Climate Scientists Take Stupid To New Levels In Antarctica

Antarctic sea ice reached a record extent this year, surpassing 20 million km². Sea ice forms at the lowest latitudes and altitudes around the continent (i.e. the warmest locations) and requires persistent temperatures below  -2C to form.

Meanwhile, the imbeciles known as climate experts claim that the much colder interior is melting down, requiring temperatures above 0C.

About Tony Heller

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

100 Responses to Climate Scientists Take Stupid To New Levels In Antarctica

  1. Gail Combs says:

    The idiots keep ignoring the volcanoes.

    If I recall when the ozone idiocy was being hyped Access to Energy reported the data was being taken in the Antarctica downwind of an active volcano and then mankind was ‘blamed’ for the ‘pollution’

    They are just recycling the same trick as it worked the last time. Take measurements near an active volcano and then blame man. (Think Mannua Loa.)

    • R. Shearer says:

      Care is taken at Mauna Loa to reject data influenced by the volcano and there are numerous other sites where CO2 is measured. In the middle of the Pacific is a good place. I know it’s a rough place but someone has to do it. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      Anyway, not all government scientists and labs are dishonest or that stupid.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Note the cherry picking of values as outlined by Mauna Loa Obs. It is based on ASSumptions. One of which is the ocean, the volcano and the diurnal winds do not influence the readings. The second is that CO2 is ‘well mixed’ in the atmosphere.

        How we measure background CO2 levels on Mauna Loa.
        4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.

        (wwwDOT)esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

        Plots from two different locations:
        http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=png&dataid=200906040013

        http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=png&dataid=200702142827

        The Japanese satellite (JAXA) shows CO2 is not ‘well-mixed’.
        http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jaxa-xco2_l2_201208010831average_v02_11.png
        A lot more maps/charts at CHIEFIO
        http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/co2-warm-dry-vs-cold-wet-hypothesis/

        However Anna V noted the real clincher about Mauna Loa at WUWT on June 5, 2010

        ….They have a preconceived notion of what the curve should be and they impose it, is my conclusion from this series….

        You [Willis E.] say there are independent measurements. Once I had managed to find a link and publications for those measurements. The were all Keeling and another fellow, possibly the graduate student going through the loops. I do not call that independent.
        Here are the locations I find:
        http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html
        something like 14, and practically all the publications are Keeling et al
        There is a map too
        http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/atmospheric_co2.html

        Do you believe that these 14 or so stations are representative enough so that the measurements could produce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

        wattsupwiththat(dot)com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/#comment-403748

        Also the China and India economies went Vrooommmm on or about the 80’s. Why are we not seeing that in the data? Mauna Loa Obs. after all is down wind from them.

        • R. Shearer says:

          It could be well mixed and still not homogenious because of changes in sinks and sources and the rate of mixing. Anthropogenic CO2 is less than 4 or 5% of natural emissions, so the data is not inconsistent with that. If anything, CO2 should be rising faster but some have concluded that as biomass increases it can actually increase consumption of CO2. CO2 truly is greening the earth and making it more productive.

          For the purposes of determining a carbon balance, I think the error associated with measurements at various stations is small compared to the uncertainties in natural fluxes.

        • nielszoo says:

          I love this;

          “In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady…”

          … and it makes me curious about two things. If, in the extreme likelihood that CO2 is violating the NOAA regulation that its concentration be steady, is Eric Holder going to appoint a Federal Grand Jury to go after all that Mann made CO2 that’s not following the law? (I mean, before he cleans out his desk.)

          The second thing; I’d ask the moron who made that statement to point to one thing on this planet (besides liberal stupidity) that was “steady.” Just one… Climate… Geology… Tectonics… Biological organisms… anything will do… Bueller?

      • catweazle666 says:

        “government scientist” = oxymoron.

  2. rah says:

    Seems to me that if the alarmists talk about the Antarctic it is mostly either about the interior or the western ice shelf. The other 2/3rds are dead to them.

  3. philjourdan says:

    Yea, I noted that. It is hotter inside the southpole than it is outside of it. I would love to see that model!

  4. plutarchspam says:

    The ice sheet melting is from the bottom of the ice shelves, where water does get above 0 C, not the surface of the interior of the ice sheet. Add in some surface melting at the edge of the ice sheet, where, again, temperatures do go above 0 C. As the edges lose ice, the interior ice flows out to replace it, lowering the interior elevations.

    Of course it’s easier to call the scientists stupid than to understand the science.

    • And this is caused by atmospheric CO2? ROFLMAO

    • Andy DC says:

      Where is you evidence that the interior is losing ice? That is hard to imagine at -100 F. If somehow it was, the only reasonable explanation would be volcanoes under the ice sheet, which obviously has nothing to do with Mann made warming.

      • plutarchspam says:

        The GRACE mission is observing reduced mass for the antarctic ice sheet (see below comment about ice sheet versus sea ice — they’re different things).

        Melting is not the only way to remove ice from an area. If the mass of ice is great enough, it will flow under its own weight. Higher elevations flow towards lower elevations. The Antarctic ice sheet does this. What GRACE found is that this is happening faster than the snow is accumulating.

        • The climate scientists who misinterpret GRACE satellite data don’t understand enough about science to be involved

          ” researcher Bert Vermeersen, a professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, told the AFP, the earlier estimates failed to account for glacial isostatic adjustment—the rebounding of the Earth’s crust after the end of the last Ice Age:

          http://science.time.com/2010/09/09/climate-change-a-slowdown-on-polar-melt/

        • plutarchspam says:

          Another comment from you, another lie from you. Keep it up!

          The article you linked to is media, not a science journal. But even then, even if what they say the authors found is entirely correct, the article referenced _also_ says that Antarctica is indeed losing mass. Just not as fast (50%) as thought by other people.

          So .. I claim that GRACE shows Antarctic losing mass, and you cite (though you lie about the science) an article that shows GRACE reporting Antarctica losing mass. Thank you for making my point.

          For amusement (you obviously didn’t read the article yourself) here’s more from your own source:

          Climate change skeptics were quick to seize on the results—Rush Limbaugh, for what I’m guessing is the first and last time, was able to use the term “glacial isostatic adjustment.” But the Nature Geoscience study won’t be the final word on the subject. It’s own estimates of ice loss come with significant uncertainty, and as David Bromwich of Ohio State points out in a commentary on the study, the estimates rely on data from a very small number of GPS sites, all of which are located on the edges of the ice sheets. The Nature Geoscience study also doesn’t change the essential fact that we are losing ice on a daily basis from Greenland and West Antarctica—104 billion metric tons is still a lot of water to be adding to the global seas each year. Most of all the study underscores the need to keep researching the impact of warming on our polar regions—which is why it’s good news that the GRACE mission was just extended through 2015.

        • philjourdan says:

          And another lie from you. He quoted the comment. He did not misrepresent it.

        • The same people who did the calculations wrong the first time, say that this time they are doing it right. And you believe them.

          There has been no sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay for at least 60 years.

        • Robert B says:

          “We resolve 26 independent drainage basins and find that Antarctic mass loss, and its acceleration, is concentrated in basins along the Amundsen Sea coast. Outside this region, we find that West Antarctica is nearly in balance and that East Antarctica is gaining substantial mass.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7425/full/nature11621.html

          Ice will dry out below 0 but the humidity and winds will make a bigger difference than 2/3 of a degree.

        • philjourdan says:

          They also then found they over estimated the loss.

          I guess you are just learning – and have to try to impress people with the blindingly obvious stuff.

          Hint: Learn more, lie less.

    • Gail Combs says:

      This is why the stations in Antarctica get buried in snow and have to be dug out….

      The End of the Field Season
      Posted on February 17, 2014 by David Mikolajczyk

      So, the last week of this field season went and got itself in a big hurry, so much so that I’m no longer on the ice as I write this last post for our 2013-2014 field season.

      There was a station that we had removed earlier in the season that we wanted to reinstall, Emma AWS. Originally, our last scheduled day to fly to this new site was Saturday 8 February. When Saturday came and went, we were put on the schedule for either the next Monday or Tuesday, whichever was a better weather day.

      Unfortunately, the weather at Emma’s location was poor on Monday, but we did try flying to a different station, Vito AWS. As (bad) luck would have it, there were too many low clouds and fog at the site. We flew around, surveying the area, for about a half hour. The clouds were moving too quickly, so any opening we did see would soon close up before we could land. We never saw the station, and had we landed it would have been very difficult to see with the fog. We turned back to McMurdo.

      Since we flew on Monday, that left Tuesday for us to snowmobile out to Windless Bight AWS to raise the station…..
      Of course, we weren’t able to fix everything on the first visit to Willie, so we had to go back on Wednesday. But before that we still had to do our work at Windless. We needed to raise the station, and that involved digging out the battery box, removing the instruments and upper-most tower section, then installing an additional tower section below the original. So the station went from about 7 feet high to 17 feet….
      http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/blog/

  5. plutarchspam says:

    Just to remind you of your lie: “Meanwhile, the imbeciles known as climate experts claim that the much colder interior is melting down, requiring temperatures above 0C.”

    • Explain how this is caused by CO2, and why the scientists told the press that it was “unstoppable”

      • plutarchspam says:

        It’s your lie, you explain it.

        • I told the press that a local subsurface current was caused by global warming and was unstoppable?

        • plutarchspam says:

          I realized that you lie often enough that it’s hard to keep track. That’s why I quoted the particular lie of yours that I was referring to.

          I didn’t realize that you also don’t have sufficient reading skills to recognize your own words when quoted back to you.

        • In other words, you are acknowledging that the scientists intentionally misled the press, and never made any attempt to clear the issue up.

          Brian Clark Howard
          National Geographic

          PUBLISHED MAY 12, 2014

          A massive glacier system in West Antarctica has started collapsing because of global warming and will contribute to significant worldwide sea-level rise, two teams of scientists warn in a pair of major studies released Monday.

          Scientists had previously thought the two-mile-thick (3.2 kilometers) glacier system would remain stable for thousands of years, but new research suggests a faster time frame for melting.

          A rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in irreversible decline and will sink into the sea, scientists at the University of California, Irvine and NASA reported Monday.

        • plutarchspam says:

          You just can’t stop lying, can you?

          It’s very handy to have you blogging. Every so often I get told that ‘no skeptic’ lies about scientists, accuses them of fraud, and other such things. I just send them here. Then I either get told you’re not a skeptic, or that you’re a false flag operation.

        • philjourdan says:

          So far, you have demonstrated ignorance and deception. However you have YET to name a single lie.

          That is called trolling. And yes, you can be a stupid troll.

        • plutarchspam says:

          I really should have taken that screen capture. Now you add something else that wasn’t in what I replied to. Keep the lies coming.

    • philjourdan says:

      So you found a magical ice that melts below freezing. And does this magical ice also freeze at 40º Fahrenheit?

  6. bretshroyer says:

    So apparently it’s not that there is “more ice” (record extent) but that the ice is thinner as it has spread out. Because, obviously, ice in the Antarctic has never flowed from higher altitudes toward the sea until AGW started kicking in. Maybe AGW has increased the force of gravity as well.

    Polar ice has always melted from the bottom and from the top. It generally happens when the temperature exceeds 0 C. (I may have to ask a climate scientist to verify this.) The Antarctic extent is at record levels because… there’s less melting from the bottom and from the top than in recent years.

    Of course it’s easy to ignore common sense when you’re apologizing for climate scientists.

    • mjc says:

      Unless that ice is paper thin, greater area does mean increased volume, too…it’s simple geometry. Volume and area are directly tied to each other as any third grader should be able to tell you. So, the argument that it doesn’t count because it’s thinner holds no weight, either…especially when you are talking about there being such a larger area or extent this year.

      • plutarchspam says:

        The Antarctic ice sheet is more than 2 miles thick.

        The Antarctic sea ice is maybe 2 feet thick in late winter. Looks pretty papery.

        But there’s another side of things. Antarctic sea ice grows in winter and melts in summer. The mass of the Antarctic ice pack resets to near zero every year. And, since the sea ice freezes from the ocean and melts back in to it, there’s negligible effect on sea level.

        The Antarctic ice sheet, when it drops mass in to the ocean, it raises sea level. And the numbers on it are averaging past the seasonal cycles.

        • plutarchspam says:

          Thanks for the link. Of course anyone who followed it will be able to easily check out the other 3 stations that appear in the graphic. One is awfully short. The other two show obvious trends of rising sea level.

          http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1394.php
          http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/10.php (1854-2013)

          Obviously global average sea level is not the only thing that affects what a single water level gauge observes. Well, obvious to those of us who aren’t committed to lying about what is going on.

        • R. Shearer says:

          Who is the liar or are you just ignorant? I guess you could be both.

        • plutarchspam says:

          Thanks Shearer. Geran was just commenting about me being abusive and here you go to make me look better.

          What is it you think I’m ignorant of? Or lying about? You think sea ice is 2 miles thick?

          ‘Goddard’ presented only 1 water level station and claims that sea level is not rising. I triple the number of observations and those additional observations show rising water level. ‘Goddard’ chose to not tell you all about that. And I only did the minimal effort of following his link to see that he chose only one observation out of a set where all others on the same page showed something else.

        • Jl says:

          And this proves AGW…..how? Which is the whole point, right?

        • plutarchspam says:

          jl:
          Huh? The many lies goddard has told in this thread, and which I’ve documented, prove that he’s lying. The fact that none of his commenters object in the slightest to his lies shows that truth isn’t much of a concern around here. Doesn’t say anything either way about whether there’s AGW. But with goddard lying so often, it sure weakens anything he says about the subject. At least to those of us concerned about honesty.

      • mjc says:

        0.45 m x 1.0 million km2 is one hell of a ‘non-existent’ volume increase. The amount that the Antarctic sea ice is above ‘normal’ is somewhere over 1 million km2, at the moment…the mean is 18 million km2 and it hit over 20 million km2 last week.

        And, as Archimedes proved over two thousand years ago, that melting sea ice won’t have ‘negligible’ effect on sea level, it will have absolutely NO effect.

        • plutarchspam says:

          So why worry about something that has no effect?

        • mjc says:

          Exactly.

          Couple that with the fact that the East Antarctica ice sheet is currently growing and that there has been no increase in the rate sea level rise (which is currently about 3mm/year) and you end up with a rather non-catastrophic catastrophe…or in other words, something, that will take, at current conditions hundreds to thousands of years to happen…not the next 5 to 50 that we are being threatened with by you and your comrades. And even if you go with double the current rates, it will still take hundreds to thousands of years.

          Besides, it seems that most of the melting, in the West and Peninsular ice sheets is coming from the bottom, not the top or edges…and unless you are saying geothermal heat is caused by ‘CAGW’ (or whatever it’s called this week), then it doesn’t seem to be much influenced by human activity, either.

        • mjc says:

          Oh, and I forgot to add, that the increase in sea ice has a rather cooling effect…just think of what it means to increase the mirror size by a 1+ million km2.

  7. plutarchspam says:

    Did you know that there is a difference between sea ice and an ice sheet?

    An ice sheet is a huge mass of ice sitting on land. (The Antarctic continent).
    Sea ice is ice that freezes from the ocean and floats around on it.

    The ice sheet is losing mass and extent.
    The sea ice is showing larger wintertime extents.

    The ice sheet losing mass raises global sea level. Sea ice increase or decrease doesn’t.

    • Explain what this has to do with global warming, or how the scientists know it is irreversible.

      —————————————————–

      Brian Clark Howard
      National Geographic

      PUBLISHED MAY 12, 2014

      A massive glacier system in West Antarctica has started collapsing because of global warming and will contribute to significant worldwide sea-level rise, two teams of scientists warn in a pair of major studies released Monday.

      Scientists had previously thought the two-mile-thick (3.2 kilometers) glacier system would remain stable for thousands of years, but new research suggests a faster time frame for melting.

      A rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in irreversible decline and will sink into the sea, scientists at the University of California, Irvine and NASA reported Monday.

      • plutarchspam says:

        You’re the one who said:

        Meanwhile, the imbeciles known as climate experts claim that the much colder interior is melting down, requiring temperatures above 0C.

        … and has still never supported your lie.

        While you can’t post without lying, no point in my trying to explain things to you.

        In the mean time, do you believe that a greenhouse effect exists on earth?

      • geran says:

        Once again Steven, you are to be congratulated for putting up with commenters like p…spam. All he offers is abuse, but readers need to see this. Everyone needs to see how they attempt to promote their AGW cult–no science, just insults.

        • plutarchspam says:

          Love those double standards!

          ‘Goddard’ labels all climate scientists ‘stupid’, that’s something of value. I point out that he’s lying in what he claims they said, that’s abuse.

          ‘Goddard’ cherry-picks a single water level station, that’s value. I point out that he ignored two other very nearby stations (and provide those links) that show something different, that’s abuse.

        • Ahh. You believe in that magical type of water which spreads to some locations on the ocean, but not others.

          You must be a climate scientist to be that stupid.

        • geran says:

          Love your “convenient” mis-interpretation. Climate “scientists” have a history of saying, and doing, stupid things. This blog has well documented many examples. Enjoy reading about it.

        • plutarchspam says:

          Hardly magic ‘goddard’, I just know that there are other processes than global averages going on.

          One of many is, the San Francisco bay area straddles the San Andreas fault, an area of active tectonics. Tectonics makes the land rise in some areas, and fall in others. The water level observations reflect this as well as the general sea level rise.

          It’s particularly amusing that you continue with this after posting the link to someone saying exactly that rising and falling land affects apparent sea level. That was for GRACE and isostatic rebound. When you want to deny that Antarctica is losing mass, rising and falling land matters. When you want to deny that global mean sea level is rising, rising and falling land does not matter. Great! The double standards are wonderful!

          geran: since you didn’t say what was abusive, I had to guess. Unlike you and goddard, I don’t think I’m a good mind-reader.

        • Alameda is in the East Bay on the other side of the strike-slip San Andreas Fault, which hasn’t produced any vertical displacement in eons. That excuse simply isn’t going to fly.

        • rah says:

          ‘Goddard’ labels all climate scientists ‘stupid’, Because he knows who here understands those that are stupid. So it’s not really “all”, just the percentage, which is not even close to 97 BTW, that lie their asses off to try and scare people or just to get grants. I guess though he might include those that believe the stupid climate scientists and parrot their crap as “stupid” also. I sure do.

          It gets down to this. This post is about one of the may aspects of the scam of Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change. Do you believe the melting you reference in natural or due to mans activities? You seem to not want to answer that simple straight forward question. Until you do your nothing but a troll that can’t be taken seriously on any level.

        • plutarchspam says:

          rah:
          Just to remind you, too, about ‘goddard’s lie that prompted my commentary

          Meanwhile, the imbeciles known as climate experts claim that the much colder interior is melting down, requiring temperatures above 0C.

          That’s a lie. He also shows nobody who has ever said such a thing, much less that the person saying so was a scientist, much less a climate scientist.

          It is a lie regardless of why Antarctic is losing mass (even _his_ link points to a source saying Antarctica is losing mass). I don’t need any explanation for _why_ Antarctica is losing mass to notice that he’s lying.

          Whether I answer any questions really doesn’t change the fact that goddard lied there, and has continued it repeatedly. You (all) may find that totally appropriate, and it could be that climate scientists really are stupid as claimed. But before getting to that conclusion myself I’d look to a source that doesn’t lie repeatedly about what climate scientists say even in a single comment thread!

          But that’s me. Maybe you-all are fine with using a liar for your source as long as the lies he tells are in a direction you like.

          goddard: given the number of lies you’ve already told, your statement about Alameda isn’t worth much. Even if totally true (doubtful) it ignores the fact that there are other things that also affect observations of local sea level. Granted you have no idea what they are, since you’re not concerned with understanding sea level change. But the people who are concerned about understanding sea level have a rather long list of concerns before they can conclude about global mean sea level from local station observations.

          http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

          In a professional paper on sea level change observations (abstract)

          This means that tide gauges alone cannot serve as a leading indicator of climate change in less than at least several decades.

          oh, yeah, the station ‘goddard’ pointed to was not very long. The paper is at
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/92JC01133/abstract

          That one was about acceleration in sea level rise (he finds none), but see also the one about trends in sea level change:
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91JC00064/abstract
          for which the abstract is:

          Published values for the long-term, global mean sea level rise determined from tide gauge records exhibit considerable scatter, from about 1 mm to 3 mm/yr. This disparity is not attributable to instrument error; long-term trends computed at adjacent sites often agree to within a few tenths of a millimeter per year. Instead, the differing estimates of global sea level rise appear to be in large part due to authors’ using data from gauges located at convergent tectonic plate boundaries, where changes of land elevation give fictitious sea level trends. In addition, virtually all gauges undergo subsidence or uplift due to postglacial rebound (PGR) from the last deglaciation at a rate comparable to or greater than the secular rise of sea level. Modeling PGR by the ICE-3G model of Tushingham and Peltier (1991) and avoiding tide gauge records in areas of converging tectonic plates produces a highly consistent set of long sea level records. The value for mean sea level rise obtained from a global set of 21 such stations in nine oceanic regions with an average record length of 76 years during the period 1880–1980 is 1.8 mm/yr±0.1. This result provides confidence that carefully selected long tide gauge records measure the same underlying trend of sea level and that many old tide gauge records are of very high quality.

          While ‘goddard’ won’t read these for understanding, perhaps some of the visitors here will. In any case, yes, tectonics matter to understanding global mean sea level.

        • Tectonics has no impact on the Alameda tide gauge over the past 60 years, Satellites also show no sea level rise along the California coast.

          Why are you wanting to blame the lies the scientists told the press on me? Guilty conscience?

        • plutarchspam says:

          I notice ‘steven’ that when it was time to cherry pick a single observation from the entire world, you provided a link. When you’re claiming that the station is not subject to any forces, and satellites show what you want, there’s no link.

          Suuuuure. I’ll just take your claim after you’ve lied multiple times in just a few hours. Like your fans, I just fell off the turnip truck.

          Oh, no. I didn’t.

          How about some evidence that _none_ of the many processes which can affect a local tide gauge’s observations are active in the San Francisco bay area. Not just the one station you cherry picked, but also that the ones you ignored are wrong. Particularly the one I pointed to that’s 100 years longer a record than yours. Not just wrong, but that it is overstating sea level rise while you have, magically, chosen the one station in all the world that is correct about global mean sea level even though it is in just one location in a pretty strange part of the globe.

        • Scientists tell the press that Antarctica is melting unstoppably due to global warming, and you want to blame their lies on me.

          Brilliant.

        • plutarchspam says:

          Wow. Just went looking for actual sources on tectonics around alameda. (Google search:
          tectonic “uplift rate” alameda) and promptly find:

          http://topex.ucsd.edu/sandwell/publications/150.pdf

          Which says:

          It is also worth noting the significant slope variation between RSL time series at the Alameda and San Francisco stations, which are located ~20 km from each other. Douglas [2007] also observed this anomaly, pointing out a 1.1mm/yr rate change between the two stations, implying greater uplift at Alameda. The Alameda station, which is located ~10 km west of Hayward fault, has the highest relative uplift rate of all the California stations;

          Not only are you wrong, not only did you lie, in saying that Alameda is unaffected, but of all stations in California is has the highest uplift rate!

          Have to give you this much credit — most people tell only small lies, or back down the magnitude of lie. You repeatedly say that Alameda is unaffected by tectonic uplift. Not only is it affected by uplift, but of all stations in CA, it is the one most affected! You go straight for, and stand with, the whoppers!

    • there is no substitute for victory says:

      Ok Einstein, explain this:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/science/earth/18juneau.html?_r=0

      Or explain this away at Wake Island:
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual.shtml?stnid=1890000

      Or Tell us how this can be happning at the Battery in NYC, the sight of the late climate march:
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual.shtml?stnid=8518750

      Please explain this away in San Francisco Bay:
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=9414290

      Don’t make me pull up the sea level info from Australia or Scandinavia, you’re going to like that data even less

      • plutarchspam says:

        Wow, where is Einstein? I thought he died years ago. I’ve got some questions for him about relativity. Be great to get the answer straight from him!

        • David A says:

          GOOD TROLL, IGNORING ALL COUNTER EVIDENCE.

        • philjourdan says:

          And another lie. Know-it-alls never ask for answers from others.

        • plutarchspam says:

          David: Since your reading skills didn’t extend to reading the very next comment, I’ll repeat it here for you. In brief: if you subtract the sea level trend from the data, you don’t see the trend in the data. That’s all the ‘evidence’ that was provided to Einstein.

          Original:
          For amusement value while I wait to ask Einstein about lambda …

          I bothered to read the text on the figures. Ok, I realize that this is unfair and uncommon around here. But if your cheat like me and open your eyes, you see that the figures ‘there is no substitute …’ linked to carry the label
          Data with the average seasonal cycle and linear trend removed
          What that means, as the site explains, is that those figures are what you see AFTER THE TREND IS REMOVED. Said differently, this is what’s left after you ignore the trend. If you ignore the trend, you don’t see a trend. Did ‘steven’ require y’all to take an oath to ignore the data?

        • plutarchspam says:

          ah, phil, keep those shields against learning high. Confronted with evidence that you’re wrong about me, you reject the evidence.

          If you knew what lambda was, you’d understand why I’d be wanting to ask him about it.

        • philjourdan says:

          If you are going to reply to someone, it is best not to reply to yourself. I realize that is a “learning” issue of which you seem to have a problem.

          But I learn all the time. That is how I learned who you are and that you are incapable of learning.

    • philjourdan says:

      Are you just learning about this for the first time? Is that why you are merely stating the glaringly obvious?

  8. plutarchspam says:

    For amusement value while I wait to ask Einstein about lambda …

    I bothered to read the text on the figures. Ok, I realize that this is unfair and uncommon around here. But if your cheat like me and open your eyes, you see that the figures ‘there is no substitute …’ linked to carry the label

    Data with the average seasonal cycle and linear trend removed

    What that means, as the site explains, is that those figures are what you see AFTER THE TREND IS REMOVED. Said differently, this is what’s left after you ignore the trend. If you ignore the trend, you don’t see a trend. Did ‘steven’ require y’all to take an oath to ignore the data?

    • Why did your friend tell the press that it was due to global warming and unstoppable?

      Spectacularly dishonest things to say.

      • plutarchspam says:

        Your claim in the original post about the scientists:

        Meanwhile, the imbeciles known as climate experts claim that the much colder interior is melting down, requiring temperatures above 0C.

        Plus, of course, the many other lies you’ve told in just this comment thread.

        I know, it’s unfair to expect you to stop lying. You couldn’t post if you couldn’t lie. But those of us who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck won’t be distracted by you pointing somewhere else and whining about somebody else that you (serial liar in just this thread) claim is dishonest.

        Honest people correct their errors (I’ll be generous) when pointed out. You’ve made multiple errors, and corrected none of them. Can’t get to anything serious with someone who’s happy to lie repeatedly, throw up more lies when the first ones are caught, and keeps trying to distract from his lies. I mean errors.

        Given your magnitude and frequency of lies in a single comment thread, I suppose I should defer to your expertise when you label something spectacularly dishonest. But then it occurs to me that, for the same reason, I shouldn’t as perhaps you simply can’t even recognize truth any more. Certainly no concern with telling it yourself.

        • tom0mason says:

          Have you inconveniently forgotten the emails from the anti-scientific scam-artists? Or are you too younge to know about that?
          Thankfully most real and honest scientist through this climate nonsense.

        • geran says:

          p…spam the more you call people liars, the more you reveal yourself as a liar.

          Do you actually believe sea levels are rising, due to CO2?

          Do you actually believe polar ice is melting, due to CO2?

          Do you actually believe the planet is warming, due to CO2?

          Do you actually believe polar bears are drowning, due to CO2?

          You may need more kool-aid….

        • plutarchspam says:

          @tomomason
          I may be young, but not fresh off the turnip truck. Turnip truck or no, I have enough moral fiber to know that other people lying about other things does not justify ‘goddard’s lies about a different group regarding a different topic.

          @geran
          Love your double standards! ‘goddard’ is calling entire fields of scientists liars, frauds, stupid, etc.. Multiple posts a day here, many more on twitter. And has been doing so for years.

          Applying your rule, he’s a tremendous liar himself. But you’re fine with him. Me, though, you can’t point to a single lie I’ve told but you call me a liar. Gorgeous double standard!

          One of the marvelous things about goddard lying so much, and you fans of his never calling him on it even when the proof is right in front of your eyes, is just how dishonest it makes you all and the ‘skeptics’ look. Even better, it makes the scientists goddard lies about look much smarter and more honest. If they were anywhere near as dishonest and stupid as goddard and you like to pretend, he wouldn’t have to lie about what they’re saying. The scientists write thousands of scientific papers and blog articles each year. If they were anywhere near as stupid and dishonest as goddard keeps claiming, he could just honestly quote from the first five articles that came up on a google search each day.

          Of course the looking dishonest part only applies to people who care about honesty. You folks who are fine with lies as long as they’re told by someone you like don’t need to be concerned.

        • tom0mason says:

          plutarchspam,
          You appeart to live a parallel life of immoralia, but that is just what I expected from some pretending to be the Oracle of Delphi or even the holder of the mysteries of the god Apollo.
          Just for your education, be awawre that Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis. ‘Only 36% of geoscientists & engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe nature is primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.’

          Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2. A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecast.

          In 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor.

          More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.’s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate. The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

          More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This update from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

          Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has AUTHORED MORE THAN 125 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, SPECIALIZES IN THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF PREHISTORIC CLIMATE CHANGE: “Dr. Maruyama said yesterday there was WIDESPREAD SKEPTICISM AMONG HIS COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE UN IPCC’S FOURTH AND LATEST ASSESSMENT report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’ When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.’”

          Mike Hulme: Professor of Climate Change, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by ONLY A FEW DOZEN experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies.”

          Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change: The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister (of Great Britain) (and the President of the United States) should cite it. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 (pre-climate gate) world of climate change discourse.

          UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody. I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that’s in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.’

          Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report and one of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists on June 1, 2001 said: The “most egregious” problem with the IPCC’s forthcoming report “is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on.”

          “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….AS A SCIENTIST I REMAIN SKEPTICAL…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “AMONG THE MOST PREEMINENT SCIENTISTS OF THE LAST 100 YEARS.”

          Dr. David Legates, Professor of Climatology, testimony to the U.S. Senate: “Young scientists quickly learn to ‘do what is expected of them’ or at least remain quiet, lest they lose their career before it begins.” “A healthy scientific debate is being compromised.” “When scientific views come under political attack, so too does independent thinking and good policy-making because all require rational thought to be effective.”

          James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, predicted in 2006 that: “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Antarctic where climate remains tolerable.” More recently, however, he admitted to MSNBC: “We don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books …mine included…because it looked clear cut…but it hasn’t happened.” “The climate is doing its usual tricks…there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” “Yet the temperature has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising…carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.”

          Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace testifies before Congrses: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

          Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

          Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech: …at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

          Senate testimony of Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications on how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

          Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” Landsea added.

          “ANY REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS MUST CONCLUDE THE BASIC THEORY WRONG.” – NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

          U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA: “IT IS A BLATANT LIE PUT FORTH…THAT MAKES IT SEEM THERE IS ONLY A FRINGE OF SCIENTISTS WHO DON’T BUY INTO ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.”

          Mathematician Dr. Muriel Newman: “It remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly not settled.”

          UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist: “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” –

          Dr. Richard Lindzen: “The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”

          Award-Winning Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’

          Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. “There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink…’ They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging,” Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting “dogma” and clinging to the “religious importance” of the IPCC’s claims. “They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them,” Curry lamented.

          Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology discusses the heavy price paid by scientists who publicly question the CAGW dogma: “I’ve often thought if I had to do it again I wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Until you have experienced, like some are having with the IRS attacking them in the U.S., you cannot relate to other people exactly what it’s like when you are sitting in your little condo and you’ve spent all of your savings on legal fees. And (when there’s) a knock on the door at 4 o’clock on a Friday and your wife starts crying because she’s afraid it’s the sheriff delivering a legal summons. People have no idea what that’s like. I’m not sure that I would do it again. I’m almost at the point where if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. I’m not going to fight for it again.

          “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

          “We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority” – Dr. Kenneth Green, a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

          “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”– Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

          “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

          “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

          Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton: “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship….new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies.

          UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’”

          Dr. John Nicol, Chairman of the Australia Climate Science Coalition and a former Senior Lecturer of Physics at James Cook University: “The claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man- made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.”

          Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen: “[climate skepticism] is the dominant view in professional science circles. I know lots of people in universities and so on and quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it’s so frowned upon- Any dissension is like a heresy. People are stamped on so they can’t be heard.”

          Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. PATTERSON SAYS HIS CONVERSION “PROBABLY COST ME A LOT OF GRANT MONEY. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,”

          “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”

          “The whole thing is a fraud.” – Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.

          “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University

          Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, slammed the UN IPCC as “the biggest ever scientific fraud”. “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

          Dr. Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both herein Australia and around the world.”

          “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded… it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

          “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel prize winner for physics, Ivar Giaever.

          “Real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, AUTHOR OF 200 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS and former Greenpeace member.

          “Predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

          Atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, a former adjunct professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Michigan and has authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies in the fields of ozone, sulfates and
          Aerosols: “For too many in the (Climate Science) field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained.”

          “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino

          UN IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch: ‘Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth… By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust.”

          Climate researcher Willis Eschenbach, who has published climate studies in Energy and Environment journal and had comments published in the journal Nature: “I am definitely a critic of the IPCC, they are doing their job abysmally poorly. Rather than advance the cause of climate science, they impede it through their reliance on bad statistics, bad economics, and bad data”.

          Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, WHO HAS PUBLISHED OVER 200 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences: “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”

          Consulting Chemist and Forensic Scientist Dr. Jim Sprott of Auckland, NZ: “The much-vaunted IPCC scenarios are patently wrong. The manmade climate change proposition fails”.

          Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling “Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”
          Astrophysicist Dr. Dennis Hollars: “What I’d do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that’s all it’s worth.”

          Dr. Roger W. Cohen, an American Physical Society (APS) fellow: “I was…appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC.”

          Analytical Chemist Michael J. Myers, who specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing: “…man-made global warming is ‘junk’ science.”

          Dutch meteorological institute KNMI: We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.

          “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

          UN IPCC’s Eduardo Zorita: ‘I really do not see how the IPCC can help policy makers’. ‘The Summary for Policy Makers is co-written by government officials & scientists, & thus it seems that it is result of some type of obscure negotiations. This leads to all sorts of wrong incentives, also for scientists. In some countries, a criterion for promotion is whether your work has been cited by IPCC, this gives already an idea about how IPCC reports are misused for goals totally alien to intended purpose’

          Renowned Norwegian solar expert warns temps may ‘actually fall in the course of a 50-year period’ – [ By Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth and served as a referee for scientific journals. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”

          Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. Bryson was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

          Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.”

          Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

          Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe. “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

          Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown”.

          Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
          Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”

          Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”

          Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind.”

          In a September 2005 Discovery Magazine article, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University Dr. William Gray (a former president of the American Meteorological Association), was asked if the funding problems that he was experiencing were due to his skepticism of man-made global warming. His response: “I had NOAA money for 30 years, and then (because of skepticism) I was cut off. I couldn’t get any money from NOAA. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.” Thus Gray – one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world – was cut off from NOAA funding because he had been skeptical of global warming.

          Not part of the IPCC “consensus”, Yury Izrael (Director of the Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President, for RIA Novosti) [http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050623/40748412.html] disagrees with the IPCC that he is a part of: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. This problem is overshadowed by many fallacies and misconceptions that often form the basis for important political decisions”

          Celebrated Physicist Pierre Darriulat Calls UN IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’. Darriulat: ‘The way the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case.” Darriulat adds: ‘The main point to appreciate’ is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it ‘cannot be a scientific document.’

          New paper questions the ‘basic physics’ underlying climate alarm

          A forthcoming paper published in Progress in Physics has important implications for the ‘basic physics’ of climate change. Physicist Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s paper(s) show the assumption that greenhouse gases and other non-blackbody materials follow the blackbody laws of Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann is incorrect, that the laws and constants of Planck and Boltzmann are not universal and widely vary by material or different gases. Dr. Robitaille demonstrates CO2 and water vapor act in the opposite manner of actual blackbodies [climate scientists falsely assume greenhouse gases act as true blackbodies], demonstrating decreasing emissivity with increases in temperature. True blackbodies instead increase emissivity to the 4th power of temperature, and thus the blackbody laws of Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann only apply to true blackbodies, not greenhouse gases or most other materials. The significance to the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ is that the climate is less sensitive to both CO2 and water vapor since both are less ‘greenhouse-like’ emitters and absorbers of IR radiation as temperatures increase.
          http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-38-05.PDF
          and a more readable version –
          http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-questions-basic-physics.htmlh

    • gofer says:

      At .66′ in 100 yrs., at SF, how long will it take to get to Gore’s condo?

    • Shazaam says:

      On the scale of politeness, a fair guess.

      I’m betting it’s that Australian academic that slinked out of sight when his name was revealed. (sorry I couldn’t find the link)

      The complete lack of reasoning skills makes the academic a closer match. (just my opinion tho)

      This one has a single point in it’s jaws and wants to chew it into submission. Very likely a climate “professional” with such a case of blindness to all but that one point.

      Rank amateur on the trolljitsu scale.

  9. Billy Liar says:

    GRACE is the stupidest idea in the history of satellites; doubly so when applied to low density material such as water and ice lying on and surrounded by high density material.

    • nielszoo says:

      Especially when the resolution can’t define rocky surface features that are massively high or low, but it’ll see changes in water depth while missing most of the undersea geography. And all of it yanked out of the noise of core convection, mantle flow and the rest of the gravitational anomalies. When they manage to map the planet showing rocky features +/- 250m in altitude by their gravitational influence then I’ll buy the fact that they could actually find the Antarctic ice sheet by it’s gravity alone much less tell how much ice is really there.

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    Am I the only one who finds it funny that the troll p-spam it accusing Steve of lying by qouting a statement that ice melts at temps above 0 C? So ice needing to be above the freezing point to melt is a lie? Wow…

    By the way, there are svereral inland sites that were ports during the Roman Warm Peiod that are now above sea level. Ostia Antica is one iIRC. Also, California is not just all uplift. Some rise, some falls. Port at Alviso is now a marsh. Lack of dredging will cause most of SF Bay to dry up (ave depth about 10 ft and dropping). Sea level rise is not the problem. Look at historic maps of SF Bay and Boston harbor. Land replacing sea. Now try to tell me Boston is due to uplift…
    Tide guages tell you in feet granularity that you are clear of sediments, not that the surface of the ocean is higher.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Leave it to E.M. to cut to the core. {:>D

    • plutarchspam says:

      I confess, your reading skills here are lower than I’d thought, and I wasn’t generous to start with.

      Goddard claimed

      Meanwhile, the imbeciles known as climate experts claim that the much colder interior is melting down, requiring temperatures above 0C.

      Given even marginal lower elementary reading skills, you’d be able to notice that he’s claiming that scientists are claiming that the ‘much colder interior’ is melting down. They don’t say that.

      He lies, you lap it up.

      • So climate scientists go to the press and say that Antarctica is melting down due to global warming, and then you try to blame their lies on me. You are a real first class piece of work,

        • plutarchspam says:

          Ok, the problem isn’t your constant lying. It’s that your reading teachers have a huge amount to answer for on dereliction of their duties. Happier?

          1) West Antarctica is not the Antarctic interior. The Antarctic interior is in East Antarctica, the Antarctic Plateau.
          2) One part of the Antarctic can melt without all of the Antarctic melting.
          3) The part of the Antarctic that is melting on net doesn’t have to be melting at all times through the year. Just a net.
          4) Related: Atmospheric temperatures where there is sea ice do not have to be cold enough to freeze sea ice. Antarctica especially freezes ice in one area (towards the coast) and melts it elsewhere (the edge of the ice pack).

          Normal adults also realize that there are often differences between what people actually said (scientists or otherwise) and what media reports them as saying. They won’t confuse indirect references with actual statements. Even a ‘direct’ quote warrants some suspicion.

        • So it is my fault that climate scientists are lying to the press about Antarctica melting down due to global warming. Thanks for clearing that up.

      • philjourdan says:

        He may lie, I do not know. However you are a proven liar. So I would suggest you stop lying – no one is buying your BS.

        • David A says:

          regarding little liars claims…
          1. No one said it was. However many scientist have claimed the interior is also producing a net loss. (Do you want the quotes) Also the WAIS has extensive volcanic activity, Also Antarctica has not warmed according to some peer reviewed reports, and according to NASA, before they changed their data. Also the SST around Antarctica has been cooler then normal for some time, thus more sea ice. The only warmer water in the region is in the vicinity of active volcanism near the WAIS.. There are no peer review studies showing the “warm” ocean deep waters getting to the plus 700 meter depth. There are no peer reviewed studies showing the deep warmer water moving to surround Antarctica. The error bars for the supposed warming of the deep oceans are very large, and the ocean warming is well below what the models predicted. Their are no studies even estimating how long it would take for a fraction of a degree of ocean warming to move to the deep oceans, then move to Antarctica, then melt the bottom of the ice sheets. BTW, glacial flow speeds move in cycles, IE, the speed up and slow down regularly.

          Your point two… another pointless straw man and no one asserted differently.

          Your point three….duh, and so what., and who asserted differently, again a straw man.

          your point four.. Again, Duh and who claimed differently and your statement has no bearing on the fact that some climate scientist have stated that the interior ice shelves are releasing much water, so as to potentially cause catastrophic sea level rise, into the oceans. Indeed the GRACE studies show this. However I doubt you have read the detailed reasons for likely inaccuracy in the gravity maps. If so please articulate those arguments, then feel free to refute them, once you demonstrate that you actually read them.

          And finally your disclaimer about quotes. Well there are dozens of quotes, and in zero of those quotes WRT potential and actual melting ice caps, did the scientist complain about being misquoted, did they?

          Also above, you never answered the linked peer reviewed reports above where I commented on you lack of cogent responses. Oh, you did respond. But like your pointless straw man comments above, their was no substance.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    tom0mason says: “…In 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor….”
    >>>>>
    I quit the ACS because of their position on CAGW and I had been a member for forty years.

    A very nice listing BTW, I am going to steal it and give it plus other data to my rep in the NC house tonight.

    • plutarchspam says:

      tom0mason:
      In all that cut and pasting, you show not a single time anybody saying that the interior of Antarctica was melting. Goddard still lied.

      And you didn’t manage to cut and paste a single source to support goddard’s lie that Alameda was unaffected by tectonic uplift. Goddard still lied.

      Your fan club doesn’t notice that, and you probably didn’t either. Somehow you figure that if you post enough quotes or comments, it turns goddard’s lies to truth. It doesn’t. Even less so then they’re irrelevant.

    • David A says:

      Indeed, GRACE, and the more sensitive ESA’s GOCE, is problematic. The shape of the geoid changes yearly, in some places by meters, due to tectonic movements and mantel density flux; thus making MM estimates meaningless.

      Volcanism is the likely cause of any warming in the ocean waters under the WAIS….http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/surprise-west-antarctic-volcano-melts-ice/

      Temperature in the overall region are low…https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/511790636677472256/photo/1

      a 2012 paper reduced grace estimates of loss to 1/2 to 1/3rd of their previous modeled estimate….”substantial technique-specific systematic errors also exist3. In particular, estimates of secular ice-mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data are dominated by significant uncertainty in the accuracy of models of mass change due to glacial isostatic adjustment7″

      Also, there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. In fact, some studies have detected small a deceleration (slowing). Here are some papers which have reported the lack of acceleration in rate of sea level rise (h/t to Alberto Boretti, Robert Dean & Doug Lord):
      1.Douglas B (1992). Global Sea Level Acceleration. J. Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, No. C8, pp. 12,699-12,706, 1992. doi:10.1029/92JC01133
      2.Douglas B and Peltier W R (2002). The Puzzle of Global Sea-Level Rise. Physics Today 55(3):35-40.
      3.Daly J (2003). Tasmanian Sea Levels: The ‘Isle of the Dead’ Revisited. [Internet].
      4.Daly J (2004). Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels for the Greening Earth Society. [Internet].
      5.Jevrejeva S, et al (2006). Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. J. Geophysical Research, 111, C09012, 2006. doi:10.1029/2005JC003229. (data)
      6.Holgate SJ (2007). On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters. 34, L01602.
      7.Wunsch R, Ponte R and Heimbach P (2007). Decadal trends in sea level patterns: 1993-2004. Journal of Climatology. 5889-5911.
      8.Woodworth P, et al (2009). Evidence for the accelerations of sea level on multi-decade and century timescales. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 777-789, May 2009. doi:10.1002/joc.1771
      9.You ZJ, Lord DB, and Watson PJ (2009). Estimation of Relative Mean Sea Level Rise From Fort Denison Tide Gauge Data. Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Coastal and Ocean Engineering Conference, Wellington, NZ, September 2009.
      10.Wenzel M and Schröter J (2010). Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks. Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans. 115:C08013.
      11.Mörner N-A (2010a). Sea level changes in Bangladesh new observational facts. Energy and Environment. 21(3):235-249.
      12.Mörner N-A (2010b). Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time. Quaternary International. 221(1-2):3-8.
      13.Mörner N-A (2010c). There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise! 21st Century Science & Technology. Fall 2010:7-17.
      14.Houston JR and Dean RG (2011a). Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research. 27:409-417.
      15.Houston JR and Dean RG (2011b). J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean (2011) Reply to: Rahmstorf, S. and Vermeer, M., 2011. Discussion of: Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G., 2011. Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research. Volume 27, Issue 4: pp. 788-790. doi:10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1
      16.Watson PJ (2011). Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research. 27:368-377.
      17.Modra B and Hesse S (2011), NSW Ocean Water Level. 21st NSW Coastal Conference. (or here)
      18.Mörner N-A, (2011a). Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes by exploring past geological sea level records. Chapter 6 of book, D Easterbrook, Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 Elsevier B.V. ISBN: 978-0-12-385956-3.
      19.Mörner N-A, (2011b). The Maldives: A measure of sea level changes and sea level ethics. Chapter 7 of book, D Easterbrook, Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 Elsevier B.V. ISBN: 978-0-12-385956-3.
      20.Boretti A (2012a). Short Term Comparison of Climate Model Predictions and Satellite Altimeter Measurements of Sea Levels. Coastal Engineering, 60, pp. 319-322. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2011.10.005. (Also, an article about this paper.)
      21.Boretti A (2012b). Is there any support in the long term tide gauge data to the claims that parts of Sydney will be swamped by rising sea levels? Coastal Engineering, 64, pp. 161-167. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2012.01.006
      22.Hughes W (2012), Continued existence of Maori canals near Blenheim in New Zealand indicates a stable relative sea level over 200 years. [Internet].
      23.Boretti A and Watson T (2012). The inconvenient truth: Ocean Levels are not accelerating in Australia. Energy & Environment. doi:10.1260/0958-305X.23.5.801
      24.Burton D (2012). Comments on “Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of Long Island, New York,” by Shepard, et al. Natural Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0159-8
      25.Lüning S and Vahrenholt F (2012). Fallstudien aus aller Welt belegen: Keine Beschleunigung des Meeresspiegelanstiegs während der letzten 30 Jahre. (Case studies from around the world: no evidence of accelerating sea level rise over the last 30 years – English translation.)
      26.Homewood P (2012). Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating? [Internet].
      27.Schmith T, et al (2012), Statistical analysis of global surface temperature and sea level using cointegration methods. Journal of Climate, 2012, American Meteorological Society. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00598.1 (or draft)
      28.Mörner N-A and Parker A (2013). Present-to-future sea level changes: The Australian case, Environmental Science, An Indian Journal, ESAIJ, 8(2), 2013 [43-51]
      29.Scafetta N (2013a). Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dynamics. doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1771-3 (In press; preprint here.)
      30.Scafetta, N (2013b). Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics. 1, 37-57, 2013. doi:10.5194/prp-1-37-2013.
      31.Plus, according to news reports, several papers suppressed by the New South Wales, Australia government. [1] [2&2b]

      So, no measurements of warm water getting to the deep oceans. No measurements showing warm water moving into the areas around Antarctica. The only areas around Antarctica showing warming waters are in areas on the WAIS showing increased volcanism. No increase in SL rise. hum, so no C in CAGW, and no G and no W in it either. Just people (“A”) speculating in the guise of scientists. While the work of real scientist above is not reported in IPCC reports.

  12. Gail Combs says:

    plutarchspam says:
    September 29, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    Ok, the problem isn’t your constant lying. It’s that your reading teachers have a huge amount to answer for on dereliction of their duties. Happier?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That would be thanks to American Fabian John Dewey.

    Dumbing Down America
    by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

    I am often asked to name those educators responsible for the change in primary reading instruction which has led to the decline of literacy in America…..

    The progressives were a new breed of educator that came on the scene around the turn of the century. These rejected the religion of the Bible and placed their new faith in science, evolution and psychology….
    John Dewey got his education in the new psychology under G. Stanley Hall at John Hopkins University….In 1894, Dewey was appointed head of the department of philosophy, psychology and education at the University of Chicago which had been established two years earlier by a gift from John D. Rockefeller. In 1896, Dewey created his famous experimental Laboratory School where he could test the effects of the new psychology on real live children.

    Dewey’s philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

    In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916: …..

    Actually I think it is you who is the victim of the progressive brainwashing being conducted in the US school systems for more than a century. Do note that our friend the bankster and Oil tycoon, John D. Rockefeller was bankrolling the change in the US school system. And do not think that ‘gift’ didn’t come with strings attached, like he got to name the head of the school.

    The Hand that Rocked the Cradle: A Critical Analysis of Rockefeller Philanthropic Funding, 1920-1960

    Abstract

    Past research into the mental hygiene movement in Canada and the United States has tended to view it in isolation from co-temporary projects funded by Rockefeller philanthropy, such
    as mass communications research. The mental hygiene campaign aimed to modify adult-child relations by reducing the influence parents and teachers held over children’s personality
    development; the central aim of mass communications research was the development of conformity of opinion. One a project of social engineering, the other of social control, the two projects combined appear to have possessed considerable potential to work in concert to shift weight in the socializing
    matrix from families and schools to the media at the outset of the post-World War II baby boom.

    And do not forget the current policy of drugging any child who does not ‘conform’ in some schools that is 14% of white seven year old boys who are bored out of their skulls by the dumbed down school system.

    and following the Rockefeller thread…

    In the 30’s, Morris A. Bealle, a former city editor of the old Washington Times and Herald, was running a county seat newspaper, in which the local power company bought a large advertisement every week. This account took quite a lot of worry off Bealle’s shoulders when the bills came due.

    But according to Bealle’s own story, one day the paper took up the cudgels for some of its readers that were being given poor service from the power company, and Morris Bealle received the dressing down of his life from the advertising agency which handled the power company’s account. They told him that any more such “stepping out of line” would result in the immediate cancellation not only of the advertising contract, but also of the gas company and the telephone company.

    That’s when Bealle’s eyes were opened to the meaning of a “free press”, and he decided to get out of the newspaper business. He could afford to do that because he belonged to the landed gentry of Maryland, but not all newspaper editors are that lucky.

    Bealle used his professional experience to do some deep digging into the freedom-of-the-press situation and came up with two shattering exposes — “The Drug Story”, and “The House of Rockefeller.” The fact that in spite of his familiarity with the editorial world and many important personal contacts he couldn’t get his revelations into print until he founded his own company, The Columbia Publishing House, Washington D.C., in 1949, was just a prime example of the silent but adamant censorship in force in “the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”. Although The Drug Story is one of the most important books on health and politics ever to appear in the USA, it has never been admitted to a major bookstore nor reviewed by any establishment paper, and was sold exclusively by mail. Nevertheless, when we first got to read it, in the 1970s, it was already in its 33rd printing, under a different label – Biworld Publishers, Orem, Utah.

    Examples

    As Bealle pointed out, a business which makes 6% on its invested capital is considered a sound money maker. Sterling Drug, Inc., the main cog and largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68 subsidiaries, showed operating profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106 – a 54% profit. Squibb, another Rockefeller-controlled company, in 1945 made not 6% but 576% on the actual value of its property….
    The Drug Story

    Ain’t it nice plutarchspam, to find out you are a serf of the Rockefeller?

Leave a Reply

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