Climate Fraud From Heidi Is As Clear As Day

Glaciers have been retreating for 20,000 years. It has nothing to do with “climate change.” It is time to end this fraud.

Screen Shot 2016-08-29 at 8.28.04 AM-down

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Climate Fraud From Heidi Is As Clear As Day

  1. Andy DC says:

    Glaciers advance, glaciers retreat. Those are natural events that have taken place since the beginning of time.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      The truth is that most people don’t give a flying fig about glaciers and have never seen one except maybe on TV. Only a small minority with basic understanding of climate periods and geology knows what you just said. The majority will never care about such things but they would if they knew they are being robbed blind by the scammers.

  2. Leon Brozyna says:

    All these alarmist pronouncements … are they trying to convince me … or themselves?

  3. John F Hultquist says:

    “… several of them men of science …”

    In a sane world, the above would have become “men & women” or “women & men” or just glaciologists.
    Instead we have “climate scientists” who know almost nothing about climate or glaciers, but do know how TV and social media work — and how to make things up.

  4. mcraig says:

    I think they are trying to keep their followers engaged, to maintain a support base. And I further think that this falls into the category of propaganda.

  5. RAH says:

    Just posting about their BS. The Antarctic is not melting away as they predicted. The Arctic, after a low winter maximum did is not going to set a new record summer minimum as they claimed it would. They don’t even have a hurricane to hype. The best the weather Gods have given them to bleat about so far this summer is heavy rain and flooding in Louisiana.

    So now to deflect from their multiple failures we get stuff about Anthrax in Siberia and glaciers melting and Schmidt claiming that July was the hottest month evah. .

  6. aeroguy48 says:

    I cut and pasted this off a private FB group, climate skeptics. I cant get back to it, but here is what an amateur found out.This quite important, I believe. I’ve been following the hyper-accurate USCRN network for a while. These stations, while they have not been around for more than a decade, are located in remote areas across the U.S., and because they are free of possible contamination from human activity, are free of “corrections”.
    I’d been wondering why USCRN was reporting hot weather, while everyone I know was stating how cool it was, so I started looking at the data for individual stations. What I found was, for many stations, no data has been used since May 2014.
    I’ve looked at 82 stations so far, and 37 have not been used since May 2014.
    When I plot the data from these stations, it’s apparent that these stations show falling temperatures. The fall experienced by some stations is huge.
    I had faith in USCRN because nobody was interfering with the data. Now it seems that data which clashes with a warming hypothesis is not modified, it is excluded.
    The data is available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/monthly01/
    Here’s a plot of Springfield, CO. A five degree drop in 4 years.
    No automatic alt text available.
    Like
    Comment

    • Dan zielinski says:

      Wow.

    • Windsong says:

      Aeroguy48,
      I agree the USCRN data can be described as “inconvenient.” I watch the difference between the Turnbull NWR CRN site and the closest USHCN site at Spokane Intl Airport (KGEG). Same longitude, but GEG is 17 miles north and 100 feet higher elevation. Today’s minimum at Turnbull was 40F; but the hottest year ever will be assisted by the pavement impaired GEG minimum as part of the proof with a blistering 57F. Eleven days ago on August 18, I noticed the CRN site minimum was 21F lower than GEG (49F vs. 70F). That was the largest disparity I have seen. Interestingly, the high readings are usually very close; yesterday both locations recorded a high of 81F.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Incredible..

      They set up a pristine network, then intentionally dump a big proportion of the data because it is inconvenient.

      The SCAM really has a long reach doesn’t it. !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      I hope Tony can chase this up and make it a major thread. !!

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      Years ago when they were setting up the CRN, I thought they would shut it down if it didn’t show warming. Looks like that is what they are doing.

    • Sparks says:

      Amazing

    • Dave N says:

      “Now it seems that data which clashes with a warming hypothesis is not modified, it is excluded.”

      Totally excluded, or replaced with “estimations”? Tony has been posting info that indicates that it is par for the course for much of the data now.

    • Steve Fraser says:

      Looks like that station data stopped posting Jun 1, 2014. Colorado went from 20 stations to 6.

  7. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    This is off topic but… the New York Times is looking for a new nClimate Change Editor:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-climate-change-editor.html?_r=0

    Tony, this has to be Karma. Since your presentation on Climate Change cost you your last job, apply for this position, force them to interview you, and let them to turn you down. After they hire an unqualified sock puppet, sue them.

    Seriously, I hope you have already landed a much better gig. But if not, what fun!

  8. AndyG55 says:

    Don Easterbrook’s study of the Mt Baker glaciers showed an interesting correlation with the AMO

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/13/mt-baker-glaciers-disappearing-a-response-to-the-seattle-times/

    Last peak length was in 1979, of course. !!

  9. Andy Oz says:

    But NASA now says “climate change” commenced before 1923?

    Technically this is correct because the climate changed some 10-20,000 years ago.
    Since then, luckily, it’s been lovely and warm, or else we’d probably still be chasing mammoths with stone tipped spears.

    The only reason they’d go back before 1900 is because there are now too many questions and inconsistencies that they cannot answer or explain away with their stupid CO2 demon.

  10. Griff says:

    Yes, glaciers have been reducing there since 1850 – but more since the 1960s and at a faster rate…

    “there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP”

    https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

    “Of the 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park in 1850, only 25 remain.2 Eleven of the park’s iconic named glaciers have melted away since 1966”

    http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/glacier-national-park-mt-usa.html

    • Tim A says:

      How is it more since the sixties since they lost 114 between 1850 and 1966? 11 in 50 years compared to 114 in 116 years.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Warmists like Griff, are poor at math,that is why they make absurd claims.

        He also missed Tony’s obvious point in his post.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Tim! Of course most sceptics agree that the world has warmed up since the early 1800s. It would not be at all unusual for some glaciers to be disappearing. But you ask a reasonable question about “why would the rate of glaciers disappearing have increased?”

        Remember that glaciers are three dimensional bulk objects, but melting (and sublimation as well) are surface phenomena. Suppose you have a collection of glaciers, all different sizes, but with the sizes distributed according to some rough type of bell curve. You have some really big (and thick!) glaciers, some rather small (and not so thick) glaciers and then you have the largest number of medium sized, average glaciers. Now start removing the surfaces of all the glaciers, let’s say 6 inches a year. We have a situation where ice loss for any given glacier is not a function of its mass, but a function of its surface area. For a while, none of the glaciers will disappear, but eventually, you will see one or two of the very smallest (and thinnest) disappear. As time goes by, and the accumulated loss in thickness approaches the thickness of the average glacier, you will see an increasing number of glaciers disappear — even though the rate of loss at the surface (in inches per year) remains the same. If you wait long enough you will finally get past the hump of the bell curve, and the rate of disappearance will start to decrease again. In fact, once the last one vanishes, the rate of disappearance will go to zero.

        The important point is that rate of glacier disappearance is not the same as rate of melting.

    • Steve Keohane says:

      You realize that none of those glaciers existed 3500 years ago, they only formed since then below 60°N. And the oceans were 6′ deeper too.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.