Just A Reminder That We Are Dealing With Scumbags

They told us for decades that land temperatures heat up faster than the ocean.

Then land temperatures quit rising, and the scumbags started claiming that all the heat is now going into warming the oceans.

About Tony Heller

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

42 Responses to Just A Reminder That We Are Dealing With Scumbags

  1. They told us for decades that the poles will heat first. When they saw that the south pole was not heating, they decided Australia was close enough.

  2. Anto says:

    They told us that there would be a hotspot in the tropics’ troposphere. When there wasn’t, first they ignored it, then they changed the data and claimed to have “found” it.

    “Scumbags” is putting it mildly.

  3. gator69 says:

    They told us that 11 years of no warming would disprove AGW.

    • Streetcred says:

      then they told us 13 years … whatever 🙂

      • Smokey says:

        Phil Jones said 15 years…

      • Jimbo says:

        Here is a kicker.

        Real Climate – December 2007

        Daniel Klein asks at #57:

        “OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
        (1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
        (2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
        (3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
        I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?”


        [Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I’d need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. – gavin]


  4. Gail Combs says:

    They are responsible for 65 deaths a day in winter in the UK alone. “Scumbags” is a polite term for these ….

  5. GeologyJim says:

    They also lectured endlessly that more CO2 would lead to more heat, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, deeper droughts, more “acidic” oceans, more forest fires, accelerating sea-level rise, and any number of other, “unprecedented” (TM – the Team) calamities.

    They’ve been dead-ass wrong on every one. But contrition is outside their skill-set.

    As Steve McIntyre is fond of reminding, it’s important to keep your eye on the pea, not the thimbles.

    • Brian H says:

      They even got all that bass-ackwards. It’s cooling that causes storminess. A warm world is a placid world.

      • Ben says:

        The ability of a heat engine to do work is proportional to the difference in temperature between the hot and cold reservoir.

        Climate science predicts a smaller temperature difference, therefore less energy is available for their doomsday scenarios.

        I guess their doomsday energy is super-efficient…

        • Rob Ryan says:

          That’s not true. It’s the efficiency of a heat engine that’s proportional to the temperature difference between the hot and cold reservoirs. The amount of work done is a product of the efficiency and the heat input.

  6. Andy Oz says:

    Australia voted the corrupt scumbags out in September.
    Neither the Greens or Labor want anti corruption inquiry.

  7. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    They have an incentive to be lying scumbags. The bigger the lie, the bigger the scare, the greater the fear mongering hyperbole, the more secure is their funding, the more attention they get from a useless, clueless and enabling media and they closer they get to the big fat pension and a nice soft life.

    Link their pensions to the accuracy of their predictions and the problem is solved. These morons and scumbags would not dare do what they do now if there were consequences, real personal & financial consequences.

    • gator69 says:

      “The bigger the lie, the bigger the scare, the greater the fear mongering hyperbole, the more secure is their funding, the more attention they get from a useless, clueless and enabling media and they closer they get to the big fat pension and a nice soft life.”

      We have identified the positive feedback loop.

  8. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Also Myles Allen, a UK climate scientist, now says climate sensitivity “actually doesn’t matter very much”.

    See http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/1/28/ar5-hearings.html#comment20748500

    And they say this after decades of claiming climate sensitivity is very high and very important.

  9. Andy Oz says:

    Normally I would be very skeptical of any climate announcements from Colorado State Uni via the Chicago Tribune. But the exception might prove the rule.

  10. Andy DC says:

    If all the heat is collecting in the oceans, why have we gone so long without an El Nino?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Record increase in Antarctic Sea Ice and decadal increase in the winds that drive the the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. (more wind from Ozone, solar UV changes?)

      If you look at this Sea Surface Temperature map it has a good image of the tongue of cold water from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current just before the constriction at Drake Passage, where it heads up the coast of South America to Galapagos.

      Retired EPA scientist F.H. Haynie (he is one of the good guys) said:
      “If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humbolt current meet. These flows are not constant and each has different cycles and those cycles are not constant. Cycles on cycles create extremes in weather and climate. These extremes have an effect globally. I suspect these cycles are also controlling our observed atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is very likely a lagging indicator and not a cause of climate change.”

      I wonder what happens in a decade or two if the Antarctic Sea Ice starts blocking Drake Passage a bit more? Although some scientists suggest the Antarctic was 2-3C warmer during the LIA. [The Antarctic Circumpolar Ocean Current A review of its influence on global ocean currents and climate within Antarctica and Europe James S. B. Mason]

      This article seems to indicate that the freezing of sea ice is the source of the cold water so that seems contrary to the other paper.

      The James S.B. Mason paper has some intriguing bits:

      …In the early 1980s, fossil records from deep sea drilling programmes showed that there had been shifts in the North Atlantic around the time of the last ice age ( approximately eleven thousand years ago ) which corresponded to a climate shift on land known as ‘Younger Dryas’. Studies by Hans Oeschger and others indicated that there had been very abrupt cooling around the North Atlantic and that this cooling had extended to the ocean floor. It appeared that there had been massive changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic which might have extended worldwide. Oeschger was intrigued by the rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide at the end of the last ice age and that the main reservoir for this gas is the oceans.

      In 1985, Broecker and his colleagues (20) suggested that there could be two modes of
      ocean-atmosphere operation which, in the context of North Atlantic circulation, could
      explain Oeschger’s observations of rapid changes in carbon dioxide. Through their work on mapping global ocean currents and developing the ‘great conveyor belt’ theory, they realized that there was a huge mass of water moving slowly northward, near the surface of the North Atlantic which is as important for carrying heat as the much more familiar Gulf Stream. Consequently changes in this ocean conveyor belt, wherever they occurred, could have a major impact on the European climate. The circulation in the Atlantic Ocean (21) is dominated by this northward flow of upper waters (including the Gulf Stream ) balanced by a return flow of deep water (the conveyor ).

      Broecker suggested in 1987 (22) that there was clear evidence that changes in world climate could be sudden rather than gradual. [ Dr. Richard Alley discovered that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years-G.C.] He pointed out that non-linear effects in the atmospheric system could result in a sudden shift of the climate to a new equilibrium by altering, for example, the direction of major ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream. Subsequent work showed the situation to be more complicated …

      …the work of Broecker and others has proposed a linkage between the climates of Antarctica and Europe through worldwide thermohaline ocean circulation with the ACC as a significant driving force behind such changes….

      Given the other paper’s work on the origin of the cold water feeding the current, I see no reason why the beginning of this paper states:

      …In the period between 1300 and 1800, Europe was so cold that the period has been dubbed the ‘Little Ice Age’. Many researchers believe that this was due to a slowdown in the ocean current system, including the Gulf Stream, carrying heat towards Europe (3). At the same time, it has also been proposed that the southern ocean currents were stronger and that in a mirror image of the Little Ice Age, the Antarctic region warmed up by perhaps as much as 3°C.

      Although another paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? indicates the bipolar seesaw mark the beginning and end of interglacials.

  11. gregole says:

    Yes, they certainly have been “at it” to say the least. A long line of charlatans, kooks, and outright liars – here’s a good summary:


    Overheated oceans now… do tell!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually that paper I mentioned above, link Shows that as more sea ice forms in the Antarctic the more cold water forms.

      Antarctic Bottom Water forms in the winter, when icy winds and temperatures freeze seawater into sea ice, expelling salt. The remaining salty, chilly water is denser than the water around it, and it sinks downward. The Cape Darnley water was some of the saltiest shelf water ever measured around the Antarctic continent. This deep current flows north, away from the continent, and transports oxygen and carbon dioxide around the planet….

      I think that trumps any piddling little ‘warmth’ from CO2 at 1.4 Wm2 for a change from 300 ppm to 390 ppm CO2.

  12. NotAGolfer says:

    Yes, the mechanism they proclaim is that CO2 absorbs radiation, turning it into heat, which heats the atmosphere, which IN TURN, heats the land and ocean. If there’s no heating of the atmosphere, it kinda foils their story.

  13. Clovis Marcus says:

    This is going to be an unpopular view but I’m not sure the inflammatory language moves the debate along…

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Clovis! You may be right, but consider this: We know with a high degree of certainty that at least the upper tier of CAGW proponents are lying. Yes, “lying” is an inflammatory word, but the record of the last couple decades has shown a consistent pattern of altering data, threatening contrarians, interfering with publications, and misrepresenting historical events. “Lying” seems to me to be the best fit for the circumstances. These CAGW pushers have consistently refused to fairly and honestly present their case or to follow scientific procedures. If reason and sweet persuasion fail to influence someone who is pushing an idea which leads to poverty and death for millions of people, what should we do? Personally, I would prefer a gentlemanly debate based on the facts — but that has already proven to be a lost case against people who trample on facts. Ridicule, scorn and social shunning seem like the best approach that is available.

      • gator69 says:

        Now Jason, we mustn’t do anything that might injure the self esteem of lying scumbags. Firstly they are ‘truthfully challenged’, and secondly we owe them a debt of gratitude for gathering and sequestering so very much scum.

        Remember, even Hitler was a human being, and had feelings. 😉

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          I agree. Steve is technically correct but his statement is not useful. It doesn’t advance the discussion to say we are dealing with scumbags any more than stepping into something in a park and saying we are dealing with dog poop.

          There is useful inquiry to pursue. What are the root causes of dog poop in the park? What is the native culture of the dog’s companion? Was social justice served? And most importantly, how do our actions and thoughts affect the rights of children?

          I refuse to speak about foreign scumbags. They come from different cultures that we don’t understand and that are equal or superior to ours. On average, foreign scumbags also use fewer natural resources than American scumbags. Let’s limit our talk to Scumbag-Americans only.

          Ever adult American scumbag was once a child. What do we know about their upbringing? Little or nothing. Most of them were probably little scumbags even then. They had to be to confront the social conditions of their lives. If mom and dad denied them candy because of their own failed upbringing, the little scumbags had no choice. They had to lie, cheat and steal to get their candy. We can’t judge them and we can’t judge adult scumbags either.

          There. It feels good to say the right thing in the morning.

        • Dave G says:

          What can you judge then Colorado?

          Actually, you are wrong. The first step in solving any problem is find the root cause. Identifying dog poop as dog poop is the first step in stopping more dog poop.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Dave G says:

          What can you judge then Colorado?

          I apologize for my tardiness, Dave. This was a tough challenge and I needed time to think it through. You were right; I have not properly considered the multi-disciplinary implications of our problem. As a result I have overstated my case and failed to list some key qualifications. So in the interest of advancement of world peace, social justice and environmental ethics here is my updated statement:

          “Scumbags of the same nationality, gender, class, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, age and sexual orientation can under certain conditions judge other scumbags of the same group.”

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Dave G says:

          What can you judge then Colorado?

          I apologize for my tardiness, Dave. This was a tough challenge and I needed time to think it through. You were right; I have not properly considered the multi-disciplinary implications of our problem. As a result I have overstated my case and failed to list some key qualifications. So in the interest of advancement of world peace, social justice and environmental ethics here is my updated statement:

          “Scumbags of the same nationality, gender, class, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, age and sexual orientation can under certain conditions judge other scumbags of the same group.”

          [corrected; with proper formatting]

    • Kepler says:

      Clovis, I wouldn’t call Steven’s efforts here a debate any more than I would call the efforts to expose Bernie Madoff’s activities a debate. And I don’t think that anyone would mind if I called Madoff a scumbag.

      Steven is producing mounds of evidence on a daily basis that proves that fraudulent and criminal activity is taking place in the climate science community. IMO these scumbags belong in prison right there next to their colleague Mr. Madoff.

    • craigm350 says:

      4 years ago as I was seeing the light I may have agreed but now I have seen for myself what these lying tax payer thieving b******s have been up to and the dirty, dishonest way they have conducted themselves, Steve’s language is moderate. They deserve a very long stretch inside for the murder of millions they advocate just so they can keep their cushy jobs in Ivory Towers to keep swanning all over the globe telling us to ‘do as I say, I’ll do as I please’ like they are communist party leaders. I’m sure the billion $ per day spent might have helped a few poor people who are now quite dead but is better in their pockets. If I robbed your house do I deserve pleasantries? Yes you might understand why I I robbed you but I deserve consequences. Stop defending scumbags and asking for respect for them – respect is earned and a two way system. Yes they might seem reasonable people when you meet them but reasonable people don’t advocate genocide to further their cause. Zealots do. Fanatics do. We have suffered enough fools. Anyone who makes you fear, not respect, nature is either a fool or a dangerous control freak enamored by only their own self worth. I may not agree with much of Steve’s politics but I’m struggling to see where he’s wrong most of the time. But hey keep voting democrat/republican/tory/labour just keep the lube handy 😉

    • Gail Combs says:

      After a decade of watching US government corruption that kills people, starves babies… It is tough to stay polite.

      Read: DEMOCIDE: Death by Government

      169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

      Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5′, then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century.

      That is people murdered by their own government mostly within my life time – sickening.

  14. Andy DC says:

    Yes, anyone who deliberately uses propaganda and creates misinformation to enrich themselves at taxpayers’ expense, then tries to hide behind the facade of “settlled science” would easily meet the definition of “scumbag” in most people’s opinion.

Leave a Reply

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