Mother Nature Humiliates The IPCC

The IPCC says that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, because they they are a bunch of spectacularly incompetent buffoons.

MANALI: With high-altitude mountains in Himachal Pradesh experiencing up to 100 cm fresh snowfall in November month after 10 years, the abundance of snow on mountains has rejuvenated nearly one thousand glaciers and has ensured uninterrupted supply of water for drinking, irrigation and hydel projects.

Even after years of research on glaciers and climate of Himalayas, scientists have failed to learn the pattern of the weather here. While scanty snowfall and rising temperature in last decade had sparked the possibilities of fast shrinking of glaciers, good spells of snowfall in last three years have changed the trend with glaciers almost growing to their original size

Good snowfall gives new life to glaciers – Times Of India

About Tony Heller

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

151 Responses to Mother Nature Humiliates The IPCC

  1. mike sugar says:

    Are you sure about “up to 1m of snow” being a life saver? I am as anti-warmist climate taliban drivel as you are, but I think that you are over-stating the significance of what is roughly 1″ of rain in a month. Presumably there are more stats behind your conclusion than you included within this post.

  2. Glacierman says:

    How nice of Mother Nature to give Reality a break……..from humiliating the IPCC.

  3. gator69 says:

    “And Gaia’s anger was kindled against the IPCC, and she made them blunder in their science for forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of Gaia, was consumed.

  4. Sundance says:

    Seems like time for another hockey team meeting to somehow spin this as the models predicted more snow.

  5. As a sceptic I dug into research papers on glacier melt. The data is noisy, very limited, and changes radically from year to year. E.g., massive loss switches to massive gain within a few years of each other. It is a cherry pickers delight, so I basically now just ignore ‘evidence’ of anything coming from that direction. Extrapolating from that mess of data is an exercise in futility.

  6. Billy Liar says:

    They had a long drought. It’s ended.

  7. omnologos says:

    IPCC AR5: “As we told you all along, global warming will make Indian glaciers grow fast. Millions are at risk in Bangladesh should the glaciers reach the sea”

  8. Drewski says:

    What is happening with the other 93% of Himalayan glaciers? It appears you left out some important information from your cut and paste above. Simple oversight or personal dogma?

    From your article:
    The Himalayas comprise about 15,000, glaciers which include more than 1,000 glaciers in Himachal and they store around 12,000 cubic kilometres of fresh water.

    “Global warming is a contentious issue but IT’S A REALITY,” said J C Kuniyal, senior scientist with GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, who is studying the behaviour of Himalayan environment for many years. “It’s good that our RECEDING glaciers are receiving good amount of snow. . . .,” he said.

    According to Kuniyal, changing pattern of weather, which is causing extreme weather conditions and shifting of the seasons, is a matter of concern. “Snowfall is good but heavy snowfall in lower and new areas and scanty snowfall on higher areas is sign of global warming. . . .”

    The 11-km-long Bara Shigri is the largest glacier in Himachal, but is SHRINKING VERY FAST. The Dhaka glacier in Chandrabhaga mountain ranges is also losing its length, width and height. This was proved beyond doubt when wreckage of an AN-12 aircraft which remained beneath the glacier since 1968 recently surfaced due to melting of snow.

    • Well, you managed to name 2 out of 15,000 that are shrinking. What’s going on in the other 99.987% of the glaciers?

      • Drewski says:

        Well, according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service 90% of the world’s glaciers are shrinking:

        A phenomenon which will soon cause us to rename Glacier National Park.

        Not to worry though, only half the world depends on glaciers for drinking water.

      • Strictly speaking 99.987% of the world’s glaciers have most likely been shrinking (on average) since the last ice age. What, you just noticed?

      • Drewski says:

        Really? I would like to see the reference for that gem.

      • I took a cruise through Milford Sound last year and I was hundreds of meters below these mountain ranges which during the last ice age were carved out of glacial ice. Where do you think it went? Did it just all disappear in the last 50 years?

        I get the impression that unless you’ve extracted a sound bite from a peer reviewed journal article, you’re not inclined to believe that the world around you is real. 😉

      • Drewski says:

        Will, this may help you.

        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 describes areas affected by the LIA:

        “Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, NOT A GLOBALLY-SYNCHRONOUS INCREASED GLACIATION. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries… [Viewed] hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age” can only be considered as a MODEST COOLING of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels”

        The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2007 discusses more recent research, giving particular attention to the Medieval Warm Period.

        It states that “when viewed together, the currently available reconstructions indicate generally greater variability in centennial time scale trends over the last 1 kyr than was apparent in the TAR.” Considering confidence limits, “The result is a picture of relatively cool conditions in the 17th and early 19th centuries and warmth in the 11th and early 15th centuries, BUT THE WARMEST CONDITIONS ARE APPARENT IN THE 20TH CENTURY”.

      • I’ve read all this drivel before. Are you reading a partisan summary/interpretation or looked at the actual data sets and papers?

        The point I made originally is we have almost no good data on rates of glacier melt. We only have data on a small number of glaciers that have been monitored over time. Over short periods of time, glaciers can rapidly gain or loose mass. You can extrapolate any story you want out of that mess.

        Eco-worriers love this topic because you can spin this into a doomsday scenario. Occasionally, of course, I come across Coolies who believe that rapid increases in glacier mass somewhere else “proves” the coming ice age. Both sides are being fools.

      • Drewski says:


        No reason given as to why it is drivel and no references provided for your own argument. Only your word in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

        Spoken like a true sCeptic.

      • Well, according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service 90% of the world’s glaciers are shrinking:

        90%? That number, if you bothered to read their actual paper(s), is 27. 27 Glaciers are losing ice mass.

        A phenomenon which will soon cause us to rename Glacier National Park.

        On what date is the renaming supposed to take effect? I haven’t seen a bill before Congress yet, but do let us know.

        Not to worry though, only half the world depends on glaciers for drinking water.

        How many unmelted glaciers does this half of the world drink per year?

      • Here you go Drewy:

        Well researched investigative journalism, with thousands of citations and cross-references that you can check yourself.

        The only thing dumber than an eco-worrier is a young earth creationist. (But only just.)

      • Drewski says:

        Reading is a comprehension skill — I suggest you take a good look at the mass balance figures on this page from the same site (plus the graphs are very educational):

        Glacier National Park: a quote from that radical association, the US Geological Survey: “Park’s glaciers expected to disappear by 2030”.

        Delusion is the heroin of sCeptics.

      • By 1879 naturist John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth.

      • Stark,
        Reading is a comprehension skill — I suggest you take a good look at the mass balance figures on this page from the same site (plus the graphs are very educational):

        Haha, did you read it? Oh, man, you’re not very good, are you?

    • Justa Joe says:

      According to Kuniyal, changing pattern of weather, which is causing extreme weather conditions and shifting of the seasons, is a matter of concern.”

      I seriously doubt that the patterns of weather are changing. Anything that Kuniyal may have observed has happened a thousand times previously.

      • Drewski says:

        Of course weather is constantly changing — no one disputes that. The question is what are the drivers to this changing weather. EVERY scientific body in the entire world and 97% of the publishing climate scientists plus scores of organizations ranging from the US Navy to the Vatican to Price Waterhouse Coopers to the World Bank to even Exxon, Shell and BP believe that man has become the dominant driver of this change over the past 150 years.

        And then on the other side of the isle you have an electrical engineer (who uses an alias) and his faithful followers. You guys give true meaning to the word “drivel”.

    • 97% of the publishing climate scientists

      Do you have a legitimate source for that statement?

    • brett says:

      if global warming has been occuring at a steady rate since the industrial revolution how did that airplane wreckage ever get buried under all that ice and snow in the first place.

  9. “Drewski”

    I wasn’t aware that the IPCC was in anyway peer-reviewd. Do tell.

    • Drewski says:

      I ALWAYS either post with references or will supply them, if asked. That is why I am not a sCeptic.

      A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

      Several subsequent studies confirm that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

      PLUS there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

  10. Guys! They’re monitoring 30 glaciers! Since 1976 27 of them have melted, but all of them are still here. Drewski says that’s important.

    • It’s worse than that… check how long those 30 glaciers have been monitored for. It’s a bit of a joke.

    • Drewski says:

      A survey of 160,000 mountain glaciers — WOW!!! — and ice caps in all glaciated regions of the world (1) shows that the volume of the world’s glaciers is declining, and the rate of ice loss continues to accelerate. There has been a significant decrease in the area and volume of mountain glaciers, especially at mid- and low-latitudes.


      Meier,M. 1998: “Land Ice on Earth: A Beginning of a Global Synthesis”. The Langbein Lecture presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting (held in Boston on May 26 to May 29) (for more information, email Mark Meier at the Colorado State University, or visit the US Global Change Research Program seminar series)
      Mosley-Thompson, E. 1997. Latest evidence of global warming presented to American Assoc. of Geographers. Statement from Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University.
      Ruddell, a. 1996. Recent glacier and climate change in the New Zealand Alps. Paper to Symp. Climate Trends in Oceania since 1500, Auckland (NIWA Rept No. AK96027).
      Chinn, T.J. 1996. New Zealand glacier responses to climate change of the past century. New Zealand J. Geology & Geophysics, 39, 415-28.
      Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg & K. Maskell (eds) 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution from the Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge Univ. Press) 572pp.
      Molnia, B.F. 1995. A post-Holocene history of Bering Glacier, Alaska: a prelude to the 1993-1994 surge. Physical Geog., 16, 87-117.

      I grant you these references are not nearly as compelling as Will and stark’s opinions or Steve’s single cherry picked citation, but then again 160,000 is not 30.

      • For example, in one paper you cite the actual factual content says:

        “An investigation of 127 glaciers of the New Zealand Southern Alps shows the losses that have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age.”

        Which is exactly the point I originally made, and exactly not supportive of the claim you just made. Did you read any of these papers or did you just pull them randomly off google scholar?

      • tckev says:

        No warming for 16 years and CO2 is still rising.
        There is no link?

    • “A survey of 160,000 mountain glaciers — WOW!!!”

      Please provide the actual link to support your 160,000 mountain glaciers [having been studied] claim. I didn’t realise there were millions of scientists all measuring and monitoring so many glaciers… 😉

      All you’ve done is dump a random selection of links to papers on glaciers here, which unless you are more specific, are worthless.

      • Drewski says:

        We have this thar things called satellites and statistical analysis. Fancy stuff them scientificy people use to bamboozle us.

        Note that this was written in 1999 — guess what has been happening to the world’s glaciers since then? Pick any one of the references provided and look at how they compile their studies — very thorough and scientificy.

      • You’ve made very specific claims but now you’re getting vaguer and vaguer when you’re asked to defend them. Writing WOW in capital letters as “proof” of whatever weird shit you believe in, isn’t actually proof of anything, numbnuts. 😉

  11. Since my prior post got stuck in moderation, I’ll repost here with a few additions:

    Drewy can google “the delinquent Teenager”

    Well researched investigative journalism, with thousands of citations and cross-references that anyone can fact check themselves. (Something he will never do.) A good indication of the level of garbage found in IPCC reports. (Actually, not all of the IPCC reports are bad. Most of the claims are fine. But of course we’re interested in the veracity of the alarmist ones and their quality.)

    The only thing dumber than an eco-worrier is a young earth creationist. (But only just.)

    • Yes, but the IPCC is an avocacy organization. It doesn’t perform any science, it merely picks certain writings (much of it being unscientific) & writes a summary. Why someone would be stupid enough to quote it as authoritative is beyond me.

      • Drewski says:

        Have you ever stopped to think how difficult it is to get a consensus of 194 different nations, especially when the consensus requires them to spend money? If anything, that should give the IPCC more credence.

        However, the IPCC is only one of the scores of scientific organizations that endorses the theory of man-made climate change. sCeptics prefer the credibility of non-scientists such as Goddard, O’sullivan, Monckton, Watts, Morano, or the creationist scientists (oxymoron there) like Singer, Michaels and Pielke or the wacko scientists like Clarke (no warming at all since 1950).

        Why is it that there are no reputable scientific organizations anywhere in the world — I repeat, anywhere — that disagree with the IPCC’s premise that man is currently the prominent driver of climate? Could it be that the science is too overwhelming?

      • “Have you ever stopped to think how difficult it is to get a consensus of 194 different nations, especially when the consensus requires them to spend money?”

        Actually it’s basically automatic. For example, if you’re a member of the InterAcademy Council (IAC) and one of the group produces a report it basically gets rubber stamped by all members.

        It’s also extremely easy to get 194 nations to agree if 2-3 of those members, e.g., some European countries and the US, are expected to transfer wealth to the other 180 or so. It’s called politics.

      • Drewski says:

        There you go again Will — dazzling me with your un-referenced opinions. Got any good global conspiracy theories we can ruminate on?

      • Nothing you’ve said has any bearing on the fact that the IPCC is an advocacy organization that uses student & other non-scientific literature to form its summaries.

      • Drewsky, the fact that your grossly ignorant and know nothing about how scientific associations work among themselves or their administrative processes, is not my problem. You can easily google all this stuff though. Start by read up on the content of the InterAcademy Council and NAS (that’s the National Academy of Sciences in case you don’t know what those initials mean). All this info is available for examination on their websites.

        What I’m politely pointing out is that if you’re as dumb as dogshit that’s not my problem.

  12. “A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.”

    Also google “1100 sceptical papers” for 1100+ peer reviewed scientific papers supportive of the sceptical position on climate change. Apparently, in eco-worrier world, none of this vast amount of science research even exists…

    • Drewski says:

      I have looked closely at those papers many times — its a sCeptic fall back — and more than half are completely ambivalent in regards to climate or have nothing at all to do with climate or are not even peer-reviewed, most papers are more than 2 decades old and the rest are all published by E&E (Energy and Environment) which is not even considered a scientific journal.

      But hey, I have an open mind. Why don’t you see if you can find me 2 or 3 out of those many hundreds that are (1) published in a reputable scientific journal within the past decade. (2) were actually peer-reviewed and (3) provide counter evidence to the prevailing theory of AGW.

      I will give you as much time as you need. Happy hunting.

      • Drewky, you’re just an anonymous internet troll. You were making the claim that no scientific papers existed that questioned your belief system — you were then provided links to hundreds and hundreds of them. With a hand wave you dismiss them all, as if you’re some sort of ‘expert’ on everything. Nobody gives a rat’s arse on what *you* believe. But if you make statements of fact, then of course we can debunk them here.

      • tckev says:

        The global temperatures are not going up but CO2 levels are.
        But, of course, you have all the references at your fingertips but what do they prove? Certainly it can not be that CO2 causes any climate effects.

      • Poptech says:

        Drewski, I apologize for allowing you to spend 2 years without receiving a proper education but all of your misinformation is corrected in the Rebuttals to Criticism section of the list,

        Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.

        Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.

        Criticism: Papers on the list are outdated.

        Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius’s 1896 paper “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground” and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list.

        Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.

        Rebuttal: The IPCC cited peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1200 papers from 350 other journals on the list, including over 120 papers from Geophysical Research Letters.

        Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
        – The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 28 times
        – Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thomson Reuters (ISI)
        – Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
        – Thomson Reuters (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
        – Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
        – EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
        – “E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed” – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
        – “I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal.” – Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
        – “All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed” – Multi-Science Publishing
        – “Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed” – E&E Mission Statement

        Criticism: There are no papers on the list that argue against AGW.

        Rebuttal: There are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against AGW, such as: Legates and Davis (1997), Raschke (2001), Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), and Kramm and Dlugi (2011).

  13. Drewski says:

    Hey Will,
    How is that hunt going? I can sympathize — you spend hours and hours looking for a smoking gun — an actual peer-reviewed study — anything — and then you finally come to the realization that there just isn’t any actual scientific evidence that counters the enormous weight of scientific knowledge. Sure, there are plenty of home-made graphs and old newspaper articles that titillate you and give you some hope, but in the end, they are just so-much nothing. Until they are peer-reviewed in a reputable journal, they might as well be fairy dust. Perhaps Anthony Watt’s latest foray into the publishing world will yield something — when will that be reviewed btw?

    But don’t let me deter you from your search. Remember: Reputable journal, recent and peer-reviewed. Good luck

    • You remind me of the Black Knight from the Monty Python skit. You’ve had your arms and legs cut off and you’re hopping around on stumps, at which point you declare victory.

      • Drewski says:

        Given up already? And it was such a simple task. You only needed to find 3 studies out of 1100 that had some relevance.

        Come on Will — where is your “will” power?

      • Answer the half dozen theads left hanging without you responding and then we’ll continue the chat. Just so you understand how this works: If you type drivel, express opinions, etc. Well, nobody cares and nobody will respond. If you make an incorrect statement of fact, it may be corrected by someone here, if they bother. But that’s done for their entertainment, not for your education. True Believers are impervious to facts.

  14. Drewski says:

    Alright Will,
    How about one study? You told me there were 1100 for God’s sake. I will concede defeat if you can find me just 1 study. One — the smallest number there is.

    But it has to be recent, peer-reviewed and it actually has to provide compelling counter evidence to the prevailing AGW theory.

    BTW, the name of my High School Football team was the Black Knights. How did you know that?

    • So you’re going to pass judgement on which scientific research is “correct” and which is not, because anonymous internet trolls are smarter than published scientific researchers?

      Even the questions you now ask demonstrate that you are dickhead.

      • Drewski says:

        No Will,
        The peer-review process does that. The paper must state that, in fact, an increase in man-made greenhouse gasses and man-made land and ocean practices have no effect on warming the earth’s atmosphere. That is, of course, the AGW hypothesis. Your SINGLE (as in ONE) paper must provide compelling evidence that these human practices and/or gasses do not warm the atmosphere.


        BTW, what questions of yours did I not answer? Please re-post them and i will answer them ASAP. I will not, however, try to answer your opinions or ruminations — only questions.

      • Since I agree with you, that such a paper would indeed be stupid and would not be expected to appear in the peer reviewed literature, what is your point?

        You seem to be confused over strawman arguments. Sceptics accept the science but not the exaggeration. I’m a Luke Warmer, which means I fully accept that the physics of radiative forcing is perfectly sensible. However, you believe the world is about to end because of it (or some such), while on the other hand, from the evidence I can find, the small amount of warming that will occur is most likely to be beneficial to the planet. So let’s bring it on. 🙂

      • Drewski says:

        I am getting sleepy — are you going to take much longer or should I check in again tomorrow?

        Maybe Steve can help you — he has written thousands of articles, you know. But, remember, you can’t use any of those as your counter evidence (not peer-reviewed).

      • You’re not making sense now. Maybe you’re already asleep.

      • Drewski says:

        “Sceptics accept the science but not the exaggeration.” Good to hear.

        However, precisely where did I exaggerate? Every post was referenced by direct observation or peer-reviewed study (often multiple studies). Was it not you who argued against my posts with your “list” of 1100 counter veiling sceptic studies?

        The exaggeration, it appears, came only from you and Stark..

      • It’s cute how the eco-worriers start off trying to be all sciency and stuff. Then it rapidly degenerates into an inane drivel.

      • Drewski says:

        Even though you agree with me that a study disproving AGW theory is stupid, I am still somehow guilty of exaggeration and of not answering questions.

        However, you can’t provide an example of my exaggeration or a question that I didn’t, in fact, answer.

        And yet I am the dickhead who degenerates into inane drivel.

        Congratulations Will, you are the 2012 poster child for sCeptics.

      • Isn’t it past your bed time? Will you be able to concentrate in school tomorrow?

      • Drewski says:

        Laughing has a way of keeping you awake.

        Remember, for your official photo for sCeptics Calendar next week, the tie worn in the zipper.

  15. LLAP says:

    @Drewski: Read the article below, regarding the link between salt and high blood pressure. Then, apply it to the concept of AGW and the IPCC, especially in the context of the following quote from the article:

    “The researchers noted that most of the evidence pointed to the weakest of correlations between salt and blood pressure. Yet, the cause to reduce salt was taken up by government agencies with special speed.”

    Subsitute “CO2” for “salt” and I think you will understand what I am getting at.

    • Drewski says:

      OMG — are you kidding me? This is your argument against AGW?

      • LLAP says:

        @Drewski: It is simply putting it in context, and to show how advocates (and activists, esp. those connected with government) can hijack science, or ignore evidence that contradicts their mantra (like the IPCC).

        I suspect that you, like all other warmists I have ever dealth with, would not be convinced by anything. Many months ago, Kevin O’Neill was giving off about a post that Steve did about Antarctica. He chastized others here for not posting peer-reviewed research. He pulled “Steig et al” out as his trump card and when I posted peer-reviewd research that debunked it, all he could say was, “Am I supposed to be impressed?”. Any warmist I have ever dealt with who asked for peer-reviewed research always had an excuse as to why it wasn’t good enough.

      • miked1947 says:

        The best argument against CAGW is that you and yours are reporting weather variations as climate changes.
        Remember that “Climate” s the study of “LONG” term weather patterns. My definition of LONG would include periods longer than known weather patterns. For instance the PDO is on the order of 60+ years and the NAO is somewhere around 80 years.
        This thirty year BS is not even looking at one cycle of a known weather pattern, therefore is is not even representing natural weather, let alone regional climate in one small region of the globe.
        When they can come up with 800k years of weather patterns, then we can discuss what the climate is doing. Otherwise we are discussing this decade’s weather.
        Go back to the HEN HOUSE! The sky is not falling!

      • In a few posts above, our little anonymous internet troll friend wanted me to present him with any of 1100+ scientific papers, at which point he would explain why the paper was wrong or presumably why it didn’t assert what it actually asserted. Anonymous internet trolls are the smartest people on the planet, containing within their little brains, all the combined knowledge of all the researchers who wrote all of those 1100+ papers .

      • tckev says:

        CO2 levels keep rising, temperatures have not. End of CAGW.

      • LLAP says:

        CO2 is lagging global:
        1) sea surface temperature
        2) surface air temperature
        3) lower troposhpere temperature
        by a time scale of 9-12 months. So says the peer-reviewed research:

        If CO2 is lagging temperature, it cannot be driving it.

      • Drewski says:

        (1) Show me peer-reviewed research dealing with climate and I will read it.
        (2) If I believe it is not good enough, I will give you my reasons.
        (3) What evidence has the IPCC ignored?
        (4) What is the IPCC mantra?
        (5) Tying the science of a dietary salt intake to global warming theory was breath-takingly absurd.

      • Nobody cares about the opinions of anonymous trolls. Do you have any specific claims to make that we can debunk here as sceptics?

      • Drewski says:

        Please try and pay attention. My post was in response to LLAP.

        However, in response to your request for specific claims that you wish to debunk, try these on for size:
        (1) Man is razing 8.5 million hectares of tropical forest each year — a particularly effective carbon sink.
        (2) Total deforestation equals the size of one Cuba (109,000 sqkm) per year.
        (3) CO2, a trace atmospheric gas, accounts for between 9 to 23% of the total greenhouse effect.
        (4) Man-made emissions of CO2 has increased the overall amount in the atmosphere by 39% (and still rising).
        (5) Liquid fossil fuel (oil) is becoming increasing more difficult to find as well as more dangerous to extract — both physically and environmentally.
        (6) Mining and burning of coal contaminates ground water and the atmosphere with heavy metals.

        Let me know how you do with these and then I can give you some more, if you like.

      • Where to begin?

        Do you understand the relationship between (3) and (4)?

        Did you know my business is more profitable than Microsoft, because Microsoft grew by 5% and my company grew by 15%?

        Problem with numbers is if they are cited by idiots, they become meaningless. (Or more correctly, end up meaning what the idiot wanted to believe in the first place.)

      • Drewski says:

        Wow Will,
        I had no idea you were so “good” at debunking.

        Why don’t you tell me what the relationship is between 3 & 4? I mean, you did ask for claims to be debunked.

        In #3, I am claiming that a trace gas (CO2) contributes around 1/6 of the total greenhouse effect (BTW, this effect makes human civilization possible). And in #4, I am claiming that man has substantially increased the amount of this gas in the atmosphere (a gas that you have already agreed radiates heat).

        These are my claims. It is great that your company is doing really well, but i don’t quite get how that debunks my claims.

        Could you be a bit more — ummm — scientificy?

    • No temperature rise for 16 years. Hansen predicted exponential.

      • Drewski says:

        You really seem to have a textbook case of “Hansen-Obsessive Disorder” or HOD. Not healthy. After all Steve, he is just one guy.

        Many Psychiatrists say that when you let go of a fixation, your mental health will improve.

        Perhaps you could ween yourself off Hansen and have a go at a Bolivian Glaciologist or, perhaps, a Norwegian Marine Biologist for while. I am sure if you look, you will soon be able to a “warmist” scientist with only one PhD — easy pickings.

      • Me says:

        Yeah coolwhip you know allot about what them psychiatrists say, is it from personal experiences? 😆

  16. Me says:

    The Coolwhip Cowboy isn’t going to change his mind on what he believes no matter what you show him, Just ask gator69

  17. Andy DC says:

    The famous warmest trick, cite propaganda to prove propaganda.

    • Drewski says:

      Andy DC,
      What “propaganda” have I cited? Maybe you can help Will and prove one my 6 claims he above is propaganda..

      From my own reading of this blog I see three instances of propaganda.
      (1) Goddard failing to post elements of an article he used to headline this blog. Elements that would have run directly counter to his message.
      (2) Goddard posting a reference to single glacier in 1848 as an argument against the credibility of a multi-referenced study on 160,000 glaciers.
      (3) Will’s non-starting reference to a “list” of 1100 articles that he claimed would debunk AGW.

      Do you have any other examples of propaganda that I missed?

    • Andy DC says:

      Drewski, It is well known that the mantra of the AGW establishment is that “the science is settled” . Also well known that sceptics are systematically excluded from the process. Thus is it any wonder that “peer review” is simply cross pollination among like minded true believers?

      Mr. Goddard has showed ample evidence that the warmest establishment is increasingly warm biasing raw temperature data thru adjustments that make little sense in the real world. What do you have to say to refute what Steve has repeatedly documented on this site?

  18. LLAP says:

    @Drewski: “(1) Show me peer-reviewed research dealing with climate and I will read it.”

    That’s funny. You posted this right below my own post which had a link to peer-reviewed research. I guess you didn’t even bother to read it. What a surprise.

  19. Drewski says:

    LLAP Yes I read it.
    From historical ice core records,, CO2 lagged temperatures by a century to millinium time scale and this new research indicates that phenomenon has now been reduced to a matter of months. And as many studies have pointed out that that a majority of man-made CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and quoting your own study: “The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high”, then I don’s see your study being any smoking gun to AGW, however, I will admit you do have some water in your squirt gun.

    Anyway, I think you would agree that this was one study that deserved their grant money. Perhaps you would agree more grant money is indicated for another research team to re-evaluate this phenomenon, particularly as this recent research doesn’t appear to have been peer reviewed yet.

    As well, I found it interesting that your study also saw a high correlation between the HadCRUT3, GISS, NCDC, HadSST2 and UAH temperature data sets which would seem to seriously undermine Goddard’s repeated claim that any of these organizations are iplaying fast and loose with their own data. BTW, would you care to guess which direction all these data sets are trending?

  20. LLAP says:

    “BTW, would you care to guess which direction all these data sets are trending?”

    If you are referring to the last 10 years, I just did a quick check on “Wood For Trees”. Just about all the global data sets are flat to declining for the last 10 years. If CO2 is still going up, then what is causing the temp’s to decline/flat line?

    “this new research indicates that phenomenon has now been reduced to a matter of months”

    Which shows that CO2 is still lagging, so how can it be the main climate driver that proponents of AGW make it out to be?

    • Drewski says:

      What nonsense would that be Mr Afraid-to-Publish?

      • You will do anything to avoid discussing facts, and are caught up in a world of rhetorical bullshit.

      • Drewski says:

        The above comment was for Goddard.

        As for LLAP,
        “Which shows that CO2 is still lagging, so how can it be the main climate driver that proponents of AGW make it out to be?”

        Answer: Aerosols AND 10 years is too short a time period OR starting a trend line, as many sCepetics are wont to do, at the height of the largest El Nino for the past century, is a dishonesty greater than any that sCeptics accuse warmists of foisting.

        Any more questions?

        I have one for Steve. Why did you deliberately omit important aspects of the article that you headlined this post with? Accident or personal dogma?

      • Why do you deliberately ignore the fact that there has been no temperature increase for 16 years and that there has been no change in the rate of sea level rise for 100 years. Your pet theory is an unmitigated catastrophe – and you pretend that you don’t see it.

  21. Drewski says:

    Sorry LLAP,
    I cut and pasted the wrong question from you (in a rush). My earlier response — just above — was to this question:

    “If CO2 is still going up, then what is causing the temp’s to decline/flat line?”

    Steve, exactly what questions have I avoided? Please reread this blog and you will see that I have answered every pertinent question put to me (that is precisely why I am not a sCeptic). However, as for you — same old same old.

  22. LLAP says:

    @Drewsi: “as many sCepetics are wont to do, at the height of the largest El Nino for the past century, is a dishonesty greater than any that sCeptics accuse warmists of foisting.”

    I clearly mentioned 10 years, as you indicated in your post above. The El Nino you mention was 14 years ago (1998), which I am well aware of and I deliberately avoided. Despite this, you have the gall to accuse me of dishonesty. I’m done with you … good night.

  23. Drewski says:

    No sea level rise?!? Would love to see your peer-reviewed evidence for that gem. Beginning your trend line in the middle of the biggest El Nino? How very intellectually dishonest of you.

    When will you answer my questions/claims?

    Tick, tick, tick.

    • I wrote “there has been no change in the rate of sea level rise for 100 years” and you came back with “No sea level rise?!?” Are you completely daft?

      Your alarmism is due to the fact that you have no clue what is going on around you.

      • Drewski says:

        No Steve,
        You should take the time to actually comprehend what I wrote. To repeat “I would love to see peer-reviewed evidence for that pronouncement.”

        While i wait, you may find this an interesting read:

        BTW What “alarmism” are you talking about? Please be specific. if you review this blog, you will notice everything I post is referenced by actual scientific studies or by direct observation whereas everything you post appears to be referenced back to yourself.

        I guess that is the difference between an alamist and a sCeptic.

        When will you answer the questions put to you or when can I expect Andy to provide proof of my propaganda or when will Will prove my claims wrong?

        Tick, tick, tick.

    • suyts says:

      Drewski, Steve didn’t leave anything out other than the fact that the OCD alarmists can’t accept reality. Apparently yourself included.

      Recent studies of the Himalayan show nonexistent ice loss -4 gt +/-20gt per year. Links to the corresponding studies and press is here.

      • Drewski says:

        The top of the Himalayan are not melting as much as expected but, they are still melting (BTW higher levels are colder and therefore must warm to a greater degree before melting). However, at the lower levels — well, that is a whole other matter. Best you brush up on your reading before posting again — do some research (re’ surch).

        You guys are like whack-a-mole — every time I flatten you, up pops another sCeptic with the exact same argument that was flattened before. Are you all on some sort of experimental drug treatment plan where you lose your short-term memory?

      • suyts says:

        So, you are insisting that the reviewed paper referenced in my post is incorrect? -4gt at +/-20 gt means it isn’t melting they’re measuring 5 x’s smaller than the margin of error. You should brush up on your math skills before posting.

        Lol, flatten….. chalk up another alternate reality for the alarmists.

      • Drewski says:

        Oh God suyts,
        This is the actual study from which the hatchet-job article you referenced is based. No ice loss?!? The author of that article really needed a tall ladder for his cherry-picking.

        Note that it talks about ice loss AND sea level rise so there is something in it for both you and Steve.

        Thomas Jacob, John Wahr, W. Tad Pfeffer & Sean Swenson
        AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
        Nature 482, 514–518 (23 February 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10847
        Received 28 July 2011 Accepted 09 January 2012 Published online 08 February 2012

        Glaciers and ice caps (GICs) are important contributors to present-day global mean sea level rise1, 2, 3, 4. Most previous global mass balance estimates for GICs rely on extrapolation of sparse mass balance measurements1, 2, 4 representing only a small fraction of the GIC area, leaving their overall contribution to sea level rise unclear. Here we show that GICs, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148?±?30?Gt?yr?1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41?±?0.08?mm?yr?1 to sea level rise. Our results are based on a global, simultaneous inversion of monthly GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields, from which we calculate the mass change over all ice-covered regions greater in area than 100?km2. The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period2. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4?±?20?Gt?yr?1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55?Gt?yr?1 in previously published estimates2, 5. For completeness, we also estimate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06?±?0.19?mm?yr?1 to sea level rise over the same time period. The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48?±?0.26?mm??1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources.

        Just a little reminder for you when you get the itch to post — when referencing something, it is best to go to the source (sors).

      • suyts says:

        Oh, yeh, almost forgot….. LOL @ the absurd notion that the tops of the Himalayas are melting. Take a temp reading. Here DA….. Go there and play with the elevation thingy and then come back and tell me about the tops melting.

      • suyts says:

        Drewski, I was specifically referencing the Himalayas. And exactly as I stated…. it was measured at -4 gt +/-20.

        Now, if you want to discuss the Antarctic…. we should probably to NASA for that…..

        During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.

        paper was written July 14, 2012

      • suyts says:

        As far as Greenland goes, I’ve read many studies about its ice loss….. they’re all over the board on it. Anywhere between almost none to the outlier -250 Gt y-1. by Velicogna and Wahr. The fact is they don’t know. GRACE seems to overestimate the ice loss compared to ICESat.which uses direct measurements of laser and radar altimeters.

        Have you got anything else?

  24. suyts says:

    As to the sea level….. depends on which plots you wish to use. But, overall there has been no increase in the rate of rise. Just prior to killing the satellites, Envisat and Jason I, they both showed 3 1/2 years of declining sea levels. Evisat showed 6 years.

    Of course, the data has been long erased, but you can see the Aviso generated graphs here.

    Further, you can go check it your self, Topex/Poseidon reported 3.16mm/yr……. Jason I, it’s replacement, reported 2.34mm/yr and that’s even including the errant data at the end. Jason II is reporting 1.93 mm/yr and that’s including some rather obvious manipulation in the plots.

    Tell me, if the ice is all melting, why is the rate of rise decreasing?

  25. Drewski says:

    Suyts, Here is a more recent and comprehensive study on the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau (your area of expertise). Maybe you should take notes.

    The research by Yao Tandong, a glaciologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Tibetan Research in Beijing, and his colleagues was published July 15, 2012 in Nature Climate Change. It “is the most comprehensive survey to date in the region”, says Tobias Bolch, a glaciologist in the University of Zurich, Switzerland.

    “The majority of the glaciers have been shrinking rapidly across the studied area in the past 30 years,” says Yao. And the rate of retreat has been accelerating. But embedded in this general trend, says Yao, is a large variation in different parts of the Third Pole. For instance, glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating faster on average than those in the Karakoram and the Pamir.

    (Retreating faster in the Himalayas?!? How can that be? Steve would say they are obviously lying to get more grant money from the Chinese government.)

    Yao and his colleagues analysed satellite measurements of the lengths and surface areas of about 7,100 glaciers. They also studied changes in the mass balance — the difference between accumulation and loss of ice — of 15 glaciers that they have painstakingly measured for decades.

    (Hey Stark, are you paying attention? 7,100 glaciers studied. But. but. but what about the GRACE study that had such large error bars?)

    The survey found that the area of glacial lakes on the plateau has increased by about 26% since the 1970s. “As the GRACE satellites can only feel the gravitational pull and can’t tell the difference between ice and liquid water, they may have mistaken expanding glacial lakes for increases in glacier mass,” says Yao.

    Well suyts, whether you accept it or not, you have just been flattened (again) — where will you pop up next?

    • gator69 says:

      I can pick cherries too!

      “The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

      The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

      The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

      Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”

      Ice melts numbnuts.

      I have asked you for years now to produce even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes, and not once have you been up to the task.

      Nothing we are observing is outside of natural variability. Nothing of what we are seeing needs any other answer than mother nature.

      You are a true chicken little, afraid of acorns. A true denier of science.

      • Drewski says:

        Please highlight the study Gator. Dollars to donuts it is the very same one mentioned by suyts — the GRACE satellite study of February 2012.

      • gator69 says:

        Ice melts numbnuts! 😆

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

        I’m still waiting…

    • Me says:

      Cherry picked the parts you liked didn’t ya Coolwhip. 😆

    • Drewski says:

      So it WAS the same study — try and stay up with the conversation Gator.

      Just because you a little slow Gator, I will recap for you:
      It all started with Goddard posting a highly edited and extremely dishonest revision of an article about Himalayan glaciers.

      I asked Goddard why he didn’t mention the trend of the OTHER 90% of the glaciers in the Himalayas (of course it was because it would obliterate his narrative).

      This led to his Goddard’s followers stating stupid crap like only 30 glaciers were studied and the Himalayas are actually not losing ice (you know, the same stuff you say).

      Well, of course, I promptly found a well referenced article on the rapid ice loss of 160,000 glaciers.

      In the middle of this, Will admitted that his 1100 papers of evidence against AGW actually did not exist and he also admitted that CO2 radiates heat.

      Will and other sCeptics promptly said I was spouting propaganda and that they could shoot down any claims I made. Of course, that was just all hot air (pun intended) and nothing came of it. I am still waiting for proof of of my so-called exaggeration, false claims and propaganda (I won’t hold my breath)

      Goddard popped up and said that sea levels have not risen. I asked him for evidence and, guess what? No response either, except of course he said that I was talking nonsense. I then asked him what was nonsense and I still waiting for an answer to that one one too.

      Suyts joins in with and points me to a garbage article (you are the true expert for this). I show suyts the original study, which of course, shows that glaciers are retreating around the world PLUS evidence of sea level rise PLUS re-validation of the multiple temperature data sets.

      Suyts says he was only talking about the high Himalayas and so i show him another — more recent and comprehensive study — on the high Himalayas. And, of course, it showed rapid melting.

      And that is where you come in with your re-posting of suyts earlier post and with your very clever. “Ice Melts” slogan.

      I agree, Gator, ice does melt — when it warms up.

      • gator69 says:

        It’s an ACORN little buddy! 😆

        Why are you so agitated?

        Panic much? 😆

      • gator69 says:

        Instead of waving your hands, why not simply produce even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.

        I’m still waiting…

      • Dear Drewski,
        Here’s what the IPCC said:

        if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

        Was that a correct assesment by the IPCC, Drewski? Was it based on sound science & peer reviewed papers?

      • Me says:

        gator, you should check out the study coolwhip is talking about and see then read what cool whip posted on it. 😆

      • The major screw-ups get all the headlines but it is the large number of smaller distortions that create the final false impression.

    • Drewski says:

      Stark, the only reason you even know about that typo was because it was picked up by the IPCC themselves very early on in the review process and they publicly acknowledged the error. It never made it close to the policy portion of the IPCC conference.

      BTW, this story has been thoroughly discussed YEARS ago. Like I said, when one argument gets flattened up pops another sCeptic — like a whack-a-mole — with the same discredited talking points.

      Just to remind everyone, this article is about glaciers. My argument is that Goddard was being dishonest in the way he selectively edited out parts of the article he referenced. Your arguments appears to be that I am exaggerating and that I make stuff up. However, I am still waiting for someone — Goddard? — to show me where I have exaggerated, which claims you can rebut, and what propaganda I have put forward.

      The clock is ticking.

      • Me says:

        WAH WAH WAH! cheese with that?

      • Here is what really happened:

        In review, the error was reported to the IPCC lead author multiple times. Naturally, this was ignored.

        Pachauri, head of the IPCC, runs an institute who then received a large sum of money for further study of the Himalayas “problem”.

        Actual scientists doing actual research on the Himalayas released a report that basically stated there was no problem. Pachauri went to the press and declared these researchers were doing “voodoo science”.

        At this stage various sceptics got involved, looked more closely at the claims, and Pachauri eventually had to back peddle. (At the time, various parties were calling for his resignation. Of course he didn’t and the same nincompoop continued in that role.)

        Given the events surrounding this sorry state of affairs, I doubt you could find a bigger imbecile than Pachauri, especially how he tried to use “argument from authority” to assert he was right and everyone else wrong. Then it blew up in his face.

      • Me says:

        That was some error, 😆 All that pal review stuff and such what wasn’t even pal reviewed! LMAO!

      • The problem wasn’t that it wasn’t reviewed, or even that it was pal reviewed. The problem was that the lead author(s) ignored the reviewers. This is one of the oddities of the IPCC. You can write whatever you want in those reports (at your peril) and that means ignoring peer review if you think there is something to be gained by doing so. Obviously, science is a competitive field, so if you have published research on topic X and you also happen to be lead author of that chapter, *your* research becomes canonical. Your ‘enemies’ research doesn’t usually get a fair hearing.

      • Drewski says:

        The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it’s important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. One mistake out of thousands of papers and picked up by the IPCC themselves. Oh no AGW is dead!

        But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate.

        Shit happens, thank God for the review process. Hear that Goddard? when will any your thousands of papers be peer-reviewed? At least, Watt’s showed some courage with his surface station study (you know the one that was to shake AGW to its core. I wonder why he never talks about it anymore?)

      • Me says:

        And you said it too! Not that we needed to hear it again.

      • “While scanty snowfall and rising temperature in last decade had sparked the possibilities of fast shrinking of glaciers, good spells of snowfall in last three years have changed the trend with glaciers almost growing to their original size.”

        It’s called weather…

      • Me says:

        But really Will we needed to hear it again! Thanks!

  26. gator69 says:

    “gator, you should check out the study coolwhip is talking about and see then read what cool whip posted on it.”

    Hey Me! It is all noise. Cool Whip is just parroting SkS talking points that cherry pick papers and passages, this is his only M.O.

    Ice melts, big deal. And every study will have a counter study making opposite claims, no matter which study I point to, there will always be another study. This is why I do not get into the weeds on this discussion.

    Ice has melted since the beginning of time. This is nothing new, it is perfectly normal and to be expected, and certainly nothing alarming.

    Unless you are Drewski or Chicken Little! 😆

  27. Drewski says:

    Another day has passed and still no one has come forward with a rebuttal of my 6 claims or shown evidence of any false statements i have made. Goddard, hasn’t provided the evidence of his “no sea level rise in 100 years” or bothered to explain himself over the major omissions he put into his headline article. Although, on the positive side, Will has acknowledged that CO2 radiates heat and he also now accepts that there is not a single paper in his 1100 “studies” that will falsify the AGW theory.

    And as always, in these little jousts, I am the only one who provides citations each and every time I am asked and, again, as always, spurious claims are made by the ignoratti that I am the one who engages in propaganda.

    Welcome to the bizarre world of the sCeptic.

    • Drewski, If you continue to lie about what I said and didn’t say, you are going to spam. You may be perfectly happy to live in a world of bullshit and lies, but I am not. What a first rate asshole you are.

      • Drewski says:

        Steve, PRECISELY what lies did I say about you? And what bullshit have I spoken?
        Please don’t avoid the question and be SPECIFIC (times and dates of these supposed posts would be appreciated).
        I will sincerely apologize for any transgression — if proven.

      • Read your comment I responded to dumbass
        “Goddard, hasn’t provided the evidence of his “no sea level rise in 100 years””

      • Drewski says:

        I asked for peer-reviewed evidence, which you have not supplied. And, fyi, pointing me back to any of your own articles to validate yourself is laughable. PLUS, the GRACE study that Will cited to regarding glacier melt quite clearly concludes glacier melt to have contributed to sea level rise.

      • You are stupider than it seems. I asked you to show me where I said what you claimed I said. Is your brain fully functional?

        The reason you believe what you do is because you can neither read nor comprehend.

      • Drewski says:

        Goddard: “Drewski, If you continue to lie about what I said and didn’t say, you are going to spam. You may be perfectly happy to live in a world of bullshit and lies, but I am not. What a first rate asshole you are.”

        Drewski: “Steve, PRECISELY what lies did I say about you?”

        Goddard: “Read your comment I responded to dumbass
        “Goddard, hasn’t provided the evidence of his “no sea level rise in 100 years””

        Well, actually Steve, you haven’t provided any evidence to support your claim that there has been no seal level rise anywhere on this blog — a link to another blog written by yourself is a total non-starter particularly if that blog ALSO contains no peer-reviewed literature.

        I, however, have pointed to well-referenced evidence showing both glacier melt AND its contribution to sea level rise.(coincidentally it was from the same study cited by both Will and Gator in this blog).

        So, I ask again Steve, where have I lied about you? And it would be very nice of you to point to the date and time of the alleged lie.

      • Drewski, I understand that you are stupider than dog shit. What I am asking you to do is to provide the link where I said what you claim I said ““no sea level rise in 100 years”.

      • Drewski says:

        So you said no change in the RATE of the rise in sea levels. You are absolutely right — my mistake.

        So that means you agree that the seas are, in fact, rising. I am so sorry for my error. Of course, then you must also agree that the rise is due to glacier melt or thermal expansion or both. In either case, heat was required.

        But hold on a moment, you said that the rate hasn’t changed, but according to NOAA, the USGS and the APRU, that doesn’t seem to be correct:

        So, I will have to amend my question to you Steve: What peer-reviewed evidence to you have that the RATE of sea level change has been unchanged for the past 100 years?

    • gator69 says:

      Another year has passed and still not one paper has been povided that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes. Although, on the positive side, Drewski has been quite entertaining as he masterfully waves his hands and sites cherry picked data from SkS, all while ignoring my repeated request.

      And as always, in his little head, Drewski is the only one who provides citations. And every time I ask for just one little paper to justify the color of the sky in his world, he tucks tail and runs, waving his hands as he goes about dodging acorns

      Welcome to the bizarre world of the alarmist science denier. 😆

  28. David says:

    Drewski, with a condecending rude wave of his hand, rejects all scientific papers that contradict his view of impending doom from global warming. His claimed disasters are simply not happening. Every crop in the world grows 10 to 15 percet more food amd requires less water, due to increased CO2. There has been no increase in the rate of SL rise, and that rate is neither scary or a disaster, just as Mr Goddard pointed out.

    Estimates of sea level show a rise from about 1870 (earliest records) at a nearly linear rate and with no sign of acceleration. Sea level rise from 1870 to 1980 is not likely due to human activity. One report indicates that IPCC has projected a sea level rise of 0.4 to 2 m by 2090, but the fourth IPCC report does not make such a claim, instead giving a best estimate of 0.28 to 0.43 m. Recent levels of rise (, at 3.1 mm/year long-term trend or 0.31 m in 100 years with no indication of “acceleration,” are only consistent with the lowest IPCC projections. In fact, recent deceleration of the rate of rise (Houston and Dean 2011) has been detected. Examples of papers that projected sea level increases lower than the range discussed in the fourth IPCC report are Bouwer (2011), Chu et al. (2010), Czymzik et al. (2010), and Xie et al. (2010).

    Hurricanes and extreme storms are not increasing, neither is droughts, neither are wild fires, neither is glacial melt, neither is sea level. Drewski, pray tell, where is the catestrophy in CAGW?

    Several new peer reviewed studies show no increase in hurricanes;
    And one recent study examining 22 peer reviewed studies on various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events such as wildfires and hailstorms, found that increases in exposure due to growth and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses” and that no trend could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.
    And even more good news;
    The oceans are not warming in the last 6 to 7 years
    and Sea Levels have been almost flat as well.
    And the global average temp has been flat for over a decade…

  29. Drewski says:

    Still there Steve?
    You said that I lied about you and I asked you to show me where that occurred.
    Found anything yet?

    • Paul H says:


      “No sea level rise in 100 years?”

      Keep arm waving, Drebski.

      Nobody’s paying any attention to you.

      • gator69 says:

        Exactly. Drewski cannot read anything written by sckeptics…

        stevengoddard says:
        December 8, 2012 at 3:36 am

        “Why do you deliberately ignore the fact that there has been no temperature increase for 16 years and that there has been no change in the RATE of sea level rise for 100 years.”

        stevengoddard says:
        December 8, 2012 at 4:44 am

        “I wrote “there has been no change in the RATE of sea level rise for 100 years” and you came back with “No sea level rise?!?” Are you completely daft?”

        Drewski is a known liar at many sites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *