen in 10 + years either and temps in the interior are MINUS 60C – do you hear that from your beloved leaders?

          • CB

            “you must understand that NOAA and NASA are government entities”

            I do understand that!

            What’s your point?

            If you think NASA and NOAA are unreliable, where are you getting your information?

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

            climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

          • DMikeS

            Satellite images prove the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in surface area and thickness.
            You poor pitiful lemmings. Off the cliff with you.
            P.S. Anybody who puts their faith in government in this day and age is delusional.
            FOLLOW THE MONEY!! This is about higher taxes and more government power, no more, no less.

          • Carolina Johnny

            Exactly………………….Carbon credits world

          • Henry Faraday

            The problem with stupid people is they are too incompetent to notice how stupid they are.

            They seek out information sources that agree with their preexisting conclusions instead of researching the opposing evidence. Intellectual laziness and comfort is why people come to sites like this one… a site entirely paid for by big oil that gives them an excuse to feel safe and correct.

          • Allen Eltor

            You sound like a hillbilly who thinks the atmosphere warms the planet, like the rest of the GuBMunT SkuLeRs.

            Is that right, stupid? The atmusfear’s a BIG oL HEETuR up THAIR in thuh SKY?

          • waxliberty

            Allen, what comical scientific illiteracy you offer, and with such style! :) Thank you for the smile.

          • Robert

            I was given the long version…
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2388070219

            Btw, thanks for time and effort in both researchin and writing so many good posts!

          • waxliberty

            Yeah I saw that. Not too unique… Allen probably thinks that same law prevents blankets from keeping you warm at night 😉 Them BLANKUTS a big OL HEETur lying thar!

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Funny, you’re the only one who sounds like a hillbilly, you’re the only one who said that.

            FYI, a blanket is actually a physical layer that traps heat rather effectively.

          • waxliberty

            By Allen’s logic, it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for a cooler object to heat a warmer object.

            Allen believes there is no greenhouse effect at all – do you agree with him?

          • Allen Eltor

            When the earth as a sphere rotating in vacuum of space had no atmosphere sunlight conditions to the surface would be at maximum.
            Modes of heating 1: radiant
            Modes of cooling 1: radiant.

            Immediately upon suspension of a reflective, insulating gas envelope around the sphere, energy deflected to space, never to reach a sensor on earth, comprising 20%, is lost to the surface.

            This mode of cooling created by the existence of an atmosphere is called diffraction cooling.
            This mode of cooling created by the existence of an atmosphere is by the green house gases.

            When steady-state energy transactions resume the temperature of the reflective, insulating envelope is still many degrees COLDER than the surface. Subsequently incidental contact
            between the atmosphere’s molecular regimes and surface features, creates the SECOND
            mode of cooling
            created by the existence of an atmosphere. The green house gases lead the pack in per-molecule removal of energy efficiency.

            70% of the surface of the rotating sphere is covered in chilled, liquid or solid species of the atmospheric gas water.
            Change of phase evaporation of water creates cooling of the surface.
            Subsequent rise in accordance with gravity creates energy dump to lower energy regimes,
            with the water changing phase AGAIN, to solid, returning to the surface faster than if it remained
            in gas state.
            This THIRD mode of COOLING created by existence of an atmosphere is called convection.
            This THIRD mode of COOLING is the SECOND created almost solely by the green house gases.

            The ones that in your religion, made the sky a heater instead of a frigid fluid bath, shading and scrubbing and phase change refrigerating, the surface of the sphere of the earth as it rotates in vacuum, illuminated by the light of the sun.

          • waxliberty

            In context of global warming, “heating” or “cooling” must be relative to total earth energy budget. Changes of phase etc. within system are just sloshing heat around. Stuff like evaporative cooling does have some radiative cooling because heat is transported higher more efficiently. Anyway, atmospheric physicists account for all of this (to the degree I can translate from your somewhat muddled descriptions) and also greenhouse heat-trapping, i.e. that downwelling infrared you notably omit from your list of factors.

            Same comment all internet “alternative physics” guys get – if modern physics has been taught wrong for the last century or whatever it is you believe, go publish your breakthrough proof and get famous. What are you waiting for? Until then you’re a confused guy on the internet, sorry, that’s just the cards.

          • Allen Eltor

            Stop talking in circles this is the simplest phase f matter. If you feel qualified to discuss your church’s teachings about the Green House Gases being a magical heater then EXPLAIN YOURSELF in the SAME, SIMPLE THERMODYNAMIC
            STEP by STEP processes EVERYONE ELSE WORLD WIDE discusses a COLD BATH and THERMOMETER in.

            There is a spinning sphere in a vacuum without atmosphere illuminated by a light.

            THIS ISN’T DIFFICULT, simple minded one.

            Light to the sphere surface is 100% available at that distance.

            Addition of a reflective insulating gas envelope around the sphere IMMEDIATELY STOPS 20% available light reaching the surface.

            THIS ISN’T DIFFICULT, simple minded one.

            Upon creation of this FIRST mode of THERMODYNAMIC E.N.E.R.G.Y. LOSS, named diffraction loss,

            the atmosphere has created it’s first mode of – WHAT? Of COOLING.

            THIS ISN’T DIFFICULT, simple minded one.

            Upon accounting for diffraction COOLING by the GREEN HOUSE GAS COOLANTS as well as a small amount of OXYGEN based diffraction cooling with it’s associated warming of the envelope over all,

            THE ATMOSPHERIC BATH is STILL MANY degrees COLDER than the SURFACE of the SPHERE.

            This isn’t DIFFICULT, SIMPLE MINDED ONE.

            Subsequent turbulent impingement or contact between all gas molecules and surface features, creates the SECOND MODE of – what?

            C O O L I N G caused by virtue of the EXISTENCE of the ATMOSPHERIC ENVELOPE.

            This second mode of COOLING created by the frigid atmosphere is named CONDUCTION.

            GREEN HOUSE GAS species WATER leads the pack in COOLING per MOLECULE.

            This isn’t DIFFICULT, simple minded ONE. You don’t HAVE any excuse for having believed the atmosphere is a heater. The atmosphere is a frigid fluid bath – self refrigerated, and blocking by the very existence of green house gas COOLANTS 20% total energy to the surface.

            When the CONDUCTION cooling is happening there is a simultaneous mode of conduction mode cooling acceleration named
            CONVECTION.

            All gases participate in CONVECTION with Green House Gas species WATER leading the pack in the most energy lifted PER molecule as in discussion of mode 2 created by the existence of the atmospheric envelope.
            Water functions as a single phase conduction molecule participating in simple energy transactions without phase change.

            However GREEN HOUSE GAS SPECIES WATER is UNIQUELY and SOLELY ASSOCIATED with ONE mode of COOLING assocated with CONVECTION and this is the

            phase change REFRIGERATION process in which water evaporates and rises according to gravity, to emit energy to lower-energy regimes, typically at higher altitudes to
            CHANGE PHASE a SECOND TIME
            to
            RETURN to the SURFACE and RESUME COOLING FASTER
            than if it remained in gas phase.

            THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT simple minded one, it is the SIMPLEST PHASE of MATTER.

            If you have an explanation everyone here will see is as clear in which you can STEP by THERMODYNAMIC STEP,

            take us through the PROCESS your CHURCH BELIEVES makes the gases COOLING the earth, a magic heater.

            ”Cause down to the GuBMuNT PuBLiK sCKooL, THAY dun ToLt’ ME” is not a stepped thermodynamic progression.

            They ”ToLt yew down to thuh GuBMuNT PuBLiK Sckool that ‘tair POT is like HEROIN.

            Same bullsh** story about how the science is CLEAR
            Same bullsh** story about how the science is SETTLED
            Same bullsh** story about how they’ve got MILLIONS of CRITICAL peer review PAGES

            from THOUSANDS of PAPERS
            from HUNDREDS of PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS and ACADEMIC LEADERS in SCIENCE and MEDICINE and YADa yaDa YADa.

            I’m not interested in your TESTIMONY of BELIEF.

            I’m interested in watching YOU SQUIRREL around like a yard rodent partly brained by a PELLET. A pellet of truth,

            that YOU can’t successfully GUESS the OUTCOME of an interaction between a thermometer and some light,

            if SOMEONE TELLS YOU the ANSWERS, AHEAD of time.

            THIS is NOT complicated, simple minded on, and YOU need to go back and find some more hillbillies who believe in the magical heater, and send them over here for us all to laugh and mock to shame for thinking
            FRIGID
            REFRIGERATED
            GAS BATHS
            SHADING the OBJECT immersed in them to a 20% energy reduction BEFORE the COOLING from contact ever gets started,

            is a giant magical heater because you went to government school.
            Where you spent 12 years and STILL quiver at the thought of STEPPING through a THERMOMETER and a LIGHT.
            Because the people taking money from your parents to TEACH you
            left you without CONFIDENCE to DESCRIBE COLD GAS and a THERMOMETER and WHAT HAPPENS if you SPRAY the thermometer with the cold gas.

            YOUR answer is ‘uh BIG oL MaGiC HEETuR up THaiR! Ya’W!’

            OUR answer is
            you’re magic gas believing low information hilarity in motion. The motion of RUNING away from TESTIFYING of your CHURCH.

          • waxliberty

            I know, I know. YOU crank types always WANT to have someone listen TO your WEIRDLY emphasized and barely COHERENT rants on the internet. THEY have been teaching it WRONG in classrooms for a CENTURY! And you have the perpetual MOTION machine WORKING in your basement but no one will believe you.

            I don’t have the patience to TRANSLATE what you’re trying to say, and talk in circles. There are hundreds of PAGES explaining the greenhouse effect, including by anti-global warming activists. Yes, there are lots of ways the earth loses heat – thankfully, otherwise we’d have cooked long ago. Most of the convection and conduction you describe is relatively moot, from an earth energy budget point of view the question is what is absorbed from space and what is lost to space, that is the only way the energy budget changes, see the first law of thermodynamics. You ignore radiation for some crank reason or another, I’m not that interested. Thinking the greenhouse effect is a “HEATER” is not very bright; presumably you also think people who believe in blankets think that blankets are “magic HEATERS”.

            Where do you think the magical downwelling infrared is coming from, my crank friend?

            Do you have friends, family and/or professional support for your general feelings of paranoia and rage? (I’m not really kidding about this part.)

          • NiCuCo

            Zippy the Pinhead

          • Allen Eltor

            YOU DON’T HAVE EDUCATION to PROPERLY ANALYZE the BEHAVIOR of a
            FRIGID
            FLUID
            SELF REFRIGERATING BATH
            blocking 20% of available energy to the ROCK it’s

            SHADING (diffraction losses of 20% due to GHG COOLANTS)
            SCRUBBING(conduction in which GHG Water leads in cooling per molecule
            REFRIGERATING (with GHG species water’s UNIQUE PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION)

            As far as your HILLBILLY CLAIM YOU’RE INTELLECTUALLY

            WRECKED trying to ANALYZE a COLD BATH and HOT ROCK
            that’s your problem.

            SHOW US IN THIS THREAD, THERMO-BiLLY,
            YOUR STEP by STEP ANALYSIS of THE EARTH as SPHERE in LIGHT from a NEARBY GLOWING SOURCE without ATMOSPHERE

            and then WITH ATMOSPHERE and it had better sound CLEAR
            as a BELL,

            Magic Gas Billy or you’re gonna WISH it HAD sounded that way.

          • Allen Eltor

            You NEED to SUBMIT an ATMOSPHERIC THERMODYNAMIC MODE and STEPPED PROCESS description,

            you ignorant magic gas barking,
            THERMOBILLY
            HiCK,

            and it needs to RIVET EVERYONE in the THREAD with CLARITY
            as you INGENIOUSLY try to translate a

            TURBULENT
            FRIGID
            SELF REFRIGERATED GAS BATH

            INTO a ”MAGIC HEETUR that’ll GiT thuh SKY HOT ifn ya YEWS FIRE!”

            You public school educated thermobilly.

            START DESCRIBING the THERMODYNAMIC PROCESSES of

            MAGICAL GREEN HOUSE GAS HEATER in the SKYiSMS.

            and it better sound clear or like I said it’s gonna be a LONG thread for you.

          • waxliberty

            Happy holidays Allen. Enjoy your family. Leave the physics to the physicists.

          • Allen Eltor

            I am that atmospheric radiation thermodynamics physicist.

            As you have to your hopeless chagrin discovered.

            Now you need to explain to people watching you reeling backward like you’ve been clubbed,

            in step by step discrete thermodynamic process

            the MODE of ENERGY MEDIATION you BELIEVE to be ASSOCIATED with the Green House Gas coolants. The part that makes them a magical heater.

            If you don’t have the courage of your convictions go find someone who can.

          • waxliberty

            yes, I understand very well, as a greenhouse effect denier you’re a member of one of the more notorious and comical crank fringe groups on the internet – one even the organized anti-climate science groups try to distance themselves from – which maintain that you understand “real” physics better than all of the world’s existing textbooks and physicists, all while continually making obvious, absurd errors like describing the mechanism as a “heater” in the sky.

            Sadly, you are not even notorious enough to rank on the field guide to climate clowns list, however:

            https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1TbosA_JLgwcjj6SfOqmvQu4oEgkWNQOw7XgvxvUZoJE

            You’re going to have to take it up a notch Allen. More capitalization and less medication maybe? Good luck to you. I won’t prod your cage any further.

          • Allen Eltor

            I understand physics better than YOU though,

            thermal-billy, and told YOU
            that

            YOU can’t SUCCESSFULLY PREDICT what direction a THERMOMETER reading is in.

            That

            YOU CAN’T EXPLAIN in STEP by STEP THERMODYNAMIC PROCESS
            how the

            SUBSTANCES CREATING DIFFRACTION mode COOLING
            when enough are added to block 1% global energy

            the
            SUBSTANCES CREATING DIFFRACTION mode COOLING
            when enough are added to block 10% global energy

            how the

            SUBSTANCES creating 20% DIFFRACTION mode COOLING
            when enough are added to block 21% global energy

            create a MAGICAL SKY HEATER because YOU WENT to
            PUBLIC SCHOOL.

          • Allen Eltor

            Why aren’t you explaining to us all how the magical heater they taught you in public school, is making the world warmer through step by step thermodynamic process?

            You’ve had WEEKS.

            Yet here you are with nothing but admission you’re ashamed to discuss your church.

          • waxliberty

            Here’s an accessible walkthrough, Allen. Your friend “Bryan” spent many months trying to push your crank ideas about the 2nd Law in the comments on this site, and was continually corrected by a wide range of physicists but of course believes he ‘won’ the argument as you will believe no matter how many times your errors are clarified. You believe what you believe out of emotional disorders and a fierce dislike of modernity and liberalism or whatever it is that animates your hostility and general craziness. Of course I’m not going to engage much with you – “who is the fool, the fool or the fool who argues with him?” Wise words.

            Why don’t you take your campaign to the comments here and see if you can do better than Bryan.

            http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

          • Allen Eltor

            HEY then YOU CAN GET THOSE SAME PEOPLE to GIVE YOU THE ANSWERS

            to the QUESTION you’ve had PUT to YOU:

            EXPLAIN in STEP by THERMODYNAMIC STEP PROCESS,

            how YOU CAME to BELIEVE, a LIGHT-WARMED ROCK,

            DROPPED into a
            FRIGID
            FLUID
            REFRIGERATED BATH,

            made thermal sensors ON that LIGHT WARMED ROCK

            show the ROCK winding up HOTTER than BEFORE you SCRUBBED IT of ENERGY

            with the
            FRIGID
            FLUID
            SELF-REFRIGERATING
            GAS BATH.

            This ISN’T DIFFICULT, public schooler. YOU’RE just INCOMPETENT

            or else your CHURCH has TAUGHT you WRONG, one of the two.

            BUT YOU CLAIM you have an appeal to AUTHORITY which means you
            can go GET
            the ANSWERS from them and come back here and AMAZE us all.

            You go get that anwer from them

            N.O.W.

            We’ve been waiting WEEKS you’re still CRYING and DUCKING and WHINING.

            SHOW US
            ANOTHER FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH
            that makes ENERGY SENSORS show LIGHT WARMED ROCKS
            being made
            HOTTER
            by being IMMERSED and SCRUBBED in the FRIGID FLUID BATH.

          • Allen Eltor

            You need to start describing the magical heating you were taught is happening in the sky so everybody here is
            stunned
            at the level of clarity and simply perfect thermodynamic step by step process, that is the hallmark of properly done thermodynamics.

            You need to show why you think the sky is magically a heater

            You need to show your personal understanding of what happens if the class of gases, creating 20% diffraction mode cooling,

            becomes abundant to the point it blocks 21% energy to the surface.

            You need to turn that into heating or you’re just another magic heater in the sky believing, mouth breathing low information voter class
            nobody on the internet shouting that when we are using fire,

            we’re making the sky hot.

          • Allen Eltor

            I put up some replies to your senseless bumblebee flight away from pointing out your belief in how your magic sky heater religion accounts for the atmosphere chilling the earth heating it.

            They didn’t come up because I was roaming on my tab . You need to say something that makes everyone feel inspired you can properly

            analyze a thermometer
            receiving more and less energy on it.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Pearls before swine.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            cb is a paid troll.

          • Noah_Vaile

            How does one get that job?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            ask cb

          • Leonard Schopenhouer

            False statement you make. I was in the room (restaurant in Clear Lake) when Al Gore asked for Golden’s resignation for releasing the Sat data which showed no warming in 2000. You deserve a coat hanger.

          • VooDude

            ❝…Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,…❞
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870184797947789c33424fa949ac3609325786d08b13cc8736417e9b1dfcc4b5.jpg
            ❝… the Antarctic ice sheet [actually] showed a net gain of 112 billion tons [Gt] of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to [an increase of only] 82 billion tons [Gt] of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … ❝Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞

            http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

            ”Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet … Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. …”

            Zwally, H. Jay, et al. 2015 “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses.” Journal of Glaciology

            http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

            E. R. Thomas, J. S. Hosking, R. R. Tuckwell, R. A. Warren, and E. C. Ludlow 2015 “Twentieth century increase in snowfall in coastal West Antarctica” Geophysical Research Letters

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/full

            Greenland has been gaining SMB lately:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8309a6b2860f6c7377cbd7b0a09189560fe4ab97de86bb687aac9bd0ab35206b.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/19b5a3b7fc4e4c3b4d122ddc3d41019c873547633b6f1c13f533daff8df0b2a9.jpg

            Greenland is being a “good boy” it seems. Not wee-wee-ing into the ocean (as much as before):

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a06d6daadcb3ce400fc4714f0cb3eb8996c152099c6f4af8df96358383200c36.jpg

            report card: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141217_arctic_report_card_2014.html

          • Noah_Vaile

            So you are suggesting(!?) that (for global-warming advocates) the slowing down in increases is seen as evidence for a warming trend.
            Not an actual increase in warming, but a slowdown in the absolute and continuing increase in ice mass. So we’re still getting colder, but perhaps not quite as quickly.

          • VooDude

            It has been debatable, whether or not increases in ice mass, or, decreases in ice mass, have been observed. However, the trend seems to be towards decreasing losses in the Arctic; The RSS TLT temperature trend in the Arctic has been COOLING since 2008:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5efd223f143200b9828c18c63fbe09b2377313076b39b5f8c1ca3333f3b36c3b.jpg
            The RSS TLT over the southern polar region shows a slight cooling trend over the entire satellite-based record:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/af6edbb8957c499e1500c101c6880f6cc9fa77b97d0932fac3029d769aaec345.jpg

            The NASA and NOAA annual temperature plots have not yet been updated for 2015, and the 2014 data is getting rather old, but, many Arctic stations show the same cooling trend as the RSS data:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c445cbfafa1cd9dc5ae740beca9871a730c41ef73cd28e2ed7b0f0d9702774a3.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d7d7c1ef854bf70fd700e84e2ff92b50f2b6f67f027bc658d83b4e1c9647dfb9.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/952293f2b681f96ca96002022622e1cd4fb3edc998208b58969329fa5c7524a9.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29c0762f6535cbcc27b13f3119f4f02b520114bc9add2afcbd66205f063dedd5.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2d6da5dbdc50cee704507b4523271423c6aabaaf933a90da811acb8950d2d30.jpg

          • Carolina Johnny

            You can’t say that sthe PC police will get you. You racist. (Tongue in cheek)

          • VooDude

            I get the ‘tongue in cheek’ but I miss the first part… Is that my comparison between N pole and S pole? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ef7994847eb236a5909fb86730197db9c85ef9e1b9f86192036594b9cd2ff79.jpg
            My cooling trend got adjusted away! Last month, Reykjavic showed a cooling trend, 2002-2014, and the new data for 2015 (Meteorological year, not December-December year) is 1.5°C lower, so I expected an extended cooling trend. I didn’t check, I just grabbed the METAnn data and ran the calculation … surprise! no cooling trend any more. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/537fe824f3f95bb0f9006d872b44c11d3922b3a83c2ae7f72a672b5dd682f096.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f507543207204d43d53358ff8ee4e7287a803cce630aea9ef66ba5d1aa15b9c8.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7435bce6c46db4c2ee6c1b70edc3f1193a1ce4bf7ef9fdbe02eb27734206d8d0.jpg

          • Daniel F. Melton

            You have to be careful WHEN you grab data from nasa and noaa. If ya happen to get data prior to adjustment, it will not show any resemblance to the data put forth for public consumption. But it will be much closer to reality.

          • Carolina Johnny

            That is their proof…………such as it is.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Justwaitaminute! If we take the “undisputed truth” of the reverend algore, we have to believe that any increase in CO2 will result in global warming, increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus resulting in more ice and snow at the poles. I seen it in his movie, so it must be true. ///sarc

          • Noah_Vaile

            Dear Dan: You are almost eternally correct in that we must consider the source of a statement, perhaps even moreso than considering the sense that the statement makes. Algore is a highly paid and therefore respected demi-scientist and his staements must be taken at face value. Criticizing him is like criticizing a tree. You can say what you want but it will still be a tree… until of course it goes up the chimney as smoke, thereby contributing to the parboiling of the earth. Humor in a jugular vein. Eh?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            algore is as big a fraud now as when he was failing divinity school. What scientific qualification has he acquired through osmosis, since he’s obviously been too stoned to do any study?
            Parboiling the Earth by burning plant matter is a net zero energy equation. The energy utilized in producing the plant matter is released in the burning of said plant.
            To be effective, humor must have an element of truth, thus mother-in-law jokes and “Here’s your sign” jokes.

            Here’s your sign

          • Noah_Vaile

            So who’s funding Gore?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            “carbon credit” fraud, dontchaknow.

          • sapereaudeprime

            Your ignorance is pathetic, even for someone from your sorry intellectual background.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Deny and denigrate. You fools are so predictable. Offer some untainted evidence, if you can.

          • Joe333

            There are 3 sources of satellite temperature data
            UAH, RSS and GISS
            GISS is the heavily adjusted federal government version
            UAH and RSS line up with each other and GISS does not

          • VooDude

            RSS and UAH use satellites, but a different mix of satellites; they each use their own software. The radiosondes (weather balloon) measurements confirm the satellites.

            Evan Jones: ”The surface metrics all use the same GHCN statio-set, and are all converted to ERRST4, and are, therefore, not independent.”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/theatlantic/a_scientific_look_at_bad_science/#comment-2211351301

            NOAA, and their outfit, NCDC (now known as NCEI) is the SOLE SOURCE of all the data of the global surface temperature. They are the source of the GHCN surface temperature record; also for the ERSST v4 sea surface temperatures. The other so-called independent agencies’ datasets use the source GHCN and ERSST data to make their own datasets, applying their own set of adjustments.

            This is why those supposedly “independent” temperatures all agree – they start with the same source data!

          • Joe333

            Right….

            RSS and UAH line up and show the hiatus
            And the heavily politicized federal government’s GISS does not match up with peer review and shows something very different from everyone else

          • VooDude
          • Carolina Johnny

            You cant get reliable information in todays age of PC

          • CB

            “You cant get reliable information in todays age”

            You very much can, my dear! In fact, it’s easier than it has ever been in the history of humankind!

            …you won’t find it on a prostitute’s website, though…

            “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

            http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

          • RDWebster

            Yes, and climate alarmists, who worry over fractions of a degree of temperature change that is entirely within established norms for climate variability, are given grants of billions of dollars to produce “studies” that “prove” humans are “significantly” altering global climate. Those grants are given by the same government that pays salaries of NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc.

            So, what is your point?

            Politicians seek control.

            No better control than control over energy (health care is secondary).

            Claim humans are bogeymen for using fossil fuels as the most efficient and available energy source.

            No proof needed, just say it over and over again, shut out all dissension by name-calling (“climate deniers” “flat earthers” “in the pay of big carbon”) and stifling debate (“settled science”).

            Gullible people will believe it, not being educated in sciences and having no clue about perspective.

            Demand the only solution is to stop using fossil fuels, except for “developing” countries.

            It’s insanity of the highest order.

            Global climate models predict 100 year changes of 2-3 degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) based on deeply flawed and simplistic climate models. That is more than the climate differences between Richmond, Virginia and Columbia, South Carolina.

            Furthermore, the increase in CO2, far from being a “pollutant”, is greening the planet as plant life sequesters more CO2 which increases crop yields. Plants also have a cooling influence on climate.

            The warmist campaign against fossil fuels is specious and claims damages way out of proportion to any real changes human influences can create.

          • Pardonmeforbreathing

            You really are a piece of work! Again you resort to undermining character NOT concentrating on scientific facts(ahem…. unmassaged data) which there is I agree a decided LACK of in climobabble. 150K USD a year MY GOD! And how does that compare to the daily income of the Gore Life Form?…. you know that thick necked individual flitting about in his private errrrr jet? Also who taught you how to draw trend lines through data? If you were a “student” of mine you would get a FAIL for ignoring the temperature trend from 1940 to 1980 but hey… I understand…. never let the truth get in the way of a good story…and you STILL have not separated NATURAL effects from demonstrably man made effects! Enjoy your religious experience…. I understand belief and consequent righteous indignation are par for the course of you zealots

          • Allen Eltor

            From the same place Phil Jones was getting his when he admitted in 2005 the world stopped warming in 1998.

            ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8.

            OK IT HAS but it isn’t but

            seven years of data

            AND IT
            isn’t statistically significant.”

            Look around in the world at 2005 databases that indicated NO WARMING since ’98 and slight COOING?

            The RAW DATA placed online that way by LAW to stop ADJUSTMENT FRAUD.

            2010:
            PHIL JONES has been BUSTED in 2009 revelations He and Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth were scamming to hide from a BBC REPORTER the WORLD STOPPED WARMING in ’98. Mann told people YOU issue a press release saying there has been steady warming.
            YOU issue a press release saying the same thing.
            YOU issue another press release and I’ll have my guy issue one too. DON’T MAKE THIS LOOK COORDINATED.

            FEB 2010BBC INTERVIEW with PHIL JONES so HE CAN STAY OUT of JAIL:

            BBC: Isn’t it true since 1 9 9 8 there has been no warming and that there has been in fact some slight cooling?”

            JONES: YES but ONLY JUST. I HAVE CALCULATED and find there has been NO COOLING since 1 9 9 8 and that there has in fact been slight but not

            statistically significant, COOLING.

            FAST FORWARD to 2013: JONES has been FIRED the MET OFFICE has GONE OVER records.

            The RELEASE a STATEMENT saying there has been NO WARMING since 1 9 9 7 and SLIGHT COOLING.

            In looking around to find what database reflects that we find: the RAW DATA PUBLISHED UNADJUSTED is the

            DATA BASE that SHOWS THIS to BE the TEMPERATURE in case of

            ALL of JONES’ ADMISSIONS ACCIDENTAL and ON PURPOSE to AVOID JAIL

            The SAME temperatures referenced in the 2013 Met Office press release.

          • Barry Stallings

            Fox news. That’s where he get’s it. Sad.

          • waxliberty

            Thank God someone is wearing protective headgear and therefore still capable of forming independent thoughts despite the broadcasts of the Government Entities.

            I just want to point out that Tom’s narrative about the world turns him into a courageous lone wolf resisting shadowy forces out to destroy everything decent, and therefore to salute him for his courage and fierce dedication to freedom. Thank you Tom!

            Tom from one agent of resistance to another can I ask a technical question – aluminum or tin foil? I am considering switching because some unwanted scientific thoughts are getting through when I’m up and exposed on the ground floor some days.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            So you are considering switching – which is it you use now? Aluminum, or tinfoil?

          • Carolina Johnny

            True

          • sapereaudeprime

            NOAA’s brief is to gather and interpret data, not to parrot the opinion of the college dropouts in the Republican Congress. Their interpretations of their data are spot on where climate change is concerned. Maybe the doubters should look at the 19th century photos of major glaciers, and compare them to photos taken from the same spot today.

          • Cranky Old Man

            “but FIRST you must understand that NOAA and NASA are government entities that only publish to support the president”.

            I know, exactly. And when President Cheney hand picked the 911 Commission, you have to know they lied and ignored the laws of physics, and said a non-symmetrical distribution of spot fires brought down building seven in perfectly symmetrical catastrophic collapse, and, at a free fall rate of speed.

            Right?

          • Barry Stallings

            Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power (according to the man who created the term “fascism”). It’s corporate governance.
            It’s what we have now.
            Recommend reading: “Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism”

          • demac

            The world has warmed 1.5 degrees C since the little ice age about 200 years ago, with most of that warming occurring without any influence from man and man made CO2.

            Since the invention of thermometers, in 1880, the global temperatures have increased by 0.8 degree C with half of that increase occurring before 1950 when man made CO2 wasn’t a problem

            According to satellite data, there has been no global warming for the last 18.9 years even though CO2 has increased by 10%

            New land based temperature stations installed in 2004 through out the US have recorded a 1 degree temperature decrease over the last 10 years.

            The latest UN IPCC climate report (AR5) indicated in Chapter 2 that there was a low confidence of any correlation between man made CO2 and extreme weather like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts – which all are at historic lows for both frequency and intensity.

            Climate related death have decreased by 98% from 3.4 million deaths in 1934 to 34,000 deaths last year; even though the world’s population has tripled during that time.

            So the reality is that there isn’t a link between man made CO2 and catastrophic temperature increases or extreme weather; extreme weather is not getting worst or more frequent; and climate related deaths are a fraction of what they use to be.

            The whole climate scare is, and has been, about socialism and the redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. that is why the UN wants an annual $100 billion climate fund to be establish and paid for by the rich countries so that the UN can tell the world how to live.

          • CB

            “The world has warmed”

            That’s right!

            …and burning fossil fuels is the reason.

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • DMikeS

            Those whose “research” is paid for by government. Are you blind, stupid or part of the scam?

          • DavidAppell

            Lame. The government funds scientists to do science — whether climate science, medical research, research that goes into your pharmaceuticals, for defense technologies, encryption software, mathematics, materials science, and many more.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Naive. Grants go to those who those who produce the evidence the politicians, e.g. Obama and Gore, want. Are you really alleging no conflict of interest?

          • DavidAppell

            No politicians wants any particular result. (Except Lamar Smith and Ted Cruz.) They want good science.

            Clearly you would sell your opinion for the sake of a grant. Most of us have more intergrity than you.

          • Scott Peterson

            That had to be one of the most idiotic statements made in the history of mankind. Thanks for a great laugh. If you think Al Gore et al did not want a particular result, you either have the IQ of a geranium, or simply have drunk too much of the Jonestown Kool-Aid. Go read about the scientific fraud surrounding DDT in the 60s, which led to tens of millions of unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Go read about the scientific fraud behind silicone breast implants, which led to the bankruptcy of a major corporations. Finally, go read “A disgrace to the profession” which documents the scientific fraud that led to the original “hockey stick” graph which Al Gore used to turn himself into a billionaire. I will assume you can read. Whether you have the intellectual integrity to do so is an entirely different matter.

          • DavidAppell

            Al Gore wants the result given by science.

            Your claims about DDT are a lie:

            http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson

            Mark Steyn knows nothing about science and his book is a cherry picked piece of junk, meant to sucker in gullible people like you.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            algore is a failed divinity student who got into politics by means of his father’s coat tails. Once he bombed out in his attempt to get elected president, he jumped on the global warming bandwagon with all the sincerity of a political prostitute.

          • DavidAppell

            Al Gore is utterly irrelevant to the scientific case for global warming.

            I know extreme conservatives want to hate him and they try to that by rejecting global warming, but Al Gore just communicates the science, he doesn’t determine it.

            But he is pretty good at what he does. Hence his Nobel Prize.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            algore is a con man using the “panic the sheep” method to push a socialist agenda that he doesn’t believe in. He was awarded the nobel prize for sophistry. There is no science that proves global warming. This is the reason that the raw data and methodology “must remain secret”. Unfortunately for those who think to avoid accountability for the fraud they’ve perpetrated, solar output has been drooping of late
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
            but this has been apparently been compensated by other factors defined in the Milankovitch theory and volcanic activity in the Pacific that resulted in an “El Nino”.
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6964/full/426239a.html

          • Allen Eltor

            Human bacteria such as yourself have kept marijuana listed as being like heroin for 75 years. If there’s a way to suck up against being wrong, you’re like a bird in a plane engine.

          • DavidAppell

            Marijuana??? You’re blaming me for marijuana?

            You have some issues to work out. You’ll need to do that on your own.

          • Allen Eltor

            Same church different doctrine, same low information illiterate twerkers screaming the sky is a magic heater.

            It’s your church hillbilly YOU explain where it’s doctrines come from.

          • DavidAppell

            Marijuana issues have nothing to do with climate change.

            Try to pay attention, Leroy.

          • Allen Eltor

            Same church, same shitty pseudo science,

          • DavidAppell

            Do you know how to prove your claims with data and evidence?

            Because you did not of that here.

          • Allen Eltor

            Actually YOU haven’t proven anything except that you’re too stupid to be taught how a cold bath and a thermometer work together.

          • DavidAppell

            All you have is juvenile name calling.

          • Allen Eltor

            No actually I HAVE CALLED YOU OUT telling YOU to your FACE you’re too STUPID to PREDICT which way a thermometer will go if it’s immersed into a

            frigid
            self refrigerated bath
            subject to 20% cooling of the object immersed in it – the earth

            due to the uniquely defined and described diffraction energy loss mode

            of the Green House Gas coolants.

          • DavidAppell

            When you can stop your juvenile personal insults, I’ll entertain your questions.

            Let me know when that happens.

          • Allen Eltor

            YOU’VE had WEEKS, and WEEKS, and WEEKS.

            You haven’t talked about ANYTHING except how STUNNED you are

            the atmosphere isn’t a magical heater. Hick.

          • Allen Eltor

            We’re all anxious to hear you discuss the signs of your church. Since you don’t have any science.

            You DO however have a story about a WARM ROCK put into a FREEZING TURBULENT REFRIGERATED BATH getting HOTTER than when there IS no BATH.

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t belong to any churches.

            And your last sentence is utter nonsense.

          • Allen Eltor

            Of COURSE you belong to the CHURCH of MAGIC GAiS made a MIghTiE HEATUR frum a REFRIGERATED light blocking BATH.

            Your churche’s words not mine.

            BWAH Hah Hah hah hah hah you should have gone to school instead of going into stocking shelves.

          • DavidAppell

            You are still writing like a retard.

            Do you honestly not know to write proper English sentences?

          • Allen Eltor

            You have had HOW MANY DAYS NOW to PREACH about your BELIEF in the MAGIC GAS?

            You’re in here WHINING. CRYING. Oh… I can’t FUNCTION in the face of all this GRAMMAR.

            What has happened to YOU is YOU MET one of those THERMODYNAMICISTS your CHURCH forbids

            TELLING THEM EXPLAIN your FAKE PHYSICS.

            You’re a FAKE.
            Your CLAIM of UNDERSTANDING WHAT you’re even TALKING about is FAKE.
            Your CLAIM of having the FIRST BONA FIDE in ANALYZING THERMODYNAMICS so – EVERYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE – YOU know WTF is UP – CHUCK.

            You’re a TREMBLING, FRUSTRATED THERMODYNAMICALLY INCOMPETENT FAKE until YOU EXPLAIN

            HOW YOU CAME to BELIEVE a FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH made a SUN HEATED ROCK be HOTTER

            BY PUTTING IT INTO a FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH, than it was, when it was NOT in the FRIGID, REFRIGERATED BATH.

            And obviously you’re FAR short of the guts or you’d at LEAST have TRIED – you’re a FAKE.

            You’re a POSER ON the INTERNET unable to P.R.O.P.E.R.L.Y. ANALYZE a T.H.E.R.M.O.M.E.T.E.R.

            And you’re free to move on and try to hustle up somebody else, any time you see fit to do it.

            But if I see you I’m gonna ask you about your teachings again because I say you’re a FAKE,

            and that – YOU DON’T KNOW HOW to ANALYZE an ATMOSPHERE around a PLANET.

            And that NOT ONLY DON’T YOU KNOW, YOU DON’T HAVE THE – what EVER – to just LIMP ALONG and try to FAKE it from ONE of your ELITE WEBSITES about HOW the SUN heats the earth.

            And how the atmosphere HEATS it even more than when it was

            WARMED with MORE SUNLIGHT
            NOT IIN the FRIGID REFRIGERATED atmosphere.

          • DavidAppell

            Prove Al Gore wanted a particular result.

            PS: DDT has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, nor has DDT been banned. You swallowed conservative propaganda.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’re so f****g stupid you thought a cold bath was a heater. That’s your integrity level. Too stupid to analyze a thermometer in a freezing cold refrigerated bath right.

          • DavidAppell

            Rant much? Try making sense….

          • Allen Eltor

            That’s ALL you HAVE to DO: MAKE SENSE.

            PROPERLY ANALYZE a THERMOMETER immersed in a FREEZING COLD REFRIGERATED BATH so you’re not BARKING

            the frigid, self refrigerating atmosphere blocking 20% energy to earth is a heater.

            If you’re so incompetent you can’t properly analyze what happens when a thermometer is immersed into a frigid fluid

            then what’s your word worth as a member bearing testimony of your church?

          • DavidAppell

            A thermometer in a freezing bath?????

            What does that have to do with manmade climate change?

            Try to stop your ranting and hyperventilating enough to explain yourself…….

          • Allen Eltor

            The FREEZING FLUID SELF REFRIGERATED BATH KNOWN as the PLANETARY ATMOSPHERE isn’t a magic heater like they told you at church dipshit.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’ve been in here for WEEKS. You won’t take up for your CHURCH.

            You INSIST the atmosphere is a ”big giant magic heater” but you can’t detail how you think so.

            That’s why they pick people like you – ”graduates’ from public schools

            to defend it.

            LoLoLoL

          • Allen Eltor

            The atmosphere is a COLD SELF REFRIGERATED BATH. I know AT PUBLIC SCHOOL THEY told YOU

            it’s a magic HEATER. BWAH hah hah you don’t even know the atmosphere is colder than the planet.

          • DavidAppell

            You are terribly, terribly confused. You should go back and study physics from the very beginning. I mean like the F=ma beginning.

          • Allen Eltor

            Actually YOU are the one here BARKING about a FRIGID, REFRIGERATED BATH

            heating up a ROCK dropped in it. And that of course is PROOF how thermodynamically CONFUSED

            you really WERE. Till you got here. NOW you’re not confused.

            LoLoLoLoL !

          • DavidAppell

            You don’t understand anything about the science of the greenhouse effect. Sad.

          • Allen Eltor

            Sure I do. I know you’re too AFRAID to DESCRIBE YOUR BELIEF HOW it WORKS, because YOU DON’T HAVE the THERMODYNAMIC CHOPS to PROPERLY ANALYZE a THERMOMETER.

            With the ANSWERS GIVEN to you IN ADVANCE.

            In actual fact, I’M the ATMOSPHERIC CHEMIST and ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION specialist, and ATMOSPHERIC specialist,
            and
            YOU’RE the one who got a DARE sticker for YOUR degree. THAT’S what happened to you in THIS train wreck, YOU met a REAL ATMOSPHERIC THERMODYNAMICIST who doesn’t need to CRACK
            a
            BOOK
            to bring you to the point where YOU are AFRAID to PREDICT WHAT DIRECTION a THERMOMETER

            is gonna go GIVEN the ANSWER AHEAD of TIME.

            So I know it draws low information voter types such as yourself. People needing a church without the discipline of a real religion but with all the feeling good about hating people because you thought you were smarter.

            All we have to do is MENTION thermometer and you start CRAWFISHING. FLEEING. LOOKING for a ROCK to HIDE behind. Or under.

            Ok well – next time I see you around I’m going to be asking about your religion and you better be marching out the thermodynamic pins at 10, 20, 30, 40 yards, LIKE a CLOCK.

            Or YOU’RE gonna WISH you DID. LoL. You can’t BE the SMARTEST THERMODYNAMICIST in the ROOM, and BE TOO AFRAID to TALK OVER the PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT of a THERMOMETER

            in the FACE of a SUN WARMED ROCK, and FRIGID REFRIGERATED sun-BLOCKING BATH.

            Really you’re as incompetent as any other magic gasser I ever met, and just as quick to CRAWFISH. Not a WORD about your church’s SAVING the WORLD. NOT a WORD about ”Oh what about all the PEOPLE seeing me WORK this NON BELIEVER ?

            Pfft you turned and DROPPED your MAGIC GAS CLIMATOLOGY Jr ring and FLED the FIELD being told ”YOU ANALYZE the PROGRESS of THIS THERMOMETER or YOU’RE a FAKE.”

            When you SHOWED UP claiming – YOU’RE READY to RUMBLE for your church.

            You heard the WORD thermometer and FOLDED like ALL thermodynamic FAKES.

          • DavidAppell

            I understand the greenhouse effect just fine. But I’ve learned not to carry on conversations with rude people who can’t write decent English sentences.

          • Allen Eltor

            You learned what happens when someone calls your FAKE science to your face and says ”EXPLAIN to us all how a SUN WARMED ROCK

            getting LESS ENERGY to then DISTRIBUTE and EMIT what’s LEFT through a LARGER COLDER MASS is the DEFINITION of COOLING

            but in your CHURCH it’s a MAGICAL HEATER in the sky.

          • DavidAppell

            As usual, I find your sentences utterly incomprehensible.

          • Allen Eltor

            As usual, you don’t have the manhood and intellectual integrity to talk about your magic heater in the sky.

            The frigid refrigerated gas bath that blocked light to a sun warm rock and distributed the remaining energy through a larger colder mass, and that the people down at Pot is Like Heroin told you,

            is a magic heater.

          • DavidAppell

            “refrigerated gas?” What instrument is refrigerating this gas, and where is it plugged it?

          • Allen Eltor

            Another Wrong answer, from the terminally stupid.

          • DavidAppell

            Until you stop with the all caps shit, your comments will be ignored simply because they appear juvenile.

          • Allen Eltor

            Whine and squirm and cry like a raped nun until they shut your internet off. Let us all know if that changes the laws of thermodynamics so

            LESS LIGHT
            spread through and emitted from a GREATER, COLDER MASS,

            becomes magically a HEATER instead of a FRIGID LIGHT BLOCKING BATH.

            LoL.

            We’ll all wait.

          • DavidAppell

            Same response, Allen — learn how to write in English, and I will entertain your questions. Until then…..

          • Allen Eltor

            Nobody has any respect for a magic gasser without the spine to speak up for his church.

          • DavidAppell

            Actually, writing odious terms like “raped nun” means you will never get another response from me. Yours’ is a disgusting choice of language.

            Blocked. Good bye.

          • Allen Eltor

            LoL what a loser.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’ve got the intellectual displacement of a children’s teacup. You need to show that your church’s doctrines are even reality based. Until you do, you’re just another magic gas scammer scurrying from post to post, running from the reality that never stops catching up to you.

          • Allen Eltor

            You learned to hide, when somebody tells you, to analyze a thermometer, magic gas quack. Nobody suspends an insulating reflector between an object and it’s heat source, then distributes and emits the reduced energy through a larger, colder mass, and makes heating.

            The definition of that is COOLING. LoL

            how long have you been scurrying around the internet announcing a REFRIGERATED BATH is a magic heater in the sky. LoL. !

          • DavidAppell

            Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is deficient.

          • Allen Eltor

            Obviously if you had anything to contribute besides ”A FREEZING REFRIGERATED BATH blocking LIGHT to a ROCK is a MAGIC HEATER! you’d have put it up long ago.

          • DavidAppell

            There are no magic heaters. There is a reduction in the rate of cooling, which is the same as warming.

          • Allen Eltor

            Wrong answer, stupid.

          • DavidAppell

            Do you think a body at any temperature does not radiate energy?

          • Allen Eltor

            ”LooK a Magic Gasser Deflecting yet again !”

          • Allen Eltor

            We’ve all waited here for WEEKS as you barked you understand about the ”giant magic heater in the sky.”

            Yet you’re running around squeaking like a mouse running from a broom.

            Typical public school zombies sent out from the church of Pot is Heroin to discuss the

            Magic Heater in The Sky.

          • DavidAppell

            Whenever I see claims like this, I immediately think the WRITER would alter his finding so satisfy what he thinks politicians want, so he assumes everyone is just as dishonest.

            That’s not my experience. Scientists are the most scrupilious people I have ever encountered.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Scientists are the most scrupilious people I have ever encountered.

            Then you need to check out retractionwatch.org. Scrupulousness takes a back seat to anyone’s paycheck, including that of scientists.

            —————

            Every hear of Climategate?

            “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

            “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” -Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

            UN IPCC chair Pachauri, 2013: “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”

            “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

            “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC

            “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

            “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming and CO2 is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, Clinton-Gore administration

            In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC’s TAR, the same UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.

            John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, a contributor to the first four IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007:

            “At an IPCC Lead Authors’ meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient. After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: ‘We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol.'”
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

            I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

            Dr. David Deming
            University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy

            U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

            the MBH (Mann Bradley Hughes) camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only “half-empty”; it is demonstrably “broken”.

            I just don’t want to get into an open critique of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively understand what is going on.

            Dr. Edward R. Cook
            Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
            Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

            climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1052774789.txt

            An email between two climate “scientists,” on why it is “good to remove” inconvenient facts:

            From: Tom Wigley
            To: Phil Jones
            Subject: 1940s
            Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
            CC: Ben Santer

            It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

            di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

            In 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” In June of this year, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month’s Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report.

            Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck – which Prof. Deming didn’t deny in an email response — who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author. So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” was featured prominently in the subsequent 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political attention.

            This email from Mr. Kenneth Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

            “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming.”

            On the Importance of the Free-flow of Information to Science

            Email from Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, to Michael Mann:
            “Mike,
            Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
            Keith will do likewise
            . He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
            Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
            have his new email address.
            We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

            Email from Phil Jones:

            “Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre and McKitrick, who have requested data through FOIA] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.”

            Professor Jones, to Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. “Ray” Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst:

            “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

            Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

            Professor Jones to another academic: “I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails” and “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.”

            On How Important Non-emotional Objectivity is to the Scientific Process

            Phil Jones: “…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

            Or this email from Dr. Andrew Manning to Dr. Phil Jones that highlights the climate research industry that has grown up around cap and trade:

            “Hi Phil, is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases”

            Tim Osborn, professor at the Climate Research Unit, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results.

            Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming.

            On How Important the Integrity of the Peer Review Process Is To Scientific Research

            Professor Mann wrote: “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

            Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann:

            “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

          • DavidAppell

            I know all about Climategate. It proved nothing. Science is about evidence, and the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, whether you can understand it or not.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            I know all about Climategate. It proved nothing. Science is about evidence, and the evidence for AGW is overwhelming

            No, science is about evidence, and the real, live, infallible humans that are supposed to practice the scientific method.

          • DavidAppell

            “No, science is about evidence”

            That’s exactly what I wrote, Einstein.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            “No, science is about evidence”

            That’s exactly what I wrote, Einstein.

            Here, let’s make what I wrote bigger, since this is now the 3rd time in one day that you don’t seem to understand how to read:

            No, science is about evidence, and the real, live, fallible humans that are supposed to practice the scientific method.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, science is about evidence. How many more times do you want me to type it?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            He (davidappell) suffers from a perceptual dissonance that renders him incapable of realizing he’s been duped into believing in global warming.
            Or he’s being paid to disrupt legitimate conversations on the internet forums.

          • Allen Eltor

            The EVIDENCE IS that PHIL JONES ADMITTED IT HASN’T WARMED since 1 9 9 8 and THE RAW DATA POSTED ONLINE REFLECTS THAT AS WELL.

            The EVIDENCE is that PHIL JONES was FIRED by the MET OFFICE for NOT ADMITTING it stopped WARMING in ’98.

            The EVIDENCE IS that TWO YEARS AFTER they FIRED him – after he ADMITTED it stopped warming in 1 9 9 8 so he didn’t go to JAIL

            The Met Office, LARGEST meteorological group on earth, ANNOUNCED IT STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8 AND THAT in FACT there’s BEEN some COOLING.

            And the PROOF of this is that it’s HISTORICALLY RECORDED as HOW it all happened.

            You’re a hick who joined a church where quack tard fake science is THE MAIN DRAW.

            Evidence is evidence and the RAW DATA they ALL REFER to is REGARDED as the GOLD STANDARD for global temp.

            Evidence is that you’re too stupid to talk about your church except in the sense of describing how much you love it and doing your best to conceal your church leaders got busted perpetrating fraud for 18 years.

            It’s your church hick, it’s your problem. YOU explain it.

            LoL. Magic Gas believing hicks where do you go to school the public education system?

            O h – yeah the same place they started telling you the sky’s a magic heater when you’re in kindergarten.
            BWAH HaH hah hah hah

            THAT’S why you BELIEVE in it, you were EDUCATED in it !!! LoLoLoLoL ! Sucks to be you but somebody’s gotta be the low information quack tard everybody point at and laughs at.

          • Ali_Bertarian
          • Allen Eltor

            yeah MY BAD on that one Ali sorry. I was actually speaking to the WACKO who THINKS the SKY HAS a HEATER in it.

            He has staggered around this thread for WEEKS unable to discuss the thermodynamics of his hillbilly religion, trying to gather some arch sense of authority for confessing government employees convinced him a
            FRIGID
            TURBULENT
            SELF REFRIGERATING BATH
            BLOCKIN 20% INCOMING ENERGY to a SPHERE
            is
            MAGICALLY a HEATER
            because he went to public school.

            All you have to do is tell the hick to analyze more and less light falling on a thermometer and suddenly a
            FRIGID
            TURBULENT
            SELF REFRIGERATING BATH

            has him pointing ”LOOK! a BUTTERF- and he’s gone to try to figure out what kind of insult he can come up with

            TO COVER BEING CAUGHT UNABLE to ANALYZE how MORE or LESS LIGHT hits a THERMOMETER.

          • Allen Eltor

            I replied but it doesn’t seem to be up sorry about that Ali I meant to speak to what’s his name, the magic gasser there.. my bad man.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Deny, deny, deny, deny, deny.
            Now stick your fingers in your ears and start chanting “I won’t hear you!”

          • Daniel F. Melton

            You’re a hermit, aintcha?

          • Allen Eltor

            Like when that hick MIchael Mann created that pathetic hockey stick generator?

            When the idiots who invented your church said the core of the magic heater is the green house gas COOLANTS?

            When the people who claim to believe your church’s story have been modeling and modeling 35 years and still can’t predict which way a thermometer goes even if we give them/you the answers ahead of time?

            You’re an incompetent quack who is simply drawn to falsehood and it doesn’t matter where you find it.

            Pot is like Heroin, atmospheric coolants are a magical heater – you’ve got the intellectual credibility to show up waving those around – barking fake science from the ORIGINAL fake science people, the Federal Government.

            Matter of fact it was a Democrat Oil man who decided he was going to spread fake science and destroy a national commodity in energy,

            and it was a Democrat Oil man who told FDR he wanted cannabis illegal so he could sell his OIL RELATED products, NYLON and POLYPROPYLENE. Cannabis was one of the nations LARGEST commodity industries.

            Democrat oil men wiped that shit out like they were criminals. The MADE the hemp farmers, CRIMINALS.

            75 years of FAKE science,
            75 years of FAKE evidence,
            75 years of THE SCIENCE is settled,

            and now you’re in here running around like you think the sky is a magical heater, is – a real thing.

            Here’s the scoop, quack tard: the green house gases kick 20% available energy to space.
            If diffraction cooling is AMPLIFIED that means putting more green house gas COOLANTS into the atmosphere

            until 21% energy is kicked out to space. THE FACT YOUR CHURCH CAN’T DISCUSS that IS YOUR PROBLEM.

            That’s how it is and it has wound up with you here barking about a magical heater made from COOLANT.

          • DavidAppell

            The hockey stick has been replicated and reproduced many times now. It is accepted science.

          • Allen Eltor

            Even Mann’s closest associates reported it gives off Hockey Sticks.

            https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/the-flaw-in-the-math-behind-every-hockey-stick/

          • DavidAppell

            Baloney. There have been about 40 hockey sticks published in the scientific literature:

            http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html

          • Allen Eltor

            And in fact NONE of them produce anything but HOCKEY STICKS.

          • DavidAppell
          • Allen Eltor

            Phil Jones, data scammer in chief later busted, thrown out of his job and nearly jailed for what he refused to tell the scientific community:
            ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I daid the world cooled since 1998.
            OK IT HAS but it ISN’T but SEVEN YEARS of DATA (EVERY year between ’98 and 05 when he said it)
            AND IT ISN’T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.”

            Three months after JONES trying to ESCAPE JAIL CONFESSED to the BBC whose REPORTER he tried to RUIN for REPORTING he KNEW
            WARMING STOPPED in ;98

            FEB 2010 BBC interview: Phil Jones:

            BBC: isn’t it TRUE there has been NO WARMING SINCE 1998 and that there has in fact been some slight cooling?

            JONES: ***YES. I have DONE the CALCULATIONS and FIND THERE HAS BEEN NO COOLING SINCE 1 9 9 8 and that there has been a small amount of statistically insignificant cooling.”

            END of YOU lying BULLSHOOT.

          • DavidAppell

            You can’t remain civil here. So you don’t deserve a response.

          • Allen Eltor

            This is mainly about letting people watch you be slapped all over the thread. We all knew you don’t have anything to defend yourself.

          • VooDude

            DA, did you draw that? No citation, no URL, nothing to indicate a source.

            “F”

          • DavidAppell

            Source: Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS.

            https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/642024749569298432/photo/1

          • VooDude

            Late. Upgrade to a “D”. Next time. include your references, for a better grade.

          • DavidAppell

            You’re reaching. The source is just as good now as it was then.

          • VooDude

            You’re supposedly a writer. To use other people’s stuff without attribution is plagiarism.

          • DavidAppell

            My source was fully cited, of course.

            You’ve lost here.

          • Allen Eltor

            The people who convinced the world, Pot’s Like Heroin – people from your CHURCH – fully cited all the ignorant bullshoot they spammed the world with, too.

            You still need to explain the doctrines of your church so everyone doesn’t laugh in your face on sight and you’ve fallen far, FAR short of that.

          • VooDude
          • VooDude
          • Allen Eltor

            Gavin ”It’s almost like it’s there if you look long enough” regarding the troposphere never heating up.

            ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8. OK IT HAS.”

            ”BBC: ISN’T it TRUE there’s been no warming since 1 9 9 5 and that in fact since 2 0 0 2 there’s been some slight cooling? ”

            Busted world’s #1 climatologist Phil Jones: YES. I did the math and there has been no warming since 1995. I also calculated the trend since 2002 and although not statistically robust, there is slight COOLING. ” (Jones was on tranquilizers and mis-spoke saying 1995. His shoddy work was so bad it had to be re-done and corrected to 1 9 9 8)

            Met Office after demoting Jones for NOT REVEALING it STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8, in 2013 issued the press release: The Recent Pause In Warming where they WROTE THREE PAPERS ADDRESSING ”THE PAUSE IN WARMING THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS” (2013 to 1998)

            Schmidt’s drawing simply means the temperature hasn’t changed. End of story. All the faked warming is still – FAKED WARMING. *GAVIN SCHMIDT LIES to YOU DAILY*

          • DavidAppell

            Allen, you still do not seem to understand. Your comment about “raping nuns” was so extremely odious that nothing else you can say will overcome it, until you apologize and mean it.

          • Allen Eltor

            Stop trying to act like some school teaching Nun. Imperious when you think you’ve got kids scared, pouting like you’re afraid you’ll be made to kneel and say ablutions whenever you’re corrected.

          • Allen Eltor

            That chart’s not right. The people who publish the adjusted data for those numbers got caught perpetrating fraud wherein the world’s #1 climatologist had to admit

            to the BBC in their 2010 interview of Phil Jones,

            that in fact it stopped warming in 1 9 9 5. (later adjusted to ’98, he was on sedatives thinking he could be fired, even jailed over his fraud) and that there was in fact some slight COOLING since 2002.

            I see those records have not been gone back over and corrected so that means that James Hansen’s hand picked successor in the Climate Gate scam is still using the fake data.

            If it hasn’t been gone back and adjusted since he confessed then it’s fake data. End of story.

          • DavidAppell
          • Leonard Schopenhouer

            Due in part. A noise level part, and the warming we have experienced has been quite good. Lowest severe weather in a half century. Lowest deaths due to said weather in centuries. You just need a good banging to get you out of our self hating obsession.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’re a hick who can’t step through what happens when more and less light falls on a thermometer.

          • DavidAppell

            “Since the invention of thermometers, in 1880, the global temperatures have increased by 0.8 degree C with half of that increase occurring before 1950 when man made CO2 wasn’t a problem.”

            Wrong. Over 90% of the warming has come since 1960. 75% has come since 1975.

            data:
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

          • demac

            0.4 degree C warming since 1950 which is pretty equal to the 0.4 degree C warming from 1910 – 1940

          • DavidAppell

            Warming since 1950 = 0.8 C

          • DavidAppell

            Nope. GISS’s records show 0.9 C warming since 1950.

          • demac

            Your data confirms that there has been a 0.4 degree C warming since 1951 thank you for the information. I rest my case.

          • DavidAppell

            Wrong. Very wrong. Warming since 1950 = 0.8 C

          • DavidAppell

            You’re completely wrong. And you know it.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            The use of nasa as a source discredits your argument. They’ve already been caught fudging the numbers.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

            “The first rule of propaganda is: Never tell a lie.” Being found demonstrably false in anything you say negates everything you say.”
            ~William Donovan (head of the OSS during WWII)

          • Allen Eltor

            You’re a hick. DATA SCAMMER in CHARGE Phil Jones in 2005 said ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8. OK IT HAS but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically signficant.”
            WHAT DATA SET REFLECTED THAT TEMPERATURE in 2005?

            THIS ISN’T COMPLICATED.

            The RAW DATA placed unadjusted online by LAW to stop: ADJUSTMENT FRAUDS like your church leaders.

            Then in 2009 : JONES and TRENBERTH and M A N N and SCHMIDT and HANSEN’s NAMES all on an EMAIL from JONES: A BBC reporter said it stopped warming in 1 9 9 8. Maybe we should do to him what we did to the other one.”
            MANN: YOU issue a press release from YOUR meterorlogical organization
            MANN: and then YOU issue a press release but DON’T make it look like it’s COORDINATED.
            MANN: and then YOU issue a press release from YOUR organization making sure it DOESN’T look like we’re doing this together.
            TRENBERTH MELTING down, crying about how it hasn’t warmed, and he is completely HUMILIATED as a professional.

            In that conversation not ONE word – from ANYBODY – about – ”say WHAT about ’98? Why ’98?”
            BECAUSE
            THEY ALL KNOW the TEMPERATURE of the WORLD is that DEPICTED by the RAW DATA POSTED ONLINE.

            Then 2010: in order to not go to jail JONES HAS AGREED to FESS UP: FEB 2010 BBC interview: phil jones –

            BBC: Isn’t it TRUE there has BEEN NO WARMING since 1998 and that there in FACT has been SLIGHT COOLING?

            JONES: YES. I calculated the temperature and there has been NO WARMING since 1 9 9 8 and there has been in fact SLIGHT cooling.

            THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED
            it’s the SIMPLEST PHASE of MATTER.

            FAST FORWARD: Met Office FIRED JONES over HIDING there had been no WARMING since 98.

            2013 The WORLD data COLLECTION office the Met Office which FIRED Jones for NOT TELLING:

            ”There has been NO WARMING since 1998 AND THERE HAS IN FACT been a SLIGHT but not statistically significant COOLING.”

            TWO YEARS after they FIRED JONES for NOT CONFESSING there’s BEEN NO WARMING since ’98

            The WORLD DATA COLLECTION OFFICE ADMITTED: THERE’S been no WARMING since 1 9 9 8.

            Jones in 2005.
            Jones/Mann/Trenberth/Schmidt/Hansen in 2009
            ALL getting the same EMAIL
            CRYING about someone finding out: there’s been no warming since ’98.
            NOT A SOUL says a SINGLE WORD about ”why ’98”

            Jones in 2010: I HAVE BEEN FAKING ALL THIS DATA for TWELVE YEARS. Not a WORD of these temps is true. It’s all FAKE. It stopped WARMING in 1 9 9 8.

            Met Office: 2013: after FIRING JONES for NOT REVEALING it STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8
            MET OFFICE two YEARS LATER ISSUES PRESS RELEASE: ”THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING SINCE the BEGINNING of 1 9 9 8. (Actually I think THEY said JANUARY 97).

            NO WARMING for 18 YEARS. Did they go back and CORRECT those RECORDS we have all seen CLEARLY STATED as recording it STOPPED WARMING in 98/97?

            No? THEN ALL THAT DATA is FAKE. It’s FAKE like your story of the MAGIC HEATER i the sky made of COOLANTS

            It’s FAKE.

            Which goes DIRECTLY to YOUR lack of any reasonable credibility if you claim you never heard of all that.

            So YOU’RE in here trying to bark about magic gas and FAKED DATA as CONFESSED by the MAN who FAKED it and ADMITTED by the PEOPLE who FIRED him for NOT ADMITTING it was FAKED.

            You’ve got the intellectual bona fides of a crack head. NOTHING you say turns out to be associated with reality or any kind of story you can defend about a THERMOMETER and the FRIGID GAS BATH scrubbing/refrigerating HEAT from it.

          • DavidAppell

            Jones was, of course, right – seven years of data cannot determine a statistically significant trend.

          • Allen Eltor

            That kind of incompetency in comprehension is what has you on the internet about the green house gas coolants being a magical heater.

          • DavidAppell

            Coolants? Par for the course, your comments make no sense at all.

          • Allen Eltor

            The Green House Gases responsible for Diffraction mode loss

            thats DIFFRACTIO COOLING currently COOL the planet 20%.

            PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT water COOLS in UNIQUE acceleration of convection COOLING.

            Green House Gas water leads the pack in CONDUCTION COOLING.

            Hick.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’re so f***g illiterate you don’t know what Jones discussed yet you’re sure there’s a giant magic heater in the sky.

          • DavidAppell

            Jones was right that a statistically significant trend cannot be determined from a mere seven years of data.

          • Allen Eltor

            He never even discussed it you’re just s f****g incompetent you can’t tell what he was saying.

          • Joe333

            Actually they said 2014 was not the hottest year and there as only a 34% chance that it was.
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
            And that’s going by their crazy adjusted data
            How come everything you claim can be easily proven false with a quick google search?

            Are you a paid troll?

          • RDWebster

            Name-calling… the only refuge for those who cannot argue with facts.

          • Pardonmeforbreathing

            Why do you need to resort to character assassination if you are so sure of your ahem….”science”? You are no different to the rest of the charlatans out there because for all your cheap jibes you have NO credible way to separate the effects of man from nature which is what this is all “supposed” to be about. Look at the billions of dollars behind the muppet show which Gore et al get richer and richer by the day from …. I see the Emperor is wearing a fine set of clothes this year…You may be a sheep and rely on referred wisdom … but do not quote models and selectively applied gradients and then condemn anyone who looks at the data. You are no better then the religious persecutors of history. PS Buy an extra thick duvet because you will need it for your yurt when the next high pressure cold snap settles and the highly subsidized windmills you embrace stop turning.

        • DMikeS

          How much more proof do you need than the East Anglia/Penn State e-mail scandal?

          • Robert

            If you can disprove the science in
            http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
            &
            http://climatekids.nasa.gov

            with the claims from some righting science denying blog, go forr it.

            But, it is noted you didn’t do more than bluster.

          • Leonard Schopenhouer

            As long as we have political hack dykes heading up the EPA, recommend tuning out. Agency will soon be cleaned up.

          • Robert

            Cogent /s
            “political hack dykes ” Unfortunately, not /s

          • waxliberty

            Thank you for highlighting the degree to which anti-science activism and standard old Archie Bunker bigotry share deep cultural ties Leonard. God Bless.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            See how you know you can’t win with facts, truth, logic or science so you have to go with ad hominem instead? How is anything in your above comment in any way an honest attempt to have a dialog or communicate a logical, sensible argument?

            Oh, wait, you don’t have any!

          • waxliberty
          • waxliberty

            Um, proof for what? That scientists tend to think guys like Morano are hostile hacks? Didn’t need the email scandal to tell you that.

          • Robert

            If you are truly trying to inform yourself, start with good resources:
            http://climate.nasa.gov
            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide
            http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
            Summary for Policy Makers
            http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

            And pay attention to how information is being presented to you:
            How to Evaluate Resources

            “The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!”
            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Handy version to print out and stick on the side of the monitor:
            Evaluating Information – Applying the CRAAP Test – CSU, Chico
            https://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Check the “official” temperature data from NCDC. Let’s just look at 2014.

            Here we have the actual data, which has a lot of gray areas, because that is missing data:

            Here we have the “data” that NOAA submits to the gullible press and gullible alarmists, and tells us that it is actual temperature data:

            So how do they get the “data?” They estimate it.

          • Robert

            Thanks for the use of quotemarks!

      • NonFool

        Some deluded moron in the comments section pull one chart out of his ass and that trumps Lord Monckton?
        THAT is crap.

      • monckton

        “The latest ‘corrected’ analysis”? “Corrected”? The previous analysis didn’t show any global warming for a decade and a half, so they changed the data to get the warming they wanted. But it didn’t work, because the satellites show there’s been no warming for 18 years 9 months. And surface warming should be happening more slowly even than the lower troposphere, which the satellites measure.

        So don’t just believe the politicized handouts from rent-seeking government organizations. Think. Check. Belief has no place in science.

        • Mobius Loop

          So here is the thing. One of the satellite data sets DID show warming until Spencer changed it ……… and then it didn’t.

      • demac

        This graph is from NOAA after they have adjusted the base temperature data (which didn’t show an increase.) It has been shown to be a fraud.

        • DavidAppell

          Are you aware the satellite readings also need copious adjustments?

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Are you aware the satellite readings also need copious adjustments?

            Are you aware that the only reason that the earth-based temp data now results in warming for the last 18 years, instead of matching the satellite and balloon data which show no warming, is due solely to those adjustments?

            Do you really want to make compulsory, massive changes in everyone’s lives based on claims that do not result from a set of data, unless those data are modified? What was wrong with the original data, since the claim from those “scientists” deriving the data is that the science was settled?

          • DavidAppell

            And satellite data only shows a flat trend due solely to adjusting past temperatures.

          • DavidAppell

            And the satellite data only show no recent warming BECAUSE OF ADUSTMENTS.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Nope. That satellite data never showed any warming in that period. Until the Karl study the Earth-based data didn’t either.

          • DavidAppell

            False — both satellite datasets show long-term warming.

            Then UAH adjusted the recent warming away. Cooling.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            False — both satellite datasets show long-term warming.

            Nope. Check RSS since 1998. Slight decreasing trend.
            Also check 1940-1980, any data set. No increase, in spite of great CO2 increases. Models failed.

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.” “State of the Climate in 2008”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90 (8), S1–S196 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

            By their own standards, the global climate models have failed.

          • DavidAppell

            I said “long-term.” Cherry-picking the year of highest temp is not scientific or convincing.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            How about if we let NOAA decide what long-term is, and whether their models are useful?

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.” “State of the Climate in 2008”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90 (8), S1–S196 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

            The 40 year period isn’t long enough? Why not, if it disproves the veracity of the GCMs?

          • demac

            Yes that is true; but those adjustments don’t always go up like the NOAA ones do

          • DavidAppell
          • DavidAppell

            UAH’s recent adustments led to cooling. Coincidence, given that that group are well known skeptics who have been famously wrong in the past (when they were too cool)?

          • VooDude

            UAH, in the previous version, showed COOLING since April of 2009. UAH’s recent adjustments only lead to an increased span of how long it has been cooling https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2336d26d2f34b633b8e53c00e6f0be359daad744a4deb9073493ecd71d754639.jpg

          • DavidAppell

            WOW, since April 2009???

            What has the trend been since last Friday?

          • VooDude

            … how long have the ARGO floats been used to support the ‘ocean heat content’? ARGO reached 3000 floats in 2007. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c8c1285dc56c300581dc9061e154e4610eaaf3929238feaeeb0838ec4ac7010b.jpg

          • DavidAppell

            Since 2007. The ocean heat content has increased steadily since then:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

            Why is the ocean steadily gaining heat?

          • VooDude

            ”Why is the ocean steadily gaining heat?”

            Well, … it isn’t. The aggregate data presented by NOAA, as directed by NOAA’s Commander In Chief (would you expect dissension, in the ranks?) … is an aggregate ‘warming’. Since the aggregate COOLING is below the depth capability of the ARGO probes, and most XBT probes, and it isn’t being measured, perhaps the measured ‘warming’ would be countered by the unmeasured COOLING?

            Wunsch and Heimbach 2014, 293 ”At all depths, but particularly in the upper ocean, regions of warming are at least partially compensated in the global integrals by extended regions of cooling (especially the tropical Pacific … and North Atlantic subtropical gyre). These patterns emphasize the problem of having adequate spatial sampling to generate mean values consistent with the accuracies [claimed] in Table 1.”

            Wunsch and Heimbach 2014 points out that “the warming” 160 ”… is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012).”.

            One of the points made by W&H ’14 is that the ”Interpretation requires close attention to the long memory of the deep ocean, and implying that meteorological forcing of decades to thousands of years ago should still be producing trend-like changes in abyssal heat content.” … W&H ’14 further augments this point by Figure 7, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a31f18b52ac2afcd8c74ee4a1efa706dddedcbc615fe33d805a1b0f30efe2dd0.jpg

            ie, what happened, decades to thousands of years ago?

            Please note, of all the paleotemperature charts available, W&H ’14 did not show:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d21bfee4f2d7ebb79936cba80a892b9d2cf3a2a2305a145fa3cfb81128a3203.jpg

            A slight temperature cooling, but multiplied by a very large volume of water:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e9080935ae8b8f857bac45d3655b4013e627ca346c171816adf16fad110fdd9.jpg

            W&H ’14 poses the question of accuracies and precisions … and signal-to-noise…

            62 ”An important question, pursued elsewhere, is whether available observations alone are capable of determining mean ocean temperatures, and the related heat content changes with time, to accuracies and precisions useful at these levels?”

            73 ”By some standards … an impressive amount of data does exist: an evaluation of their [in]adequacy can only be made in the context of the signal-to-noise structure…”

            Hadfield 2007: ”The noise is less than 0.5°C in the eastern basin and below 1000 m in the western basin.… there are two main regions centered at 500 m in the western basin where the noise exceeds 2°C.”

            Hadfield, R. E., et al. 2007 “On the accuracy of North Atlantic temperature and heat storage fields from Argo.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
            http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/mocha/mocha_pubs/hadfield_etal_07_jgr.pdf

            So, what’s the signal? 0.02ºC … what’s the noise? Well, in some places, 2 ºC. Did your ‘three degrees in the field’ cover S/N ratio? 0.02/0.5 nominally, 0.02/2.0?

            Hadfield ’07: “…The root-mean-square (RMS) difference in the Argo-based temperature field relative to the section measurements is about 0.6°C. The RMS difference is smaller, less than 0.4°C, in the eastern basin and larger, up to 2.0°C, toward the western boundary.”

            Hmmm, what is in the western boundary? Oh, the Gulf Stream, the Florida current… Narrow, shallow bands of hot water. So, manually-placed XBT probes, compared to freely-drifting ARGO probes, and the Root-Mean-Square error can be two orders of magnitude larger than the expected signal? Sounds like a problem.

            Hadfield again: “However, the expected sampling error increases to more than 50 W/m^2 in the Gulf Stream region and north of 40°N, limiting the use of Argo in these areas.”

            Cunningham 2010: ”The uncertainty derives mainly from the fact that XBT observations are made only in the upper kilometre of the ocean, with an additional significant uncertainty due to the high-frequency variability of the flows at the boundaries. … another important source of error is the lack of observations of the barotropic component of the flow, particularly west of 47°W. This is important because, … the North Atlantic Deep Water flow … whose magnitude and variability is practically unknown.”

            ”…the thermohaline circulation is not unambiguously quantified by these observations, and interpreting the variability in the thermohaline circulation from them is complicated by their partial nature.”

            ”…the northward upper branch of the AMOC, and the southward return flow between 2000 and 3000 m depth.”

            Cunningham, Stuart, et al. 2010 “The present and future system for measuring the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and heat transport.”

            http://sunburn.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Cunningham_ThePresentandFuture.pdf

          • DavidAppell

            “Since the aggregate COOLING is below the depth capability of the ARGO probes, and most XBT probes, and it isn’t being measured….”

            False.

            See, for example, “Deep ocean heat content changes estimated from observation and reanalysis product and their influence on sea level change,” Kouketsu et al, GRL v116 (March 2011)
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006464/abstract

            which finds a heat content change of only +0.05 W/m2 for the ocean below 3000 meters. Compare that to +0.30 W/m2 for the 0-700 m region for the last 10 years, and +0.64 W/m2 for the 0-2000 m region for the last 10 years.

          • DavidAppell

            Wunsch and Heimbach wrote:
            “In the global average, changes in heat content below 2000 m are roughly 10% of those inferred for the upper ocean over the 20-yr period.”

            That’s WARMING.

            The ocean heat change of the 0-700 m region of the ocean over the last 20 years is +0.33 W/m2.

      • Leonard Schopenhouer

        CB. Fisting is probably not the best career choice you could have made.

      • VooDude
      • RDWebster

        Name-calling… the great refuge of those who cannot argue with facts.

      • RDWebster

        Name-calling. The final refuge of those who have no real rebuttal. And it’s childish, too.

      • PhD

        You really need to see a psychiatrist CB. You are spending way too much time making nonsensical statements on line.
        You are at over 18,600 comments. I think you are manic and over the top in these ridiculous pompous statements.
        You need help NOW

  • Rosario Barahona


    .❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    3gai……..
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportExpo/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  • Icarus62

    As we all know by now, global warming has accelerated in the last few years, not slowed down –

    http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/GEA-141361307138.png

    IPCC AR5 cites the following trends in global energy accumulation:

    1971 to 2010: 213 TW
    1993 to 2010: 275 TW
    [IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 3 Box 3.1 p. 264.]

    The latter figure is larger, meaning that global warming has accelerated.

    AR5 also says: “The Earth has been in radiative imbalance, with more energy from the sun entering than exiting the top of the atmosphere, since at least about 1970.” (i.e. at least the last 45 years).

    All of the recent studies of planetary energy balance show that the climate system is accumulating heat at a rapid rate –

    “Argo era observed planetary energy imbalances are 0.70W/m² in 2003-2008 and 0.59W/m² in 2005-2010.”

    Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuc ann (2011), Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,13,421–13,449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.

    —————-

    “We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

    Loeb, N. G., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, R. P. Allan, D. R. Doelling, T. Wong, B. J. Soden, and G. L. Stephens (2012), Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty, Nat. Geosci., 5, 110–113, doi:10.1038/ngeo1375.

    ——————

    “For the 2000s… the total energy imbalance implied by ORAS4 is 0.91 ± 0.10W/m² ”

    Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Magdalena A. Balmaseda, 2014: Earth’s Energy Imbalance. J. Climate, 27, 3129–3144.

    ——————

    Earth’s energy imbalance between 2000 and 2012 was 0.62W/m², according to this study:

    Allan, R. P., C. Liu, N. G. Loeb, M. D. Palmer, M. Roberts, D. Smith, and P.-L. Vidale (2014), Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985–2012, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 5588–5597, doi:10.1002/2014GL060962.

    • monckton

      Unfortunately for the accident-prone Icarus62, the graph he shows takes insufficient account of the best ocean-temperature dataset we have, which is the network of 3600+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys, each of which takes three temperature and salinity profiles each month. During the entire 11-year record, the ocean’s surface layers are shown as not warming at all, while the layers beneath are warming a little. Taking the average across the entire 1.25-mile-deep temperature profile, the warming rate over the past 11 years in the ocean is equivalent to a not particularly terrifying 1 degree of warming every 430 years. The reason, as any schoolboy knows, is that the ocean is a very substantial heat-sink three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere, which accordingly has very little power to warm it at all rapidly.

      • Icarus62

        “…the ocean is a very substantial heat-sink three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere…”

        Indeed, and your response shows precisely why the “No Global Warming for 18 Years!” meme is such a ridiculous charade.

        • monckton

          There has been no warming of the lower troposphere, at all, for 18 years 9 months (RSS), or 18 years 6 months (UAH). There has been no statistically-significant warming on any of the datasets for at least 14 years, and up to 22 years on some of them. There has been no warming of the upper strata of the ocean during the entire near-12-year ARGO bathythermograph record. The top mile and a quarter of the ocean shows warming coming not from above, as the IPCC predicts, but from below – and even then only at a rate which, averaged over all the strata that are measured, amounts to a mere 1 degree of warming every 430 years.

          It is childish and anti-scientific to ignore these observed realities, which show the ever-widening gulf between the extremist predictions of the IPCC in 1990 and the far less exciting, and entirely unalarming, reality that has been observed in the quarter-century since then.

          • Icarus62

            “There has been no warming of the lower troposphere, at all, for 18 years 9 months…”

            The fact that you know perfectly well that the oceans are by far the largest heat sink in the climate system (as you just admitted), and that the oceans are warming relentlessly, tells us all we need to know about the integrity of your claims.

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

            Your sneaky change from “no global warming at all” to “no warming of the lower troposphere” only reinforces the point that you’ve been caught out in a lie, and are now desperately back-pedaling.

            You should be ashamed of yourself for such transparent attempts to deceive.

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish. You take money from a climate-Communist advocacy group to disrupt these threads with your hate-speech. You were paid $122,000 last year alone to do this. You are not earning your keep unless you at least make some attempt to address serious scientific points seriously. The graph of ocean heat content that you show here, with the implicit allegation that the head posting overlooks the oceans, is actually reproduced in the head posting itself. You were so anxious to get your monthly check from the environmentalist-socialist activist group that you could not be bothered even to read the head posting you presumed to attack, with your entirely false allegations of deception on my part.

            The increase in ocean heat content is actually determined from the increase in ocean temperature, which is so small that it is an embarrassment to the environmentalist extremists. During the 11 years of the ARGO bathythermograph record (before 2004, ocean heat content is little better than guesswork), the rate of ocean warming has been equivalent to 1 Celsius degree every 430 years.

            It is precisely because the oceans are a formidable heat-sink that we do not need to worry about rapid global warming of the atmosphere. The heat merely accumulates in the oceans. Now, 260 ZJ since 1970 seems a lot: but it is tiny in comparison to the vast heat capacity of the oceans. Interestingly, the ARGO temperature profiles show that the surface layers of the oceans are not warming at all, though that is where the warming would be occurring if the atmosphere was warming (which, as the satellite datasets show, it is not). The warming is coming from below, inferentially from a no doubt transient naturally occurring increase in the activity of the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes ranged chiefly along the mid-ocean tectonic divergence boundaries, through which unmonitored magmatic intrusions directly heat the abyssal strata (which, however, have so large a heat capacity that their mean temperature is 3-4 Celsius degrees).

            The oceans, then, are no help to the climate extremists. They are one of the many important reasons why the models have exaggerated so relentlessly, leading to equally relentless exaggerations of predicted warming by the IPCC.

            Now, my suggestion is that you go back to your Communist paymasters and tell them that wasting everyone’s time bullying those who might otherwise express support for the questioners’ position on the climate issue is not a productive use of their money or your time. The science is implacably against your lies, deceptions, falsehoods, and frauds. You gain financially by disrupting this and many other threads, and you cower behind anonymity in the hope that no one will detect you. However, the public authorities in many countries are now looking at the extremists’ activities, funding, and fraudulent behavior. Yours is just one of a dozen aliases whose true identities are now known to the authorities. It is only a matter of time before you find yourselves in jail. In future, stick to the truth, and don’t bother wasting any more time here.

          • Icarus62

            You really ought to stop now. You’re just embarrassing yourself even further.

          • monckton

            Is that the best a highly-paid climate-Communist troll can think up? Why not admit who you are? Then you might have some credibility. As it is, with every successive and vicious intervention, you reveal the hatred of the truth that your shoddy creed evinces, the willingness to kill millions via denying them the affordable, reliable, clean fossil-fuelled electricity they need, and a complete ignorance of climatological physics.

            Meanwhile, all levels of the troposphere and all levels of the ocean fail to warm at the rates predicted by the climate Communist profiteers of doom. The discrepancy between wildly-exaggerated prediction and unexciting reality will continue ineluctably to widen. And no amount of paid trolling will alter those facts.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            I’m not communist and I’m certainly not paid to be here, but I can see that every single national scientific institute regards your opinions as just so much lunatic voodoo science.
            Your own posts reveal the depths to which you are prepared to sink in order to sling mud at and attempt to intimidate anybody who takes the trouble to point out your schoolboy scientific errors and obvious attempts to misinform and mislead.
            You really are a very, very nasty piece of work.

          • monckton

            It’s good to find someone from the believers’ side of this debate who is not profiteering by being paid to disrupt these threads. You are, however, unbecomingly anonmyous. Why not admit who you are? To make personal attacks from behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity is yellow. I do not intimidate anyone. I am free to call out the anonymous, paid, climate-Communist trolls for what they are. If they want to say who they are, we can then have a sensible conversation about the climate.

            I guess you are an environmentalist-Socialist: for it is only that totalitarian group that clings foolishly to the belief, demolished by Aristotle in his Sophistical Refutations 2350 years ago and confirmed by Thales of Miletus, Abu Ali Ibn al-Haytham, Newton, Einstein and Popper, to name but a few, that science is done by a supposed “consensus” of imagined “experts”. Anyone with a sufficient grounding in elementary formal logic will at once recognize your argument from a “consensus” of “experts” as an unholy conflation of two of Aristotle’s fundamental and now well shop-worn fallacies of logic: the fallacy of argument from mere headcount and the fallacy of argument from the supposed qualifications of imagined experts. Logically speaking, it does not necessarily follow that because some (by no means all) scientific advocacy groups say the world is warming at the predicted rate they are right because they are many or they are right because they are eminent.

            You have provided no evidence that any of these scientific advocacy groups has stated that the rate at which the world has been warming since 1990 is greater than the rate then predicted by the IPCC. Hint: the truth, on all datasets, is that the rate of warming since 1990 is below the least prediction then made by the IPCC. It would, therefore, be remarkably silly of any scientific advocacy group, however eminent or official-looking, to say any such thing. And I am not aware that any has done so. If so, then let us have a look at the evidence of what they are saying; and then let us compare it with the evidence of the principal satellite datasets and the principal terrestrial-tamperature datasets and the principal ocean dataset.

            For science is a process not of belief in the wisdom of experts, however many you line up, but of checking the theory against the data. The head posting makes the simple point, with what any rational mind would accept was a considerable body of evidence, that the data – thus far, at any rate – do not reflect the extreme predictions first made by the IPCC a quarter of a century ago.

            No amount of invective on your part, or on the part of any troll with hate rather than learning in his heart, will alter the ineluctable numbers. For, in order to get the scare going, the IPCC had to make lurid predictions. Having made those predictions, it must not now act surprised if enquirers such as I am decide to verify the extent to which those predictions are reflected in observed reality. It has long been evident (I have been producing these graphs since 2008) that the IPCC’s predictions were flat wrong. They were grossly exaggerated. Indeed, as one of the IPCC’s expert reviewers I played my part in persuading it that it must revise its predictions sharply downward. It was compelled to act on this recommendation, at least with respect to the medium-term fraction of the prediction curve. However, it continues to cling – with increasing and desperate implausibility – to its exaggerated longer-term predictions. And that is unwise: for it is evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of the lead authors.

            They know perfectly well – for reasons I shall not go into here, but you can watch my interventions in Paris and Essen next month for details – that the amount of global warming to be expected this century, on the RCP 6.0 “business-almost-as-usual” scenario, will not exceed 0.5 Celsius degrees. Not exactly a problem, is it? Yet they have knowingly published predictions about which we can demonstrate two things: first, they know the predictions to be exaggerated, and know it clearly: and secondly, that they intend to persist in those predictions, false though they obviously be, till they are prosecuted. And that is the fate that now awaits them. The Swiss bureau de l’escroquerie (the IPCC being headquartered in Switzerland) has had its attention drawn to the fraudulent activities within the IPCC. So have several national investigating authorities. In my assessment, it is only a matter of time before one of two things happens: the IPCC backs off from its extremist predictions, or those who have put their names to those wild exaggerations as lead authors, knowing the exaggerations to be false, will go to jail.

            The raw-material prices of coal, oil, and gas have all fallen over the past decade: yet energy bills are thrice what they were ten years ago. That is causing real hardship, particularly among the poor. One close to me was found in a recent cold winter, collapsed on the floor of her unheated house (the indoor temperature was below freezing), because she could no longer afford to keep the heating on. The sole reason: the price hikes to subsidize useless windmills and solar panels, which cause environmental devastation at vast cost, and actually add in net terms to the quantity of CO2 emitted (not that that is a problem).

            So, like it or not – and you evidently don’t – in the end the truth cannot be concealed. The predictions were exaggerated, and the extent of the exaggeration becomes greater and more visible by the day. Perpetrating logical fallacies will not alter the facts: it will merely make you appear feeble-minded.

            As for your allegation that I have made unspecified “schoolboy scientific errors”, why not read through the head posting and let me know what is wrong with it? I am always open to being corrected if I have made a mistake. But I have gone to more than usual lengths to verify the accuracy of the graphs, and you can determine the least-squares trends on the various datasets for yourself if you have reason to believe that they do not show what I say they show. But mere yah-boo won’t hack it here. Yah-boo is the grunt of the yahoo. Here we talk science and data, not climate-Communist politics.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            TL:DR

          • monckton

            Totally Logical: Definitely Right. How very kind of Aussieinswitzerland to accept the argument I set forth above.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            I think what you are failing to grasp is the fact that nobody cares what you think.

            You are wrong, probably deliberately so, on the science and your motives for propagating this idiocy are murky to say the least.

            The facts have left you behind.

          • monckton

            Of course no scientist cares what I think. No scientist cares what anyone thinks, on a scientific question. What true scientists care about are the facts and the data. One takes it that Anaussieinswitzerland is entirely unable to find anything actually and materially wrong with the facts and data presented in the head posting, and resorts to mere yah-boo as a substitute for rational thought followed by reasoned discussion. And that, in the end, is why the climate Communists are as doomed to failure as their totalitarian predecessors in the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany and in the Communist Parties that killed so many hundreds of millions between them in Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

            Hate-speech from anonymous trolls may well succeed in its intention of frightening off anyone who might dare to challenge the climate-Communist Party Line: but, because the Party Line began with predictions scary enough to alarm scientifically-illiterate governments, and because those predictions have now been proven by real-world measurement to have been wild exaggerations, regardless of what I think the discrepancy between wild prediction and unexciting reality will continue ineluctably to widen until all will be able to see that the climate Communists were as wrong about this as totalitarians everywhere are wrong about everything.

            Meanwhile, I am one of a growing army of freedom, and we shall continue to speak the truth quietly, authorititively, whether the climate-Communists like it or not. The truth is the truth, and They cannot indefinitely conceal the extent to which Their predictions have failed and failed and failed again.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “Of course no scientist cares what I think”

            I didn’t say scientist, I said nobody.
            However, I’m sure there are a few scientists who, while not exactly caring, read your pieces avidly.
            After all, everybody needs a good laugh from time to time.

            “One takes it that Anaussieinswitzerland is entirely unable to find anything actually and materially wrong with the facts and data presented in the head posting”

            It’s been done so many times before by people far better qualified than me that repetition is redundant.

            “And that, in the end, is why the climate Communists are as doomed to failure as their totalitarian predecessors in the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany”

            Classic Godwin.

            As for the rest of your post, more of your usual drivel and really not worth the time to read let alone respond to.

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish. Monckton’s Law states that Fascists, when caught out as the Fascists they are, snivel about “Godwin’s law”. The use of the term “Godwin’s Law” by these people is accordingly an admission that they are Fascists but do not wish to be called out as such.

            It remains the case that “Aussieinswitzerland” has been unable to produce a single scientific point in challenge to the head posting, or to my replies to him here, inferentially because he knows I’m right but can’t admit it.

          • jmac

            Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. :)

          • monckton

            And yet the rate of global warming since 1990, on all datasets, is considerably below even the least prediction made by the IPCC that year. That is a fact, and no amount of paid climate-Communist trolling will alter that fact.

          • jmac

            You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

            You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

            But I just think you are the very worst of mankind, a sociopath willing to do anything for money.

          • Robert

            And just his word for ‘evidence’…..

          • jmac

            Monckton has been living inside the teanut wingnut bubble, where no one questions a good “Commie/Nazi” story. He’s baffled by the idea that people would actually not take his bullshit at face value.

          • Robert
          • jmac

            What is funny is that he calls his opponents “climate-Communists” but then has the audacity to publish in a journal in a Communist country.

            If everybody had to drink each time Monckton said the word Communist we would all be wasted. I mean how can you take anyone seriously that throws that term out so liberally. He must think it some sort of code word for the teanut wingnuts.

          • jmac

            After Monckton and his allies went about crowing that his article in an APS newsletter was “peer-reviewed,” the APS started appending notices on all its newsletter articles stating they are not peer-reviewed. Monckton claimed it was all a Communist plot. Marxist, to be precise.

          • monckton

            But when have I ever attempted to “disprove man-made climate change”? We exist; therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every critter on Earth. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for elementary and well-established theory – established not by “consensus” but by experiment – indicates that enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will be likely, all other things being equal, to cause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much. And the answer, so far at any rate, is “very little”.

            And no one pays me to compile my monthly updates on global temperature. I do it because I’m interested enough to download the data off the satellites or the servers and do the math and publish the results for all who are interested. These monthly graphs have proven to be very influential in bringing the world to realize that the predictions and the reality have turned out very different from one another. That is the first step toward more realistic and less exaggerated predictions. The IPCC, on my advice as one of its expert reviewers, has begun to revise its predictions downward. So have the modellers. On my understanding of the underlying climatological physics, they have quite a long way further down to go before their predictions become realistic. Even on their own “mainstream” methods and data, one would not expect to see more than 0.5 K global warming this century. And what on earth is “sociopathic” about reporting my scientific results in the learned journals from time to time, and reporting the actual trends on the real data? Don’t be childish.

          • jmac

            What is your source of income, if you don’t shovel BS for the fossil fuel boys for a living?

          • monckton

            My sources of income are none of your business. However, I have a number of patents and inventions; I write; and I have saved thriftily.

            I take it that you have no serious scientific point to make, as usual.

          • jmac

            Serious scientific comments are made in serious scientific journals. BS on your patents, and cures for Aids, etc…

            Everybody knows you are paid shill for the fossil fuel boys. Have you ever received money (donations as you like to call them) from tobacco and fossil fuel companies?

          • monckton

            I take it that you have no serious scientific point to make. And I note your contempt for the sick people who have been helped (at great cost to me) by the medication I am researching.

            And what evidence do you have that I am “paid by the fossil-fuel boys”? Or that I have ever been paid by any of them? None.

            Besides, my arguments, unlike those of the climate Communists, are set out in detail, with references, where anyone can verify them. That is how science is done. And my research shows, definitively, that the rate of global warming predicted by the IPCC in 1990 has not come to pass; is not coming to pass; and will not come to pass. So, if you are unable to make any scientific points, don’t waste your time here.

          • jmac

            To answer the same question again. Serious scientific comments are made in serious scientific journals. What is sad is that you call others “climate-Communists” but then have the audacity to publish in a journal in a Communist country.

            As for evidence you are a paid shill for the fossil fuel boys;

            Moncktons Rap Sheet: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • Robert

            The bunkum videos need to be posted after every ‘monckton’ post!

          • monckton

            Ah, so you are entirely incapable of producing a single scientific argument that stands up, so you recycle old internet trash as though that were going to advance your argument. Must try harder.

            Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm at anything like the predicted rate; there has been no landfalling Atlantic hurricane of Cat 3 or more in a decade, the longest hurricane drought in recorded history; global sea-ice shows little change either in extent or in trend; hurricanes, tropical cyclones and typhoons are neither more numerous nor more intense nor longer in duration than for the past 150 years; the area of the globe under drought has been falling for 30 years; sea level is barely rising, and can only be made to rise by an entirely artificial glacial isostatic adjustment; in any event the sea-level satellites show less sea-level rise than the intercalibration errors between them, which means there is no statistically-significant rise at all; and it would in any event be 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to it the day after tomorrow, even if predicted warming had occurred, which it hasn’t. Like, get with the picture, man: it’s not a picture of apocalypse, now, is it?

          • jmac

            Who would want to waste time listening to you about science?

            Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

            The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.” Maybe some of you physicians out there can help me interpret this, but it looks to me like Monckton is claiming that his Wonder Cure will 1) wipe out any virus without harming the patient, and 2) cure auto-immune disorders that may (or may not) have initially been triggered by a viral infection. It is unclear to me whether bacterial infections are supposed to be affected since, for instance, food poisoning could be caused by either. [UPDATE: Monckton apparently is saying the miracle cure should be effective against both viral and bacterial infections, as well as prions.]

            https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            That is off topic. A civilized person, one who was not being paid to disrupt these threads, would wish us well with our research, for it has benefited many and, if we can prove it to publishable standard, could help millions more.

            Meanwhile, back at the topic of the head posting, there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months.

          • Robert

            Human trials?
            Could we get the info on the studies?

            “..have been helped (at great cost to me) by the medication I am researching.”

          • monckton

            Yes, you can get all the information, anonymized of course in accordance with the law: but only when we have concluded our researches and have proved (i.e. tested) the claims in the patents. If they prove out (some will, some won’t, as is usually the way with these things), the research will be published in a leading medical journal – indeed, one paper on an aspect of our research appeared in Nature some years ago, – and at that time you will be able to read the results of our research, and you will demand to know which paper, and you will be told, two or three times, and you will go on demanding to be told the reference.

            But your paid trolling, and your evident contempt for the sick people whose lives have been transformed by our approach, will not stop us from continuing our researches. Till those researches are concluded, we make no claims.

          • Robert

            Ah, so nothing substantive….
            What
            A
            Surprise. 😉

          • monckton

            1. The subject is off topic. 2. The law does not permit us to make claims: the most I have said is that we are researching a method of treating infectious diseases and have had some promising results. Beyond that I cannot and will not go until we have proved the patent and published. If you don’t like the law, don’t whine: work to change it. In the meantime, I’m abiding by it. Get over it, and get back on topic, and show a little more respect for the sick people we are trying to help.

          • Robert
          • Robert
          • monckton

            Bickmore is an unreliable source. We make no claims. Get back on topic.

            There has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months (RSS); 18 years 6 months (UAH); and 11 full years (the entire record: ARGO). The models and the IPCC did not predict that. And that is the central problem for the climate Communists, which is why they are trying so desperately to change the subject.

          • Robert

            Perhaps curently. “Make”
            But until you can refute the cited material in Bickmore, ‘made’ seems acurate.
            So maybe another example of the rhetoric you Ned do to suporting your assertions.

          • monckton

            Off topic. Asked and answered. Get over it ,

          • monckton

            Otiose repetition is the hallmark of the petty mind. Asked and answered.

            Meanwhile, the world is not warming anything like as fast as predicted. That’s the main point you now seem uncommonly anxious to shy away from.

          • Robert

            “predicted”
            Show us the ‘prediction’.

          • monckton

            Do’t be silly. Asked and answered. The prediction is clearly set out and explained, with all necessary references, in the head posting, as you have already been told. Grow up.

          • Robert

            Where in ipcc do they say predict?
            And then show that single number

            Quotes?
            Gone missing.

            Citation?
            Gone missing

            ” Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. ” D.Moynihan

          • monckton

            For at least the dozenth time, the IPCC’s word “predict”, together with the amount of warming predicted, from a direct citation, including the page number, is available if you will only read the head posting. You have made hundreds of comments here without having read it. That is the hallmark of the paid climate Communist. Never mind the truth: just make up any old garbage and pretend there’s a “consensus” in support of it. Well, read the head posting. Don’t be pathetic.

          • Robert

            Quote. And cite.
            Where does IPCC say “predict”
            Where does IPCC use a single number in a “prediction”?

            “..the paid climate Communist. “

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist halfwit should read the head posting, where all the references it requests are provided.

          • Robert

            “paid climate-Communist halfwit”

          • monckton

            I was too generous. Make that “paid climate-Communist lackwit”. Really, the scientific content of “Robert”‘s posts has hit a new low, even by the awful standards of the climate-Communist trolls who are paid to sneer at anyone who dares to question the Party Line. Go and learn some elementary math and science, and then actually read the head posting – or, rather, get someone to translate it into words of on syl-la-ble and read it to you. Then you might begin to understand the truth rather than hissing at it like a goose the day before Thanksgiving. And whatever you do, make sure you wear gloves when you go out, or you’ll bark your knuckles on the rough tarmac as you drag them along.

            The world has not warmed for 18 years 9 months. Get used to it.

          • Robert

            “…bark your knuckles on..”

          • Robert

            We note your “head posting ( perhaps that is where they are compiled?), refers to only one scenario and even there ipcc provides a range.
            Yet you insist on “predict” ( w ‘prediction’, used 50 times in your “head posting” ( is that where your numbers come from?)
            And a single number. WhatsUpWithThat level of science?

          • Robert

            “And my research shows, definitively..”
            Warming set to breach 1C threshold
            By Matt McGrath
            Environment correspondent, BBC News
            http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34763036

          • monckton

            The rate of warming predicted by the IPCC in 1990 was 1.0 [0,7, 1.5] Celsius from 1990 to 2025. From 1990 to the present, the warming has been 0.27 degrees.

            On the much-adjusted terrestrial tamperature records, there has been 0.8 degrees’ warming since 1950 (HadCRUT4), with 0.1 C from 1750-1850 (estimated from the Central England Temperature Record), making 0.9 degrees since 1750. It is the value since 1750 that McGrath is talking about: and, as far as I know, the BBC is not a peer-reviewed journal.

            Are you able to cite a single article in any journal that tries to maintain that there has been nearly 1 degree of warming since 1990? No, I thought not. You have mentioned McGrath and his reckoning since 1750 in the hope of fraudulently misleading readers. You have again failed. Now, produce a proper reference or abandon your assertion that I am wrong that the rate of global warming predicted by the iPCC in 1990 has not come to pass.

          • Robert

            Not a “the”. Not “predicted”.

            “The rate of warming predicted by the IPCC ..”
            And again, no citations…..

            What
            A
            Surprise

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. Otiose repetition is the hallmark of the small mind.

          • Robert

            Ipse dixitally “answered”.
            No quotes.
            No cites.
            No surprise.

          • Robert

            “And what evidence do you have that I am “paid ..”

            “…$150,000 a year by the ClimateWorks Foundation …”?https://disqus.com/home/discussion/epochtimes/public_misled_on_climate_impacts/#comment-2321269944
            “I’d forgotten to add its expenses of around $35,000 a year tax-free. ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/epochtimes/public_misled_on_climate_impacts/#comment-2321347678
            “OK, $155,000”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/epochtimes/public_misled_on_climate_impacts/#comment-2321333716

          • monckton

            That is off topic. That you are paid sums of that order is undeniable – unless, of course, you are willing to tell us who you are. But then, if you had made as much of a fool of yourself as you have, you would not wish anyone to know who you are (except, perhaps, your climate-Communist paymasters).

            My repeated assertions that you are paid, and handsomely, to disrupt these threads with silly, repetitive and often hate-filled comments are entirely credible, because who but a paid troll would want to waste his time trying to disrupt these threads. You are self-evidently incapable of maintaining a scientific discussion even at high-school level: why, then, try to mess about here? You convince no one: but you provide a handy punch-bag for me, because when you fail to make a scientific point, as you nearly always do, I can point out again that the world is not warming at anything like the rate predicted by the IPCC; all who are watching can see that you have entirely lost the argument but are plodding on with the same futile repetitions; and each time you continue, they realize that you are indeed paid, and handsomely, to try to discredit the unassailable facts in the head posting. The climate scare is over. Tough luck for you and your paymasters: hurrah for the rest of us.

          • jmac

            On the Michael Coren show, Monckton butchered the history of the DDT ban so badly that he claimed JFK did things after he was dead… among other things. http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/climate-change-and-ddt-moncktons-inconvenient-and-inaccurate-history/

          • monckton

            And what has DDT got to do with global warming? Oh, of course, silly me. It was the environmental socialists that had DDT effectively banned just at the point at which the malaria parasite had been all but wiped out. Annual deaths from malaria had fallen to 50,000, and rose to 1 million or thereby after the ban, and have stayed there ever since. Something like 50 million have been killed by that stupid ban, but the Left cannot admit its catastrophic mistake, based on Rachel Carson’s silly book, with its series of elementary errors.

            DDT should now be encouraged for use indoors, where the worst threat from malaria occurs. Out of doors it is less effective, and there is a risk that mosquitoes will acquire immunity to it if it is too widely deployed outdoors.

            The environmental socialists were wrong about DDT, and they are wrong about the climate. They are wrong about just about everything. But they will never admit it.

            But they are really, really upset with me for showing, month by month, just how wrong their predictions about global warming were. Which is why so many paid trolls have screeched and blubbered and jabbered here. Their incoherence and their evident lack of any scientific knowledge is an advertisement to everybody as much of the utter bankruptcy of the case as of the malevolence with which they pursue it.

          • jmac

            Just showing the folks some info about you LORD Monckton. There is lots more, but I have to quit for the day. Will be back tomorrow. :)

            Monckton represented himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the U.K. House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament.) When people started pointing out that he doesn’t appear on the official list of members, however, he started saying that he is a member “without a seat or vote.” When queried, the House of Lords responded that there is no such thing as a member without a seat or vote, and Lord Monckton had never been a member because he inherited his title (Viscount) in 2006, after all but 92 hereditary peers had been barred from membership in the House of Lords since 1999. When asked to respond about this misrepresentation by members of Congress, Monckton basically acknowledged that the British government doesn’t recognize him as a member of the House of Lords, but claimed that they’re wrong because his “Letters Patent” that granted his title to the family (and presumably mention membership in the House of Lords) had never been revoked by specific legislation. He said that the Lord President of the Council in the House of Lords had admitted that letters patent could only be annulled by specific legislation. However, Tim Lambert actually looked up what the Lord President of the Council said, and it turns out that she used the House of Lords Act 1999 as an example of legislation that altered the effect of Letters Patent. In other words, she said the exact opposite of Monckton’s claim. UPDATE: I should have mentioned that Monckton has also gone about using a logo that it quite similar to that of Parliament. Derek at Friends of Gin and Tonic sent an inquiry to the House of Lords Information Office about Monckton’s claim to be a member and his use of the logo, and they responded that, “The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.” UPDATED UPDATE: Leo Hickman at The Guardian followed up on this with the House of Lords, and found that it’s just possible Monckton could do prison time. We can only hope, but it appears that Monckton may be quietly backing down! In his latest post on the Watts Up With That? blog, Monckton has changed his logo to a gaudy coronet, rather than the gaudy coronet and pink portcullis. ANOTHER UPDATE: Monckton is still claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, and he has added the portcullis back into his logo (although with wavy chains instead of straight). Now the House has taken the step of publishing a “cease and desist” letter on their website. Full story by Leo Hickman in The Guardian. Here is a nice summary of the legal arguments that have been advanced.

            https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            Off topic again. Seems that you have abandoned the climate argument. I am a member of the House, without the right to sit or vote, and will continue to use my logo until Garter King of Arms says it is registered to someone else, and there is nothing the defalcating Clerk of the Parliaments can do about it.

          • Robert

            So, another admission you don’t have any evidence….

            “That you are paid sums of that order is undeniable – unless, of course, you are willing to tell us who you are.”

          • monckton

            Everyone knows you are paid. That is one of many reasons why you are unwilling to say who you are.

            Meanwhile, back on topic, the climate scare continues to collapse as global temperatures fail to rise at anything like even the least rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990.

          • Robert

            Hmmm, better tell the IRS …
            And my bank
            And explain why I ride a bike to go to the market instead of driving a Tesla.

          • monckton

            No point in trying to conceal how well your climate-Communist paymasters rewarded you, until recently, for your loyalty to their pathetic cause. But they’ve no doubt noticed the remarkably low quality of your responses here.

            Only 0.5 degrees’ global warming is expected by 2100, using mainstream considerations. That’s not a cause worth any climate-Communist money. So they must have other, ulterior motives. And so – if your claim that are not paid is any less mendacious than anything else you claim – must you.

          • Robert

            “No point in trying to conceal how well your climate-Communist paymasters rewarded you…”

          • Robert

            Might want to run that sentence by your tutor….

            “And so – if your claim that are not paid is any less mendacious than anything else you claim – must you.”

          • monckton

            Robert is no doubt as unfamiliar with the classical device known to students of ancient Greek as the parenthetical gar clause. The sentence to which with characteristic ignorance he objects is a fine instance of such a clause.

          • Robert

            Yup. I don’t speak no greek…

            Interesting, though how T. Jefferson, A.Lincoln, W. Churchill, etc were able to use classical rhetorical techniques in sentences that the average reader could understand.

          • monckton

            The average reader can understand me just fine. But a climate-Communist troll cowering terrified behind anonymity is paid not to understand. That is why he has not even read the head posting yet, or he would not keep on and on demanding references that are already there in black and white, and occasionally even in color.

          • Robert

            More conspiracy…” a climate-Communist…paid not to understand…”

          • Robert

            And in a jump the shark effort we get conspiracy theory mission creep…..

            “That’s not a cause worth any climate-Communist money. So they must have other, ulterior motives. “

          • monckton

            Well. why is it worth anyone’s while to worry about just 0.5 degrees’ warming by 2100? That is all that mainstream science would lead us to expect, on a business-almost-as-usual scenario. And even 0.5 degrees is probably an exaggeration. Have a look, for instance, at the Lorentzian and Voigt line-shape equations used in the models. They’ve borrowed these equations from real physics, not realizing that the equations are approximations that assume instantaneity in the excitation-deexcitation collisions between photons and CO2 molecules in the principal absorption bands, particularly at the far wings where most of the forcing occurs, leading to an overstatement of the CO2 forcing and hence of climate sensitivity on all timescales by 40%. That takes us down to 0.3 degrees’ warming spread over the next four generations.

            And what if Professor Ray Bates, an expert on feedbacks in the climate, is right in his recent Moscow talk, in which he says feedbacks must be net-negative, giving a maximum equilibrium climate sensitivity of 0.4 degrees? Or Dr David Evans’ reaching precisely the same result by a different but related method? Or Lindzen and Choi (2009, 2011), who found climate sensitivity below 0.7 degrees? Or Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) ditto? In general, there is a massive movement in the journals towards far lower climate sensitivity. Even the IPCC is beginning to recognize this.

            So, given how uncertain it has now become that our influence on the climate is or ever could lead to dangerous or significant warming, why are the climate-Communists so insistent on using it as a half-baked excuse for more totalitarianism and less democracy? The Left are going to be ever more severely damaged in their credibility as the rate of global warming continues greatly to undershoot the IPCC’s predictions,.

          • Robert

            Prof . Irwin Corey does a better parody …..

          • Robert

            Almost a citation!

            “recent Moscow talk”

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish. I’ve already told you that all you have to do is contact Professor Bates and ask for a summary of his talk. Now, why do you go on and on asking for references when they’ve already been given to you. Get off your wobbly bottom and contact the Professor. But there’d be no point: you have an insufficient education in the physics of dynamical systems to understand a word he’s saying.

          • Robert

            “No point in trying to conceal how well your climate-Communist paymasters rewarded you,”

          • Robert

            Yeah, I had noticed the BBC, Guardian, NYTimes, NPR, have all stopped writing about ACC…

            Must leave a bunch of journalists at Fox,Drudge, Blaze, Breightbart, wuwt, climdepq, etc unemployed…

            “climate scare continues to collapse “

          • monckton

            The dead horse Global Warming is indeed being flogged in the Marxstream media: but since when did they constitute peer-reviewed science? Where are your scientific references in refutation of the head posting? Or of the other points I have made to you here? BBC? Guardian? You cite these numbskulls as though they were authorities?

          • Robert

            Nice; palinesque.. ish

            “Marxstream media: “

          • Robert

            I’d say the “numbskulls” seem to pretty consistently cite sources .
            Unlike the resident namecaller….

          • monckton

            Robert is indeed lamentably unable to cite any sources for his opinions when asked to do so. Fortunately, the large number of references in the head posting, demonstrating each stage of the argument meticulously, make up for his scandalously unscientific failure to back up his viewpoint with references. And he is indeed justifiable in describing himself as the “resident namecaller”. After all, it is so safe, isn’t it, to cower behind a coward’s security blanket of anonymity and sneer at his betters.

            Well, there are many advantages to Robert’s high-school silliness – and what can one expect from an overpaid 18-year-old climate-communist troll, starry-eyed in his uncritical belief in the Party Line and entirely unwilling and unable to consider any evidence to the contrary, however well-referenced that evidence may be. One advantage is that those who read these threads are commenting to me that they now understand my frustration at the level of robotic stupidity to which the hard, Communist Left has reduced the majority of its faithful followers. They are astonished at the small clutch of paid trolls continuing to make the same silly, unreferenced, trivial, futile, ignorant points over and over and over again. And they are learning – even those who might otherwise have doubted whether the skeptics were right and the climate-Communists wrong – that they need doubt no longer. The climate Communists, as evidenced by their lamentable performance on these threads, are self-evidently wrong about just about everything.

            The other priceless advantage is that Marc Morano, our distinguished host here, is paid in accordance with the number of hits his site attracts, and is paid still more in accordance with the number of comments it attracts. The trolls, by writing their hundreds of driveling comments here, are bankrolling ClimateDepot. That is one of the reasons why, when I am ill as I am at present, I am prepared to take the time patiently to answer the trolls’ absurdities. Of course, if they make sensible scientific points and do so without the usual sneering and invective that is a hallmark of those who are of the Devil, I am happy to provide straightforward answers. But if they mess me around, I bite back. And every time any of us presses the “Post” button, Marc Morano makes another few dollars to keep the truth circulating.

          • Robert

            More mocktonian Ipse dixit trickery.

            Thanks for the continuing use of insulting, obfuscation, rhetoric, and unsupported asertions.

            “Robert is indeed lamentably unable to cite any sources for his opinions when asked to do so. “

          • monckton

            Well, where are the scientific sources that say the world has warmed at least as fast as the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990, and why do you think those sources are right? Because of their “authority”? The scientific approach is built on questioning the “authority” of the “consensus”, not in head-banging and unthinking deference to it.

          • Robert

            You are the one making claims that fly in the face of virtually every paper, report, policy statement by major scientific organizations; that makes it your responsibility to support your claims.

            , “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” C. Sagan

          • monckton

            I see you are unable to cite a single source. You merely hand-wave about “policy statements by major scientific organizations”. But it is not the job of scientific organizations to make policy statements. And how many of those policy statements have been peer reviewed? Nary a one, I’ll warrant. So you are unable to support with peer-reviewed evidence your foolish claim that the rate of global warming has exceeded, rather than fallen well short of, the IPCC’s prediction in 1990.

            You have childishly quibbled over the word “predict”, though that – if you had bothered to read the head posting – is the word the IPCC itself used in 1990. You have demanded references, over and over again, but they are all in the head posting, and you refuse to give references for your own climate-Communist crackpot theories, other than “major scientific organizations”.

            Since you are making extraordinary claims that the data do not show what they obviously do show, you must produce some evidence. You have failed and failed and failed again to do so. And you have failed and failed and failed again to provide proper evidence of your own on request. Not exactly grown-up conduct, is it? One realizes that you are still a teenager, and one makes some allowances, but you are very well paid by your climate-Communist masters to disrupt these threads, and one would have thought you would have become more competent at it. Anyway, as i have said, your stupidity is making lots of money for Marc Morano: the comment-count has just crossed one of the advertising trigger-points for thousands of dollars in extra revenue. I won’t tell you where the next break-point is, but it’s not far a way, and if this thread makes it, Marc makes not thousands but tens of thousands. So keep at it – though it would be helpful if you would be a little less teenagerish and a little more adult in your replies.

          • Robert

            Where? Quote and cite.

            ” So you are unable to support with peer-reviewed evidence your foolish claim that the rate of global warming has exceeded…”

          • Robert

            With less than 1k of comments that are hosted on another site, …
            “your stupidity is making lots of money for Marc Morano: the comment-count has just crossed one of the advertising trigger-points for thousands of dollars in extra revenue. ”

            Another site that oft crows about hits: wuwt.

          • monckton

            Well, WUWT has had a quarter of a billion hits in its few years of existence. Maybe there are some climate-Communist sites to match that, but I do not know of any.

            But that is off topic. The topic is the absence of the predicted catastrophic manmade warming for 18 years 9 months. You have no answer to that scientific fact.

          • Robert

            Hmmm, let’s see. A namecalling, blotivating, blogger. Or every major scientific organization, 97% of the papers, a long history of published research,
            .
            I don’t need to argue the science, it is enough to show the idiocy of your claims:

            monckton, “No. I’m paid $2,155,000 a year, plus expenses, by a group of governments tired of the hard-Left propaganda of the climate Communists. I’m worth much more, of course, but one must do one’s duty to the truth, however little one is paid.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2351081300

            monckton, “Only 0.5 degrees’ global warming is expected by 2100, using mainstream considerations. That’s not a cause worth any climate-Communist money. So they must have other, ulterior motives. And so – if your claim that are not paid is any less mendacious than anything else you claim – must you.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2350818365

            ..monckton, “You take money from a climate-Communist advocacy group to disrupt these threads with your hate-speech. You were paid $122,000 last year alone to do this. ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2349919377

            “Environmentalist Socialism killed 50 million with the hideously msiconceived ban on DDT”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2351630909

            “You are paid $155,000 a year, plus expenses.” “Holy Books of IPeCaC ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2351100136

            “Yes, yes, we know your climate-Communist paymasters have asked you to babble ignorantly about Exxon Mobil, but that case is going to be deeply damaging to the hard Left, for Exxon will simply reverse its present knock-kneed chief executive’s kowtowing to the Party Line and come out fighting, on the climate science, and on whether it is “certain”.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2351842325

            Robert monckton a day ago
            “Environmentalist Socialism killed 50 million with the hideously msiconceived ban on DDT”
            1 Edit View in discussion
            Robert
            Robert monckton a day ago
            “paid climate-Communist trolls”
            “climate-communist trolls paid to disrupt these threads”
            1 Edit View in discussion
            Robert
            Robert monckton a day ago
            “paid climate-Communist trolls”
            1 Edit View in discussion
            Robert
            Robert monckton a day ago
            “climate-Communist technique ”
            “Never mind: we rapidly approach the trigger-point at which Climate Depot makes tens of thousands of dollars because the comments have been so numerous. ”
            “climate-Communist advocacy groups pay you to be futile..”
            “global warming has not at any point happened at the predicted rate..”

            “You have no answer to that scientific fact.”

          • monckton

            The scientific fact is that there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months.

          • Robert
          • monckton

            Linking to climate-Communist news sources does not impress.

          • Robert

            Some tools to use when analysing the op above

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?

            Accuracy

            Are there statements you know to be false?
            Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
            Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
            What citations or references support the author’s claims?
            What do other people have to say about the topic?

            Purpose

            Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
            Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
            Are alternative points of view presented?
            Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
            Does the author use strong or emotional language?

            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School
            https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. Don’t be childishly repetitive. Linking to climate-Communist news sources and rent-seeking bureaucracies rather than to the data and to the learned journals is the action of a paid climate-Communist, not a seeker after truth.

          • Robert

            FIRST Assement Report (FAR)

            See http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html for a rather more complete representation of the science. As well as some denialist predictions.

            “- is the word the IPCC itself used in 1990”

          • monckton

            Is the paid climate-Communist website “skeptical” “science” peer reviewed? No. The IPCC predicted in 1990 what the head posting said it had predicted. It used the words “We predict”. It made its predictions on the basis of what it called “substantial confidence” that its models had captured all the major features of the climate. It was wrong. Its predictions were exaggerations – on all datasets the actual rate of warming in the quarter-century since 1990 is below the least estimate made by the IPCC in that year.

            The way real science works, if predictions are made and they fail, it is not scientific to try to pretend they did not fail, or that no predictions were made.

          • Robert

            Yup, you’ve shown us that the science has been getting better in each Assessment report. 25 years of progress,while you have to use rhetoric in your eforts to make your point.

          • monckton

            The predictions have been reduced, but so has the observed warming rate. The discrepancy between prediction and reality remains enormous.

          • Robert

            “..high-school silliness – and what can one expect from an overpaid 18-year-old climate-communist troll, starry-eyed in his uncritical belief in the Party Line ..”

          • Robert

            So, a human trial – with one subject -for your cure?
            “That is one of the reasons why, when I am ill as I am at present, I am prepared to take the time patiently to answer the trolls’ absurdities. “

          • monckton

            Off topic and characteristically malevolent. I am not suffering from an infection, so my treatment for infections would not be a sensible treatment in the circumstances, now, would it? Don’t be childish.

            Global warming has not happened as predicted. Deal with it.

          • Robert

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

            bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            One does not deal with the failure of global warming to occur at anything like the predicted rate by linking to external climate-Communist websites one of which is run by a crook and the other by a lunatic. Are these your “peer-reviewed sources”? Not surprising your brain seems to have been lobotomized, if these are your trusted “authorities”. Must try harder.

          • Robert

            Pennies or maybe parts of one… if one is on the climdep site

            “And every time any of us presses the “Post” button, Marc Morano makes another few dollars to keep the truth circulating.”

          • monckton

            Dollars, not pennies. Keep on with the futile comments. They’re a great financial help.

          • Robert

            Recommend
            Hey, just noticed this! My CRAAP post is on top!

            Sort by Best

            Join the discussion…
            Attach
            Post as Robert

            Avatar
            Robert
            2 days ago
            Some tools to use when analysing the op above

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

          • Robert

            So M.M. is paying you?1
            “They’re a great financial help.”

          • monckton

            No. I’m paid $2,155,000 a year, plus expenses, by a group of governments tired of the hard-Left propaganda of the climate Communists. I’m worth much more, of course, but one must do one’s duty to the truth, however little one is paid.

          • Robert

            Thanks! Posting that as a new thread!

          • Robert

            Hmmm, a nice round 2 attached to what you claim I’m paid….

            Oh, wait. Does that include expenses? According to you, I get 35K.

            Oh, wait. Again. Is that b4 or after the recent Canadian election?

          • monckton

            Oops! That was a mistake. I’m paid £20,155,000 a year by the Interplanetary High Council. Plus warp-drive supplement.

          • Robert

            Ahh, more Ipse dixit… thanks.

            “..commenting to me that they now understand my frustration at the level of robotic stupidity to which the hard, Communist Left …”

          • Robert

            “overpaid 18-year-old climate-communist troll”

          • Robert
          • monckton

            Well, it’s more solid than your evidence that you’re not paid $155,000 a year plus expenses to argue dishonestly and fraudulently against your betters on matters of which you plainly know nothing except the Party Line. I suggest that you complete high school before making any more attempts to intervene in matters where you are so gluggingly out of your depth.

            The head posting is really quite simple, if only you will find the time to read it. There has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. That is the inconvenient truth. There is no, repeat no, basis for alarm about our influence on the climate. The rate of warming in the quarter-century since 1990 is little more than a third of the IPCC’s then central estimate. And there are very good scientific reasons, in the laws of physics and in the models’ errors, why we should not expect to see much in the way of global warming over the remainder of this century – if ever. This is a dead scare, scientifically speaking.

          • Robert

            Maybe, if you post the missing citations and some documentation of your cures, I’ll post a scan of my IRS returns

            “…more solid than your…”

          • monckton

            As you well know, every fact in the head posting is nailed down with a reference to the data. And I have already explained that my medical research is off topic and that no claims will be made unless and until the research is successfully concluded.

          • Robert

            Ipse dixit.
            Thanks!

          • Robert

            So, trust you? O trust the ipcc and the major scientific organizations who agree wi