Comment Of The Day #2

ScreenHunter_112 Feb. 03 17.19

February 4, 2014 at 12:08 am

This what the warming trend looks like since Monica was still unzipping Bill

ScreenHunter_111 Feb. 03 17.15

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

About Tony Heller

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

63 Responses to Comment Of The Day #2

  1. gator69 says:

    Very nicely done. Thanks Steven. 😆

  2. gregole says:

    Papers… Models…. show me data.

    Warming? Not happening. Nothing to “fathom”.

  3. Current warming trends are overwhelming natural variability. Yeah. Nice try. Let’s us explore reality:

    Sea level rise is linear. Antarctic sea ice is increasing. TOA satellite shows no increase in opacity of 13-17 micron CO2 band.

    Your turn.

  4. Chewer says:

    It hard to fathom whether the temperature rose or fell during the alleged cigar treatment session 😉

  5. Andy Oz says:

    Shock news: Scientists find that alarmists share 97% common behavioural traits with starfish!

  6. DaveO says:

    That may be a stupid comment but it is never going to beat Drewski’s all time greatest hit.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Yes, Drewski attempted to dazzle with a full gainer but performed a full face plant into an empty pool.

    • Drewski says:

      Ahh, the good ole days,

      “SCEPTICS = So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles” — As true today as it was back then.

      And to think, my comments about the validity of the hockey stick still continue to be just as true and right today AS BACK THEN and those cockamamie comments from the other posters are even more comical now.

      Good stuff.

      Can you do me a favor? Seeing as you are so good at finding old things, could you dig up those comments by Steve when he said that Pakistan, Burma and Columbia were all part of the former Soviet Union (is was an issue revolving around 20 countries that set all-time heat records in 2010)? Or maybe you could dig up the one where he said that “it was a fact” that a glaciologist, late last century, was able to chart thousands of Alaskan and Norwegian glaciers pretty much on his own and without any modern equipment? Or perhaps you can find Steve’s graph that purports to show NOAA “hiding” temperatures from 1870 that were 7F ABOVE today’s temps.

      Really funny stuff. I think we could all do with a good laugh.

      Thanx for the trip down memory lane DaveO.

      • Hey Drewski, the glaciologist late last century didn’t have modern equipment? Really?

        Great. Now we have reliable proof that glaciers weren’t melting in the 19th century…… there is no satellite evidence. That means it didn’t happen. Washington didn’t defeat the British at Cornwall in 1781, because there is no satellite evidence. The pyramids at Giza were built in 1993 because that is the earliest satellite evidence they even exist. There is no satellite evidence of dinosaurs, and we now can prove Darwin was wrong about evolution, because there is no satellite evidence that he sailed on the Beagle, or was ever even born.

        • Yorktown. Brain fart.

        • Drewski says:

          It was Steve who made the assertion that it was “a fact” that half the glaciers mass was lost early last century in Norway and Alaska (you heard that right). Don’t you think that Steve should provide some basic evidence for his own assertions?

          And, apparently, this remarkable knowledge came by way of one man who charted these vast and inhospitable lands without satellites or helicopters or ice breakers or digital equipment or even Goretex. You know, modern equipment.

        • You are, quite clearly, an imbecile.

        • Ben says:

          RE: Drewski – “And, apparently, this remarkable knowledge came by way of one man who” {snip}

          This remarkable knowledge came by way of one man who studied and built upon the work of Vitus Bering, Aleksei Chirikov, La Perouse, Joseph Whidbey, George Vancouver, John Muir, Harriman, Lousi Agassiz, and hundreds of others.

          Isn’t it neat that he didn’t have to personally explore each glacier, but instead could rely on the documented work of other explorers and scientists?

        • Drewski says:

          Nice try, but a big FAIL.
          NONE of these people you mentioned explored the interior of Alaska (with the possible exception of Muir). They were all sea faring men who either discovered, charted or explored the Alaskan coastline.

          They had nothing to do with cataloging glaciers and nothing at all to do with Norway and certainly nothing to say about either place losing HALF their glacier mass.

        • Ben says:

          RE : Drewski “NONE of these people you mentioned explored the interior of Alaska (with the possible exception of Muir).”

          All of those men catalogued glaciers. Further, you neglected to acknowledge I said “and hundreds more”

          The interior of Alaska had been mapped from 1799-1860.

          See map from “Map of North America. Showing its Political Divisions, and Recent Discoveries in the Polar Regions” in Mitchell’s New General Atlas.

          Copy of map is on wikipedia

        • Ben says:


          Don’t trust me. Trust the scientists at the USGS, unless you think they making science and history up

          “The total area and volume of glaciers in Alaska continue to decrease, as they have been doing since the 18th century.”

          “A review of the literature for each of the 11 mountain ranges, the large island, the island
          chain, and the archipelago was conducted to determine both the individual and the regional
          status of Alaskan glaciers and to characterize changes in thickness and terminus position of
          representative glaciers in each mountain range or island group. In many areas, observations
          used for determining changes date from the late 18th or early 19th century. ”

          “Many different types of data were scrutinized to determine baselines and to assess the magnitude of glacier change. These data include the following: published descriptions of glaciers (1794–2000)”

          Now quickly move the goalposts away from the interior of Alaska to another region, so we can continue to demonstrate how little you know about geography and climate history.

        • Drewski says:

          I have never doubted that most of Alaska’s 100,000 glaciers are in retreat (and not just in Alaska).
          What I have said is that it is not “Real Science” to state it is a fact that HALF the glacier mass of both Norway and Alaska disappeared during last century and then not provide a shred of proof to support it except by way of the word of one scientist who lived during that time. One scientist who would have been utterly incapable of making this judgement in the first place.

          This is simply one example, of many, that continuously gets posted on this site. Unsupported, un-reviewed, counter intelligent and highly politicized fodder for the mental midgets living among us.

          Sorry guys – gots to go – I am about to start a long and arduous contract.

          Play nice.

        • Real science is having thousands of peer reviewed papers explaining a warming which doesn’t actually exist.

        • gator69 says:

          Zealots like Drewski are all that the alarmists have left. Odd creatures! They come to sites like this, that have no political clout, and nitpick. Yet organizations like the world government run IPCC, who wield massive influence on the nations of this planet, can commit major mistakes (and fraud), and the Drewskis say nothing.

          Leftists are duplicitous, projecting, agenda driven morons.

        • IQ 60 – 79 moron
          IQ 40 – 59 imbecile high grade
          IQ 20 – 39 imbecile low grade
          IQ 00 – 19 idiot
          IQ -20 – 0 Drewski

  7. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Drewski must be hitting the brewski

  8. crosspatch says:

    Oh, hey, by the way, apparently there are some real winners in Ft. Collins who seem to have forgotten which country they live in:

  9. Lance says:

    oh the heat burns (OT) most of the USA below normal next short while…

  10. Drewski says:

    I am famous – thanx.

    Now, if you wouldn’t mind, could you post a longer trend line? For better accuracy and credibility, you understand. And, while you are at it, could you also post the land & SEA temperatures for the same period (at different depths would be excellent)? And since you are trying to honest and diligent and all that, could you post the trend lines for the Arctic sea ice, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and any continent’s glacier mass balance for that same period? I don’t want you to go to too much bother, so you don’t need to make up any of your own graphs or articles — just existing stuff from reliable sources.

    That would be great.

    Really appreciate this amigo.

  11. Kepler says:

    There sure have been a lot of “Dumb Ridiculous Exhausting Witless Simple Kooky Idiots” around here lately.

    • Andy Oz says:

      Whoa! Kepler lays a shirtfront on Drewski!!

    • Drewski says:

      Actually Drewski is an acronym for Dynamic Resourceful Erudite Wise Skilled Knowledgeable Intelligent.

      There is only one Drewski — accept no substitutes.

    • Gail Combs says:

      We are heading into the 2014 Senate Races with the Presidency up for gabs in 2016. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans have a clear majority so the independents are going to determine the race.

      Most people have figured out cheap energy = JOBS so the CAGW scam has to be kept rolling or Obama and the Democrats who are pushing the closure of 40% of the US electric capacity and replacing it with VERY EXPENSIVE UNRELIABLE wind and solar are going to look like real fools.

      You will have the hard core Luddites and Marxists who will vote left no matter what but most people are more toward the center. A cold winter followed by a cool spring and summer followed by a cold fall in time for elections has got to be the Democrats worst nightmare especially since the coal plants are closing three times faster than the EPA ‘Modeled’ What is more fun is the greatest coal-fired capacity to be shutdown is in the mid Atlantic corridor. (snicker)

      Also the ‘Smart Grid’ and the ‘Smart Appliances’ are not ready for prime time. That means rolling blackout for government and industry instead of being able to selectively turn off residences or appliances.

      So what does that do for the reliability of the Generating Grid?
      …..The question, of course, is whether these retirements are a detriment to the reliability and security of our national generating grid? The North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) most recent long-term assessment found that existing and proposed environmental regulations affecting fossil fuel plants in the United States may significantly affect bulk power system reliability.

      NERC, the nation’s leading authority on electric reliability, evaluated four major regulations now being proposed or implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency and found them to expose the United States to significant energy vulnerabilities. NERC estimates that nearly a quarter of our coal-fired capacity could be off-line by 2018 and that as many as 677 coal-fired units (258 gigawatts) would need to be temporarily shut down to install EPA-mandated equipment.[ii] These EPA regulations must be implemented within a 3-year window and the mandated equipment takes about 18 months to install. Because EPA’s three year timeline is so tight and the regulations affect so many units, utility companies are not sure that they can meet the standards and ensure reliability of the electricity system at the same time….


      • Gail Combs says:

        It get even more interesting.

        Joe Bastardi just Tweeted ~ “89% of coal plants are on line now helping with electricity needs, will be forced off line next year”

        Existing coal capacity was 317.469 GW at the end or 2011

        The EPA expected 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity to be closed.

        As of the June 12, 2012 update at the Institute for Energy Research, over 35 GW of power generating capacity will close or over 10 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.

        The North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimates nearly a quarter of our coal-fired capacity could be off-line by 2018.

        What a mess the EPA and Obummer are making of the US energy grid. The power systems engineers must be cursing his name every other breath.

  12. geran says:

    We see just one more example of a Warmist that has over-dosed on the kool-aid. He is frustrated because he cannot pollute our minds, as his has been polluted. You can see the frustration in his endless, pointless, and rambling comments.

    • Drewski says:

      Ah yes,
      Drewski’s endless, pointless comments. . . . .

      . . . .with peer-reviewed scientific citations.

      As opposed to . . . .what exactly?

      Science by crayon?

      • Yes that’s true Drewski. Millions of residents of Europe had no way of knowing that their glaciers were retreating in the 1800’s. It wasn’t enough just to look at them, they had no satellites. They had no peer review. Thank God they had crayons.

        And cameras. And newspapers. And brains, unlike you.

        • Drewski says:

          Millions of people as compared to one person to monitor an area.
          Settled Europe as opposed to untamed Alaska.
          And did the Europeans say that HALF their glaciers disappeared?
          Still trying to mitigate Steve’s “Real Science”, I see.

        • Still think your BS is going to produce warming?

        • Drewski says:

          My point is Steve,
          If you are going to throw it, be prepared to catch it (and, if I were you, I would get the biggest glove you can find).

      • geran says:

        When a Warmist seeks to claim the scientific high-ground and mentions things like “peer-reviewed”, I only have to mention “Climategate”. Now those CRU emails contain some REAL “peer review”.

        • Drewski says:

          When a “denialist” mentions climategate and tries to make out they are important to real world climate science, I have to mention that nine separate investigations by the British and US governments and multiple independent ethics committees PLUS unofficial newspaper investigations had been completed. None found any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. The CRU data was also independently replicated.

          In fact, the real story – in so much that there even was a story – was that a big scientific project caused people to curse, disagree and sigh. Who knew?

          We should reprise Shakespeare’s famous “Much ado about nothing”.

        • Shazaam says:

          Yeah. Government committees investigating government wrongdoing always yields a truthful assessment of the facts…..


        • Drewski says:

          Ah yes,
          The fall back to “The Big Bad Conspiracy Theory” when sCeptics run out of logic, evidence, or even sanity.

          Has anyone figured out yet how all these multi-national scientists have managed to keep this conspiracy going for all these decades? Or who pays them?

        • Andy Oz says:

          When an alarmist says “peer review” as their justification to install massive taxation on poor people, I say Galileo, Copernicus, Mohammed Ali, Ben Franklin. You alarmists just want lots of money by taxing the crap out of anyone who works because you don’t work. End of Story!

        • Andy Oz says:

          How to bring in illegitimate and fraudulent carbon taxes on poor people.

        • geran says:

          Just keep denying the science, Warmers. Just keep denying the data, Warmers. Just keep denying the documented corruption at CRU, Warmers. Just keep denying the weather outside your window, Warmers.

          No one would ever call you a “denier”….

        • Drewski says:

          Taxes? That is what politicians do.
          Research is what Scientists do.
          Lunatic conspiracy theories are what sCeptics do.

          Copernicus and Galileo? You do realize, I hope, that they were instrumental in creating what has become the modern scientific method, including peer-review? Climate sCeptics today are the equivalent of the Catholic Church then.

          Mohammad Ali? You got me there.

        • Andy Oz says:

          I thought Hansen was a research scientist. Obviously he was a Fabian politician in scientist clothing.
          And Copernicus and Galileo proved that the data didn’t fit the consensus of the time. Exactly the same as now. Record global sea ice, no warming in almost 20 years. All you guys want is to keep the climate fraud going until we are all broke from your pernicious tax.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Hansen is also the booster for big nuclear power.
          Why sell cheap energy when you can sell astronomically expensive energy.

        • Andy Oz says:

          The Australian carbon tax worked. The USA is freezing its butt off.

        • Drewski says:

          Andy: “no warming in almost 20 years”
          Reality: In April 2011, ALL 4 major temperature recording organizations, NOAA, NASA, HadCRU and Jaxa had 9 of their top ten hottest years occurring in the past decade. The outlier was 1998 which is, amazingly, the time that many sCeptics start their claim of no warming. And of course, this data doesn’t include the past few years including 2013 which was either the new hottest 4th or 7th year (depending on the record keeper).

          Andy, does living in “down under” mean you fall on your head?

        • Drewski says:

          Oh, and Andy,
          Do you also realize that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies conducted by hundreds of scientists in a score of scientific disciplines over the past 40 years that touch upon climate science?

          Why the fixation on this one guy, Hansen?

          Did he abandon you?

        • Andy Oz says:

          No warming in 80 years in Broome. Gee. What happened?
          Did they adjust the data wrong way because we are down under?

        • Because of his position at NASA, and since NASA and GISS and NOAA are the government agencies that supposedly are keepers of the data. The data that “literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies conducted by hundreds of scientists in a score of scientific disciplines over the past 40 years blah blah blah” interpret, and since NASA are the ones who tamper with the data, we fixate on him.

        • Andy Oz says:

          No warming in Darwin since 1970’s. Yet CO2 has gone exponential!!!!
          OMG what is going on!! What has that GISS data entry adjuster missed?

        • Drewski says:

          Here is an INCOMPLETE list of CORE scientific disciplines which have been primarily responsible for developing our current understanding of climate change and its implications.

          Atmospheric and Physical Sciences: Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric dynamics, Atmospheric physics, Atmospheric chemistry, Solar physics, Historical climatology

          Earth Sciences: Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction

          Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics

          Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis: Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Computer science, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics, Time series analysis

          So Mike, you are saying that Hansen influences the data in Soil Science and Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction as well as the Japanese Meteorological data?

          Man, I had no idea that Hansen got around so much (especially as he is now retired).

          Where does Michael Mann and Al Gore fit into this completely ridiculous theory of yours?

          And Andy,
          Congratulations on finding the temperature records for Bourke, Darwin and Broome. You have masterfully destroyed the official Australian temperature record with this evidence. But why did you leave off Marble Bar (I hear it gets really hot there)?

  13. Brad says:

    Don’t let Drewski off the hook. Keep him focused.

  14. geran says:

    How about this one?

    Doing Really Eerie and Weird Science to Keep Ignorant

  15. Hey Drewski the poles are melting:

    1980 = 23 km ^2 high, 16 low
    2013 = 23 km ^2 high, 16 low

  16. Kepler says:

    And it’s a wild melee. Oh boy a line in the sand is being drawn here. Drewski is on his back and is being pummeled. But the poor devil still thinks that he is winning.

Leave a Reply

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