Solving The Global Warming Crisis

President Trump can solve the global warming crisis overnight, by simply replacing NASA’s Gavin Schmidt with a competent scientist like John Christy or Roy Spencer.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Solving The Global Warming Crisis

  1. I pray to God he will… Gavin is best suited for the unemployment line or working on the Kanya West 2020 bid!!

  2. Kyle_Fouro says:


    How is a layman like myself supposed to determine which researcher and data set is most reliable?

    Also, many pro-AGW sites are saying that satellite measurements agree with models and the terrestrial data sets now.

    Again, as a layman I feel as though instantly i’m way over my head, though at face value I understand the differences and associated discrepancies.

    • tonyheller says:

      Satellites cover almost the entire land surface. Most of the land temperatures from NASA and NOAA are fake.

      • Kyle_Fouro says:

        Thanks for your response.

        • RAH says:

          Also the data from Radiosondes (weather balloons) agrees far more closely with the satellites measurements than the surface temperature “data” upon which the scam is based.

          BTW I would suggest that the label “Gavin” be changed to “Unethical Scientists”. Gavin is the head but I’m sure he’s got plenty of help with his “adjustments” and in the near future every single one of them need to transferred to weather stations in the Aleutians or some other suitable place.

        • RAH says:

          I forgot to add “Elections have consequences” A phrase that I expect to be using quit often in the future.

    • DK Rhideat says:

      I realise that its difficult for lay people to know who to trust. I am retired now but was a Chartered Environmentalist and, around 5 years ago I got so worried about ‘climate change’ that I wanted planes banned. However, having had a scientific training I wanted to confirm myself what I was being told (never take anyones word, particularly the ‘worse’ they would have you believe things are.

      I did a bit of research and within a matter of days I had trauled a lot of reports, but had found nothing to support the alarmists, but quite a lot of sensibly expressed and believable papers that showed conclusively that the alarmists had nothing to support their case. The climate ahs always changed, up and down, but todays climate is naturally caused and slight warming is all we see, and is probably good.

      If you have any doubts about what the alarmists want look up the UNs ‘agenda 21’ and Habitat ‘111’.

      If you still have any doubts see former UN top dog Christiana Figures statement that climate change was nothing to do with climate was about redistribution of (your) wealth and returning the west to the ‘3rd world’.

    • richard says:

      Kyle –

      This kind of gives away how bad land temps are. Africa is one fifth of the world’s land mass-

      “Because the data with respect to in-situ surface air temperature across Africa is sparse, a one year regional assessment for Africa could not be based on any of the three standard global surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4 Instead, the combination of the Global Historical Climatology Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring
      System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory was used to estimate surface air temperature patterns”

  3. Eliza says:

    Agree 100% check Paul Homewood ect to confirm all the stuff posted here.. just ONE small sample

  4. richard verney says:

    Steven and Paul should collaborate on a paper pulling together all the data and examples they have on raw temperature data and adjustments made to this.

    It would be useful if such a paper could be given to Trump’s key advisors and those on Senate Committees examining data tampering. It would form useful heads up guiding those people as to where they should be looking.

    I consider that there is strong evidence to suggest that the globe is no warmer today than it was in around 1940. If that is so, it is a game changer since it would mean that there has been no (or almost no) temperature change during the period in which >95% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place. That would suggest that Climate sensitivity, if any at all, to CO2 is zero or close thereto (on the basis of observational evidence).

    • CheshireRed says:

      Great call Richard. Alarmists place great store on peer reviewed studies, well give them one more to look at. That TH and PH use official data sets (rather than their own data) to PROVE there’s been a multitude of adjustments (almost all ‘in favour’ of AGW) removes a giant obstacle. The burden would then fall squarely with Gavin et al to justify ALL those adjustments. I suspects they’d struggle with that one.

      Such a study would receive global media exposure because dozens of adjustments compiled in one study would blow the lid on the obvious pro-AGW conspiracy. It has the potential to be an absolute bombshell.

      PS By taking inputs from both TH and PH such a study would be much more credible. These are two very capable men from different countries but with excellent, highly respectable backgrounds. Combined they would be 3 times as effective as individually.

    • Gail Combs says:

      It would be useful to add The Original Temperatures Project by Frank Lansner


      E.M. Smith, and many others.

  5. RAH says:

    OT but I gotta ask. Why the hell hasn’t MI and NH been called yet? They’ve had plenty of time to find and count the votes.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Probably because of legal challenges. North Carolina also has some suspicious ballots that tossed the Republican gov out of office but left the republican Lt. Gov. in office. Only the Dem challenger for governor and Hillary were marked on a two page ballot.

  6. RGB from OZ says:

    Tony. Is that the data that NASA is presenting as real? OMG! That is a massive disparity between the two. The margin of error on both would be interesting to see. Does anyone have that data? Does NASA ever publish the margins of error? Oh damn, I just fell off my chair laughing at my own stupidity!!!!

  7. Bloke down the pub says:

    I’ve seen Trump quoted as saying that he’d cut out duplication. Surely that means Gavin’s whole team is redundant.

  8. Edmonton Al says:

    As an aside, most people look at Greenland on a mercator projection map.
    It looks as big as Africa.
    But… look at a globe and see the real size. It is only about the size of Libya.
    Ignorant alarmists visualize all the sea level rise[ up to the Statue of Liberty’s waist] because it looks to them, like a humongous amount of ice.

  9. Michael says:

    Can I ask why there is an offset of -0.32 for the GISTEMP dTS global mean (extrapolated) green line?

  10. ActuallyRealScience says:

    Actually the data only looks like that because you’ve skewed the graph to suit your agenda. This is what it looks like when all lines are graphed the same way. Pretty easy to see the trend.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

      • ActuallyRealScience says:

        I’m using the same data from the same site that was linked to in the article above… I just removed the skew, feel free to click the “Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs” link in the article and check for yourself.

        • tonyheller says:

          You can’t possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            He is that stupid as he clearly shows.

            The moron doesn’t provide a link either,to show how he made it.

          • ActuallyRealScience says:

            Or can I?

            Regarding the comment below by Sunsettommy, the legend at the top left of the graph shows you how the graph was created.

          • Latitude says:

            Pretty easy to see the trend.
            yep…clear as day
            Two of them flat line…
            ..and one keeps going up

          • Sunsettommy says:

            The moron writes,

            “Regarding the comment below by Sunsettommy, the legend at the top left of the graph shows you how the graph was created.”

            But it doesn’t tell the reader WHERE you generated that chart.

            You still don’t see why you are being called a moron…….

          • ActuallyRealScience says:

            Ah, I think I see where you’re getting lost now, sorry about that. If you check out the bottom right corner of the graph, it shows the address of the site with which the graph was generated, for your convenience a link is available in the original article as I mentioned earlier.

            To help with seeing the long term trend, I’ve generated a new graph, again using the same source as the article with the only changes being an increased timeline and broader averages. I’ve also included a line showing atmospheric CO2 for interest sake. Hopefully that makes it a bit clearer.

          • AndyG55 says:


            The classic ANTI-SCIENCE statistical shenanigans. from someone with low-end maths skills

            You might fool your kindy buddies on low-end “believer” sites, Mr NoActualScience, but you are not fooling anyone here.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Notice how AntiRealScience uses “means” to flatten RSS so that he can use the solar/wind forced El Nino steps to fabricate a trend.

            Those El Nino steps are, of course, the ONLY warming in the whole satellite record.

            Anti-science statistical maleficence at it very crudest, but I’m guessing he gets away with it when he is amongst his fellow brain-washed “believers”. Part of his group-think, the only way he can muster half a brain.

            Reminds me of that brainless twerp, Shehan.

          • ActuallyRealScience says:

            Andy, there’s no need to be upset. It seems you’re very emotionally invested in your current viewpoint and I can understand how upsetting it might be for someone to present an alternate view. Please bear in mind though that I’m simply presenting the data that’s available at the site used as the source for this very article. It’s important to try not to let your feelings get in the way when interpreting data, even if the results aren’t what you hoped for.

            The extended means were used to help illustrate the overall trend as “Latitude” had trouble seeing it in the original more granular graph.

            For your benefit, I’ve attached the same graph as before, this time with greatly increased granularity. Hopefully that helps :-)

          • tonyheller says:

            Moron alert

          • MichaelK says:

            Good point Tony, your facts really shine through with that response. I can see why you are taken seriously outside of your blog.

          • tonyheller says:

            Moron alert

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yep , its a Shehan clone .. complete with very low-end maths skills

            Thing is, AntiRealScience.. everybody here is WAY ABOVE you when it comes to any sort of knowledge.

            Good to see that yet again, you are using the El Ninos to show a warming trend

            Is all you have

            Because its all there is

            You sir… are a mathematical and scientific MORON !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            And the UTTER STUPIDITY of using scaling to match the natural CO2 rise to the step rise of the El Ninos. really is the verybbottom rung of anything to do with science or maths

            But go ahead

            The El Ninos are ALL YOU HAVE….

            and you KNOW IT.

            Keep on using them, and PROVING what a complete and IGNORANT MORON you are.

            Then we can keep laughing at you proving it to be the case

            1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

            2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

            3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

            4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

            5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

            6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion

            7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

            8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 – 2015

            9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

            10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

            11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

            12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling

            13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

            That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods.

            THERE IS NO CO2 WARMING.

            NONE WHAT SO EVER.

            The ONLY warming has come from regional El Nino and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO.

            And your PATHETIC little attempts mark you as a low-end mathematical ILLITERATE.

            Journalism or Social Science..

            which is it?

          • AndyG55 says:

            tony.. this drone exhibits all the SLIME and ANTI-SCIENCE propaganda of Appell or Shehan.

            Check where it is located.

          • ActuallyRealScience says:

            Tony, I know it can be upsetting to feel like your views are being threatened, especially if you’re having trouble defending them, but there’s no need for name calling – we’re all friends here. Just try to stay calm, be open minded, and think logically.

            Andy had some trouble with the graph with larger mean sampling periods, so I provided a more granular version of the same graph. Of course this shows the same trend, though it can be a little more tricky to pick out with the extra noise.

            Based on the comments here it seems like I may have misinterpreted the nature of this site and in doing so accidentally triggered some people. It’s becoming clear that this is more of a safe space for a particular viewpoint than a place to have discussions around available evidence, and as such I apologise for upsetting so many of you.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Lets play you CHILDISH little scaling game shall we , NoActualScience

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your PATHETIC attempts are easily proven to be the work of a monumentally INEPT child-mind.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You need to bring some Real Science, NOT AbsolutelyZeroRealScience if you want to contribute.

            But you have proven that low-level farce is all you have available to you.. while at the same time, by continually using the El Nino step, you actually PROVE that they are the only thing you can use to show any trend.

            It really is quite pathetic of you.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “be open minded, and think logically.”

            Not within your capabilities, is it, little brain-washed propaganda monkey.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Its fun to see just how ignorant the standard AGW BS artist is..

            Keep going .. it funny watching your feeble attempts. :-)

        • AndyG55 says:

          You seriously give the impression that you don’t know what actual REAL science even is.

          Which are you… journalism or social “science” ?

    • AndyG55 says:

      See my post further down, a MASSIVE discrepancy in the 5 year average.

      Nearly 0.3 C in 38 years. That is an enormous FUDGE !!!

      And RSS essentially FLAT since 2001.

  11. Douglas Fir says:

    Yeah but…when does the actual data mean anything? I just read that the U.N. and NASA said 2016 has been the warmest year ever!

  12. RAH says:

    Oh Look! There is a new kid on the play ground!

  13. bailcon says:

    Have really enjoyed reading this blog. Back on the fence, now, which is better than wanting to ban plane flights. One legit question though:
    AGW proponents say that CO2 demonstrably absorbs a certain frequency of radiative light-heat (not a scientist, please feel free to correct) and that, because of this constant, they can extrapolate the fact that the earth is absorbing the equivalent of 400,000 hiroshima class nukes every 24 hours. Al Gore has said that AGW skeptics have not been able to successfully refute this fact.
    Does anyone have any guidance with this fact? I understand that satellite data shows much less warming, and that there are a lot of other holes in the AGW argument, but this one seems pretty mathematical to me. I could see a counter-argument being that feedbacks would take care of all of that warming. I dunno. Help!

  14. AndyG55 says:

    Here is GISS vs RSS with the 5 year average point started in 1981

    You can clearly see the HUGE discrepancy.

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.