Boundless Evidence That Climate Science Is A Criminal Profession

Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol, says there is no evidence for a global warming hiatus.


No substantive evidence for ‘pause’ in global warming, study finds

NOAA reported the hiatus. NASA reported the hiatus. CRU reported the hiatus.


All of the most recent satellite data sets report the hiatus.



NOAA Radiosonde data reported the hiatus.


The only evidence that a hiatus didn’t occur is the most recent NOAA/NASA data, which is being investigated by Congress after whistleblowers came forward to report political manipulation and improper procedures.

The hubris of climate criminals like Lewandowsky seems to grow by the day, buoyed by the criminal in the White House.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Boundless Evidence That Climate Science Is A Criminal Profession

  1. CheshireRed says:

    There’s the small matter that this ‘study’ examined 40 papers and then the authors arrived at a subjective conclusion of their own making. In what world do their opinions count for more than actual, measured observations?!
    Yet again this is simply headline-generating material designed to offer a ‘counter-argument’ and to ‘debunk’ an observed pause that is proving disastrous for the entire AGW theory.
    This is politics not science.

  2. Steve Case says:

    Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol, says there is no evidence for a global warming hiatus.

    I really don’t give a rip whether or not the so-called pause or hiatus is real or not. What really counts is the actual temperature. After more than 25 years and a 40% increase to 400 ppm CO2, the actual world temperature isn’t anywhere near what the climate models said it should be by now. The climate models are wrong, and any science based on those models is bunk.

    • Scott says:

      So the warmest October by far, land and sea, isn’t good enough for you? Temps are pretty much smack in the middle of where climate models predicted. North hemisphere, south, land, sea, October, 2015, last 10 months… all are sitting as the warmest. To a science denier, this represents cooling.

    • Drewski says:

      Climate science, like all Earth sciences, are not based on models, they are based on observations. These observations include:
      A change of the ocean’s chemistry
      A change in the atmospheric chemistry
      A huge loss of Arctic ice loss in summer months
      A rise in surface temps over the past 130+ years
      An even steeper rise in night time temperatures
      A rise in ocean temps
      90% retreat of glaciers across all continents

      • Karl W. Braun says:

        It is necessary here to substantiate your claims, lest they be considered mere hand waving.

      • Hugh K says:

        Etc = China destroying/killing reef systems in the South China Sea and other disputed waters to build military bases.

        Fixed that for ya’ Drew. Or do you disagree? And if so, why?

  3. Terrence says:

    Stephan Lewandowsky is a psychologist – when I was going to university, a standard thought was that students who went in psychology did so to see if they could find out what was wrong with them; most of them were not successful at this.

    So, Stephan Lewandowsky does not know what is wrong with himself; so he puts all his efforts into an area where he has no academic background. He probably gets a lot of grants to “study” climate (much more than he could get as a psychologist).

  4. Ron Van Wegen says:

    Long-time reader etc.

    There’s a wonderful “Freudian slip” in an article on the Australian website by Greg Jericho about there being no “pause” in global warming…

    A screen grab is available at…

    Quote: “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US has also reached the same collusions.”

    I also have a saved copy of the article if it disappears.

    Perhaps you could work this into one of your columns!

    Thanks for all the hard-work.

    Ron Van Wegen

  5. Matt Bennett says:

    Oh dear!…. for old Ronny, it’s not about the science, but about a (likely annoying) spellcheck error and the substitution of the word ‘collusion’… Wow! Physics is in trouble now…. Infrared absorptive bandwidths have presumably changed due to a spelling or grammar error! And therein lies the total, all-encompassing force of the psycho denier pseudo-argument.

  6. Matt Bennett says:

    Hey Heller-boy, or whatever your name is…. Do you actually understand the scientific method? Do you understand that ‘scientists as criminals’ ain’t likely to play very well to the general audience that DOES!…. You’re a joke and it’s laughable that you think that journals, lead researchers, universities and government departments could all toe the same (ooooohhh, conspiratorial!!) line when they can’t even stop a simple media leak from within. You’re a wacko, plain and simple (though I must say, I don’t doubt your motives are sincere)….

    • tonyheller says:

      Your argument is stupid beyond comprehension.

      • Matt Bennett says:

        Nice argument, Hellboy… Now where’s that bat-crazy conspiratorial evidence again? Get back to me when you have a clue how active scientific investigation works. Until then, continue to dig yourself into an ever-increasing grave of intellectual irrelevancy.

    • Karl W. Braun says:

      Matt, if you wish to be a capable contrarian here, you must raise your level of discourse. This site is veteran to many a naysayer and troll, which after a time, invariably disappear in quiet ignominious defeat.

      • Matt Bennett says:

        No doubt true Karl, but when you prove yourself capable of actual independent research, free of the ridiculous and ever-shrinking cries of ‘hoax’ (as if that is even possible, if you had a clue about how real world science takes place, which you don’t) from your echo chamber, you might understand…

        What do you make of the fact that 2014, 2015 and possibly 2016 will all be represent their respective hottest years since industrialisation? What hiatus, huh?

        • Karl W. Braun says:

          The claim that these years are the warmest in recorded history awaits independent substantiation, especially considering that the NOAA index, and all other indices that depend on it, are outliers with respect to those from satellites, as well as NOAA’s own NCEP index used to initialize weather forecasting models. It is up to NOAA to demonstrate that their stated precision to hundredths of a degree is valid as well as certify that their error estimates are justifiable. This would necessarily require that the means of adjusting raw temperatures be reported to the extent that independent reproduction is possible.

          • Matt Bennett says:

            Utter nutter conspiracies. Adjustments are made to temp data series ALL THE TIME!! Up, down, colder, warmer etc, in all directions. On land, sea, satellite and radiosonde data – all need adjustments and homogenisations to ensure their validity. You would understand this if you had a clue about science. To preference one source or one period over what the whole collection shows, just because you like what it says…. well, you know what that’s called (hint, it’s a denier’s favourite pastime.. ;) M.

          • Karl W. Braun says:

            Mr. Bennett, where am I evoking a conspiracy? What I have written above pertains to standard scientific practice, i.e., to show one’s work.

          • Matt Bennett says:

            What you’ve written would have us believe such extraordinary things as it is more accurate to use a satellite way above the earth, with all its inherent difficulties and assumptions (which I’m absolutely NOT saying isn’t worthwhile, the more independent data sets the better), to measure lower troposphere temps than to measure them DIRECTLY with thermometers….

            And yes, they can state their accuracy to two decimals places because, you do understand don’t you, that they’re talking about anomalies not absolute temps, right? This is entirely appropriate and done for a number of reasons ncluding this increased accuracy. So yes, to say the hundreds of experts that do this for a living don’t know what they’re doing (or even know as much as you Karl) and are somehow cooking the books to get the result they want – that’s the nutter conspiracy.

    • rw says:

      From what I’ve seen, Tony Heller understands the scientific method quite well – and that includes temperature adjustments. I wonder what your credentials are, cupcake.

      • Matt Bennett says:

        Haha, it’s UTTERLY obvious he doesn’t, sugarplum… But, there there, it can be hard playing fifth fiddle to your idol. Could YOU perhaps list the various utterly uncontroversial intricacies that necessitate homogenisations and standardised adjustments? You might even learn something along the way… I won’t hold my breath.

  7. M E says:

    Has any one tried site called Climate4you
    where you can get the measurements for the subjects which interest this blog . No heat emotional or otherwise is generated.

  8. Billyjack says:

    Tony there is no point in debating with people like Matt. They only have the talking points and like all leftists are not very intelligent. To quote Twain” Never argue with stupid people, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience”.
    Liberals like Matt actually believe the criminal government propaganda that government stealing and fraud are “waste and inefficiency”. He actually believes that…
    1) $45 million to build a gas station in Afghanistan was just ineffcient
    2) $500 million to Solyndra 90 days before bankruptcy was just waste
    3) $500 million to train 60 Syrian rebels actually is not in someone’s bank account
    4) $1 billion to build a website that wouldn’t work did not entail any kick backs or payoffs
    5) $10 million net worth of Harry Reid on a $200,000/year slary was acheived because he is a shrewd investor.
    6) $3 billion in Clinton Foundation donations largely from foreign sources was not due to being granted favors from the state department.
    When you can be so stupid to believe government theft is not malicious, you are unable to grasp the criminality of government manipulation of science to set up another scam.

    • Matt Bennett says:

      Aaaaaaah the pot and the kettle there eh, Billy Boy, speaking of stupid people. Point me to where I ever made ONE of those straw-man statements and I’ll happily retract. I couldn’t care less about liberal or conservative values or labels, such dichotomy is totally artificial. I’ll just take the science thanks …. Get back to me when you prove yourself capable of even understanding how real-world research is done.

      In the mean time, why is it that people like me that normally want market driven solutions to problems can’t get price signals on this problem? Hmmmm, could it be vested interests? Look beyond the headlines bud.

    • Ross says:

      You missed one.
      People like Matt actually believe the talkfests, like the one coming up in Paris ,are actually about the world’s climate.

Leave a Reply

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