They Are So Sad

Climate experts invented the term “warming hiatus.” A few months later they decided that wasn’t a good idea politically, so now they pretend it doesn’t exist.

Any “good news” like normal Arctic sea ice or the warming hiatus is considered bad news, because it threatens their funding and agenda.

Complete scum bags.

About Tony Heller

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

34 Responses to They Are So Sad

  1. Gail Combs says:

    Not complete scum bags. Steve, Dangerous Destroyers that hate the productive class that supports them.

    • philjourdan says:

      They are the “Nimbys” of wealth. As soon as they get theirs, they want to shut the door to keep out the riff-raff.

    • I’ll go with dangerous destroyers and complete scum bags, Gail. It’s not mutually exclusive.

    • Jimbo says:

      Here is what they said over the years from 2005 to October 2014.

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
      The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
      ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
      __________________

      Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
      “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
      __________________

      Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
      “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
      __________________

      Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
      “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
      __________________

      Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
      “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
      __________________

      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
      “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
      __________________

      Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
      [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

      [A] “Yes, but only just”.
      __________________

      Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
      “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
      __________________

      Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
      “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
      __________________

      Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
      “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
      __________________

      Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
      “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
      __________________

      Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
      “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
      Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
      __________________

      Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
      “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
      __________________

      Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
      “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
      [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
      __________________

      Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
      “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
      __________________

      Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
      ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
      __________________
      Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
      “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
      __________________

      Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
      “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
      __________________

      Met Office – July 2013
      The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
      ………..
      Executive summary
      The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
      Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
      __________________

      Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
      “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
      __________________

      Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
      They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
      __________________

      Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
      Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
      Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
      __________________

      Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
      “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
      __________________

      Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
      “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
      __________________

      Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
      “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
      __________________

      Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
      “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
      __________________

      Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
      Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
      “This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
      __________________

      Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
      “…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”

  2. jason Calley says:

    Yes, they literally are sad that the world is not burning up.

    Suppose that the doctors misdiagnosed someone you loved, and they were told that they only had a short time to live. You would be happy to learn that the diagnosis was wrong, that your loved one was, in fact, going to be fine.

    CAGW proponents don’t think that way…

    • Climatism says:

      Jason you summed it all up beautifully via this post:
      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/arctic-sea-ice-continues-its-move-back-to-the-35-year-mean/

      Jason Calley on December 4, 2014 at 1:40 pm
      “This story will not be covered by any of the criminals in government or the mainstream media who are pushing the global warming scam.”

      That in itself is evidence that the CAGW so-called “scientists” are part of the scam. Consider this: suppose you sincerely believed that you were suffering from a likely-to-be terminal illness. Wouldn’t you greet any good news about your condition with enthusiasm? “Yahoo! I still have a chance!”

      Suppose, on the other hand, that you were pretending to be ill so that you could get a big disability check. In that case, any good reports get ignored, and when anyone asks, “I am doing worse than I thought!”

      Nice.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Climatism! Thanks for the kind words! 🙂

        I hope to see the day when climate fraudsters get relegated to the same page of science history where Lysenko has been consigned. It is a sorrow that so many people have fallen for their CAGW myth.

    • Beale says:

      Do the CAGW proponents love anyone or anything? I doubt it.

  3. And threatens the egos of some of the modellers. They stake their reputations on the accuracy of model predictions.
    Incorrect predictions=broken grandeous self image.

    • nielszoo says:

      I really don’t understand that. I routinely do mathematical simulations of the systems I design using both idealized formula and ideal parameters combined with field and physical test data that I use to create what I call “brute force” formula.) I run all that together and I’m thrilled when they get close to the final system’s performance. They are TOOLS that help me make design decisions and are not the product itself. I understand the methods and tolerances, some things are off by fractions and some by large margins and I allow for that in my interpretations. If they were as far off as the data I’ve seen out of CMIP I would not be doing them as my clients would have a cow if they found out I was spending their money wasting billable time on it.

  4. gator69 says:

    What do you have against scumbags? What else am I supposed to use to bag and haul scum? Scumbags are actually useful, unlike the purely evil progressives we see backing the AGW suicide pact.

  5. Don B says:

    At the NY Times, Andy Revkin wrote:

    “There’s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in the process [global warming]— including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion.”
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/?_r=0

    Admitting that the hiatus/pause/plateau exists may have cost him his Christmas bonus.

    • Gail Combs says:

      WOW!!! amazing. Given that Al Gore has already exited Green Energy stage left perhaps the climb down has finally started.

      Warren Buffett on the other hand is still holding onto wind and solar… in California. For example the Antelope Valley project (solar) supposed to power 400,000 California homes and is under a 20-year power purchase agreement with Edison International for “well-above-market prices.” He got that project at bargain basement prices as it bankrupted. I imagine Buffet expects the Greenies in California to be the last hold outs as the scam fades.

      Of course Buffet also has 16,400 miles of natural gas pipelines and R/R to haul natural gas and other energy companies.

      • Mohatdebos says:

        Warren Buffet has also commented, much to the chagrin of true believers, on the fact that has been no increase increase in weather related insurance claims. Warren Buffet owns one of the largest insurance companies (Gen Re) in the world.

      • Ernest Bush says:

        Warren Buffet is also a scumbag who probably admires George Soros’s tactics.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You do not get to be super wealthy by being a nice guy. My brother became a multimillionaire and I am so scared of the guy I never told anyone my married name or where I live except for a couple trusted relatives. Ruthless does not begin to describe him.

        • Another Ian says:

          Gail Combs

          Your former president Harry S. Truman was fond of saying “The only things you don’t know about people is the history you haven’t read”.

          One take of which is that the “f***ers don’t waste much time thinking of the f***ees”

  6. Kenneth Burnett says:

    I am having trouble posting.  Is the trouble on your end, my side, or have I been snubbed.  There is no substitute for victory.  a.k.a. [email protected] From: Real Science To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:46 AM Subject: [New post] They Are So Sad #yiv6190779246 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv6190779246 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:link, #yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv6190779246 WordPress.com | stevengoddard posted: “Climate experts invented the term “warming hiatus.” A few months later they decided that wasn’t a good idea politically, so now they pretend it doesn’t exist.Any “good news” like normal Arctic sea ice or the warming hiatus is considered bad news, beca” | |

    • Gail Combs says:

      Kenneth, I have had trouble posting yesterday and today so it is not you and it is not being snubbed. Steven very rarely censors and only after he has given ample warning.

  7. Anto says:

    I’ve also noticed that they’re increasingly using the term “extreme weather” due to CO2. They can’t claim “global warming” anymore, since it’s not warming anywhere other than in Gavin’s crime in progress. They can’t point to increased hurricanes, floods, droughts, ice loss, etc. since the statistics show that’s not happening. But everyday, somewhere there is an “extreme” weather event which they can point to and say, “human CO2 is making these events more likely”.

    The moronic irony could not be more apparent: after all, for years they’ve been telling us that “weather isn’t climate”, but now, apparently, it is.

  8. redc1c4 says:

    complete scumbags the world over are insulted by this comparison.

  9. Peter Yates says:

    Interesting exchange of opinions on Twitter :-

    > Richard Windsor ?@SpaceWeather101
    Consensus does not make something “true”. At one time there was scientific consensus of Spontaneous Generation.

    > Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
    @SpaceWeather101 But it does represent the best view of the truth at any time. And that’s the most reasonable thing to base actions on.

    > Peter:AVRescue ?@avrnz
    @andrewwr235 @SpaceWeather101 What if “best view” shows average temps don’t increase at same times as global CO2 levels? eg. last 15+ years.

    I’ll keep you posted if there are any responses.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Richard Windsor ??? As in the former EPA director?

      • Peter Yates says:

        Sorry, I don’t know … but, he describes himself as: “Retired Scientist & Engineer – I didn’t play one on TV.”
        He has 16,600 followers on Twitter, here: .. https://twitter.com/SpaceWeather101
        Joined Twitter in January 2012.
        By the way, his large profile picture is a graphic that shows alternating warm & cold periods from 2400BC to ~2020. Whoever did the graphic obviously thinks we will soon have a short colder period with 2019 being the coldest year and then a recovery.

    • Peter Yates says:

      ok .. two tweets in response

      > Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
      @avrnz @SpaceWeather101 I was talking about role of consensus in scientific method.

      > Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
      @avrnz @SpaceWeather101 I don’t see that an observation from one particular science has any special bearing on how science is conducted.

      Maybe Andrew didn’t understand what I was trying to say .. in 140 characters (including spaces and punctuation). That’s a problem with a site mainly intended for social messages.
      The vast majority of Richard Windsor’s tweets are concerned with climate ‘alarmism’. (His Twitter address: @SpaceWeather101 has to be a pretty good clue!) .. So I assumed that Andrew was talking about the “consensus” argument used by mainstream climate enthusiasts.
      Anyway, like Jason Calley says in a comment below: “Andrew needs to realize that consensus does NOT represent the “best view”; it only represents the most common [view].” .. The history of science shows that a new hypothesis and new papers are not necessarily incorrect if they don’t follow the “mainstream” theories. This is especially relevant if the mainstream theories seemed to largely ignore the empirical evidence and real-life observations for at least a decade and a half. .. However, there are now signs that some previously mainstream scientists are starting to investigate the pause / hiatus / plateau.

  10. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Peter Yates! You quote: “> Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
    @SpaceWeather101 But it does represent the best view of the truth at any time. And that’s the most reasonable thing to base actions on.”

    Andrew needs to realize that consensus does NOT represent the “best view”; it only represents the most common. If “majority” was the same as “best”, then every single election would result in the best candidate winning. 🙂 If Andrew Richards is an honorable, intelligent person (and I would suspect that he really is), then he will find that using his own research and his own judgement will give him better results at discerning the truth than will following the madness of crowds.

  11. Hurricane Sandy was the best news they had all decade, because it caused massive destruction and displaced millions of people, even though it was not a hurricane and had nothing to do with global warming, had little to do with the 9 inches of sea level rise last century.

  12. Frank K. says:

    Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
    @SpaceWeather101 But it does represent the best view of the truth at any time. And that’s the most reasonable thing to base actions on.”

    This kind of thinking is similar to ancient medical practices. The ancient “doctor” of the 1400s thinks a patient is suffering from “bad air,” which is the consensus of 97% of his contemporary “physicians”. So they agree they must take action! They agree that the patient must breathe mercury vapor to be cured.

    So it is with modern climate science. They are so sure their theories are sound and conclude that “the Earth has a fever” that they will advocate everything ranging from total destruction of our energy production infrastructure to dictatorships and wacky “geo-engineering” schemes.

Leave a Reply

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