Massive Fraud At NASA Climate

The primary tool of global warming alarmists is claiming that 97% of scientists agree with them. They normally cite this NASA web page which says:

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

If you actually click on the reference, you quickly realize that the claim is fraudulent. NASA used a small subset of papers which actually make attribution. (The only people who have any reason to make attribution are climate alarmists.)

Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW

Two thirds of the papers they reviewed took no position, so they threw them out. But then comes the really big lie – with the one-third of remaining papers, they conflated “humans are causing global warming” with “Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature – IOPscience

Everyone agrees that humans have caused some warming. That is a far cry from saying humans caused all of the claimed warming. Only 52% of professional members of the American Meteorological Society believe humans are primarily responsible for global warming. Thirty-seven percent of professional forecasters believe that, and seventy-eight percent of publishing climate scientists.

‎journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

No group comes close to 97%. As is normally the case with NASA climate science, they are committing fraud. there is no 97% consensus.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Massive Fraud At NASA Climate

  1. Griff says:

    Please list the scientists and their peer reviewed papers which demonstrate there is no warming and the temp records are faked…

    There aren’t any, are there?

    Or just a handful of scientists on the payroll of Heartland perhaps?

    • David A says:

      Griif, your inane comment is deeply ignorant. The earth, coming out of the L.I.A. has naturally warmed.

      You dispute exactly zero of Tony’s post. In addition the 97% lies do not even address the C in CAGW. As every crop on the planet is growing more food with no additional water due to CO2, and ZERO of the disasters predicted are occuring, then the non GHG surface warming ( the GHG signature in the troposphere is MIA) that has occured is primarily beneficial.

      When you show me a study that shows exactly how and why the early 1990s NH and global T were changed from cooling to no cooling, what statio s were changed, dropped, added, then I will consider if the surface record is even accurate. ( Proper accounting of UHI and Instrument changes required)

    • Adam says:

      There are people who live by the scientific method, then there are those, like Griff, who will NEVER even look at a skeptical paper, much less evaluate it for its scientific merit. It’s best to simply leave them to wallow in the dying embers of climate alarmism. To them, opposition to the green agenda can never be scientific because it opposes their political aspirations.

    • gator69 says:

      I would list the names of the 21,000 that needlessly perished from starvation yesterday, but they don’t publish them. We know they die daily, and we know why. We could save them, if we were to properly allocate resources, and not throw money away trying to stop natural cycles.

      Ms Griff, you have it backwards, we do not need to disprove anything.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    • Robert Roskowiak says:

      Actually, Wattsupwiththat.com and others have found NASA/NOAA using different data sets 20 years ago (or less) than they use today. That is a fact, because it is in their papers. Those sets have reduced the temperature numbers for 30’s and early 40’s and raised recent temps. Satellite data in the last 19 years are clear…..no warming. Even those believing in serious AGW believe, notwithstanding a recent garbage study. These are facts…..apparently ones you have missed (possibly on purpose).

      • tonyheller says:

        Amazing the things you can find on the Internet

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          I hear some things posted on the Internet are not true but the German government is going to fix it.

          They will impose fines on things that are not true and I expect lying or speaking ill about the weather and defaming official data sets will be severely punished.

          BERLIN (AP) — Germany’s justice minister is proposing fines of up to 50 million euros ($53 million) for social networking sites that fail to swiftly remove illegal content, such as hate speech or defamatory “fake news.”

          The plan proposed Tuesday marks a further step in Germany’s attempt to impose its strict domestic laws against incitement on the free-wheeling world of online chatter.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Expect more Germans to come to American sites to express their opinions.

            Real news from Sweden
            https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7

            https://twitter.com/V_of_Europe

            And while we are at it.

            There is the Anti Trump postcard campaign by the Loonie left this week. PLEASE counter this week by sending your own positive postcard(s) to him at :

            President Donald J Trump
            1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – NW
            Washington DC 20500

            Let’s clog up D.C. with more than snow. ?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Gail,

            That may work for a while for their citizens who hate the bird choppers, but you better not go there.

            The Germans know you hate government-fabricated data sets and keep defaming official data. There have also been calls to broaden the scope of Germany’s laws against denial and the definition of war crimes.

            They have plenty of people who still know how to get things done.

    • Jl says:

      You can see where temps are adjusted right here on his blog. Or is this news to you?

    • SxyxS says:

      Griff- i”m pretty sure you can find here dozens of official statistics proven to be faked.
      But that in fact is not the problem,or your problem.

      Your problem is that you once again missing the real point.

      The 97% is the hammer they are using to crush any sort of doubt and opposition((though even a consensus is not scientifical))
      and if you take a closer look this 97% is a big Lie.
      A deception as these 97% do not represent all scientists but are part of a cherry picked small group of them(32 %)
      So the 97% are in fact just 31% of all scientists.
      Can you imagine how small a 31% hammer is compared to a 97% hammer?
      Well:97% = absolut undiniable truth and if you dare to doubt it you are a looney conspiracy theorist.
      31%= just a lousy minority which is crying out loud and just a few of many with different opinions.

      We had climate gate 1
      We had climate gate 2
      We have this huge Lie.
      (+ all these wrong and fake predictions((snow a thing from the past// new york will be flooded in 2018(Hansen 1988) etc etc.

      And you still haven’t learned a single thing.
      Fantastic.

      BTW-the first time i realised that all this AGW is total bullshit was the 97%.
      As 97-98% have been the average propaganda voting results in communist countries for the
      communist partie to keep up their charade that their one-party dictatorship is loved by the people while most of these people tried to leave their countries and even risked their lives and died by doing so.

      This is their standard % Number to convince people of
      their fake and official reality and make people acceppt things they never ever would otherwise.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Actually the Cook 97% paper is the SECOND FAKE 97% paper the other is the Doran/Zimmerman survey.. (How they LOVE 97%)

        That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

        What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say?

        “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”
        ……..

        “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”
        ……..

        “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”
        ……..

        “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”
        ……..

        “Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

        There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.”
        ……..

        “..and I do not think that a consensus has anything to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’”
        (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

        The statistical hijinks is this:

        The Doran paper… [is] a survey of 10,256 [earth scientists] with 3,146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with…..

        …opinion of the worlds scientists?
        “90% (2833) of respondents were from the United States, while the remaining 10% (313) came from 22 other countries (Figure 1). Respondents from Canada accounted for 62% of the international responses.”

        ….The survey used the answer to Q5 [Which percentage of your papers published in peer reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?] narrow down the expertise of the respondents, not unreasonably perhaps, and defined these as ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR), there was also criticism of the framing of this question in the feedback. This subset of respondents were then contacted to check the these claims and once verified, there were 244 respondents that met this criteria. This categorisation gave positive responses to Q1 – 95% and Q2 – 92%

        The survey used the answer to Q9 to define those as identifying as in the category of climate science as having more expertise than the other listed categories. Question 9 resulted in 144 respondents self identifying in the category of climate science. This categorisation gave positive responses to Q1 – 95% and Q2 – 88.6%

        Finally a category of experts was defined as those that responded as publishing more than 50% of papers AND self identifying in the survey as climate scientists, resulting in a group of 77….

        AND even with that they didn’t get the arithmetic right!

        An oopsie in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim

        Of course these two are not the frist time the FAKE NEWS tried to float the ‘scientific consensus’ bull feces. And not the first time it has been shot down by the actual truth.

        That 97% Solution, Again

        How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

        To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently…

        • Latitude says:

          “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position”…

          Of course they did….You don’t state your position without naming what your position is
          …..”Anthropogenic”

          ..and if that isn’t your position…you don’t name or refer to it

          “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW”…could just as easily read “We find that 66.4% of abstracts didn’t mention the word Anthropogenic”

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

      I can’t find your rebuttal to Tony’s well supported blog post. Where is it Griffygirl?

      Your dead on arrival question is so gosh darn stupid anyway, since you are completely avoiding Tony’s point, that lying to create a consensus argument, are a part of the Pseudoscience domain,it is FRAUD!

    • Derek Colman says:

      You are refuting an argument not made by anyone. Nobody made an argument that there is no warming. That is known as a strawman argument. That means that because you have no viable argument, so you refute a point never made by your opposition.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Griff:
      All of us intelligent people know that climate has been changing up and down over the centuries. We also know that most of it is natural. We also know from NASA/NOAA data that they have been manipulating the temperatures as shown on this very weblog:
      https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
      Now to your absurd comments, here is my question: Will you, Griff, provide us with ONE paper which MEASURES the amount of temperature change caused by CO2. While you are at it, please name the scientist(s) who have done it. Please, please……. Waiting, waiting….

    • Fred ohr says:

      Dear Grif,
      I am extremely sorry that you need others to do your research for you. If you cannot find ample evidence that the historic climate records have been manipulated to “build the hockey stick”, yuh jus’ ain’t lookin’ in the right places.
      Geez, how gullible can you be?

  2. David A says:

    Griff, in addition your attempted marginalization of 10s of thousands of PHD skeptical scientists, Nobel prize winning physicists, and 1000s of peer reviewed papers making CAGW skeptical arguments, is pathetic, and made more so by the absurd straw man with which you begin your post.

  3. bleakhouses says:

    Back of the envelope, pre-coffee, calculation puts the percent of those that answered affirmatively to the loaded question is 31.5%. The headline should have been, always, “the large majority of climate scientist reject AGW.”

  4. Gail Combs says:

    The ClimAstrologists are even measuring the WRONG thing. We cannot determine heat flux if we fail to consider the heat content of the air (That includes the humidity Griffy) and the margins of error inherent in the respective instrument records.

    That was a 1/2 degree F for thermometers in the 18th and 19th century. The error was carefully measured and known since the 1920s.

    The scientific justification for each adjustment is being torn to shreds by REAL scientists.
    Here is one example:
    Zeke Hausfather stated @ Judith Curry’s
    “Back in the 1940s virtually all the stations used liquid-in-glass thermometers, which read about 0.6 degrees warmer in max temperatures (and about 0.2 degrees colder in min temperatures) than the new MMTS instruments introduced in the 1980s. This means that actual max temperatures (as measured by MMTS instruments) would have been ~0.6 degrees colder, and contribute part of the reason for adjusting past temps downwards.” This was based on one very limited study that I already covered months ago.

    Klaus Hager carried out a study comparing MMTS and Glass thermometers side by side for a period of 8.5 years and found that the MMTS gave a mean difference that was 0.93C warmer. Klaus Hager is a 44-year veteran German meteorologist and wrote a peer-reviewed paper on his findings. http://wkserv.met.fu-berlin.de/Beilagen/2013/Autom%20WSt_Hager.pdf

    Another peer-reviewed study Sensor and Electronic Biases/Errors in Air Temperature Measurements in Common Weather Station Networks by Lin et. al. concluded:

    Therefore, the RSS errors in the MMTS are from 0.31° to 0.62°C from temperature -40°C to -50°C (Fig. 5)… For the HO-1088 sensor, the self-heating error is quite serious and can make temperature 0.5°C higher under 1 m/s airflow, which is slightly less than the actual normal ventilation rate in the ASOS shield (Lin et al. 2001a). http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0426/21/7/pdf/i1520-0426-21-7-1025.pdf

    In the peer reviewed study “Air Temperature Comparison between the MMTS and the USCRN Temperature Systems” Hubbard et. al. concluded:

    Although the MMTS temperature records have been officially adjusted for cooler maxima and warmer minima in the USHCN dataset, the MMTS dataset in the United States will require further adjustment. In general, our study infers that the MMTS dataset has warmer maxima and cooler minima compared to the current USCRN air temperature system.” http://www.homogenisation.org/files/private/WG1/Bibliography/Applications/Applications%20(F-J)/hubbard_etal.pdf

    Dr. Bill Johnston a retired scientist has found the same problem with Australian MMTS temperature records and a lot more…
    On the quality of Australia’s temperature data by Dr. Bill (WH) Johnston.
    (Former NSW Department of Natural Resources Senior Research Scientist.)

    • Gail Combs says:

      The problems with the MMTS is graphically represented by the incident at at Heathrow Airport.

      [E]lectronic thermometers record transient temperature that is not captured by traditional thermometers. The UK’s record July temperature this year alongside the runways at Heathrow Airport – by around 0.1 deg C – and widely PR’d by the Met Office was separately checked and analyzed in detail in the Met Office records.

      That found that there was a temperature spike of 0.9 deg which lasted just 2 minutes before dropping back to the previous hour’s temperatures. The met Office records temperatures at 2 minute intervals. Further research into this showed a wind direction change for just a few minutes during this heat spike and the found that coincidentally a Boeing Dreamliner was maonoevering on the taxiway adjacent to the thermometer.

      Given how determinedly warmist the Met office is it is not surprising that they did not find it all curious that the temperature rose by 0.9 deg C for a two minute period – and equally so that they would, with not the least scientific embarrassment claim this to be a New Record and Proof of ‘Global warming’. Any true scientists would have been highly sceptical of a jump in temp of 0.9 deg C lasting just 2 minutes – but it seems that Met Office climate ‘scientists’ don’t fit into that category.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR
    http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metrology.html

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

    This page shows the differences between GHCN anomaly snapshots released in recent years (thanks E.L.). The number of confidence interval violations is interesting, as is the ~4C/century of “adjustment” warming from the 2014 to 2015 snapshots.
    http://www.elcore.net/GISTEMP_Overconfidence_Intervals.html

    Except that the MMTS sensors used have an accuracy of “generally” +/-0.5°F according to NOAA so these temperature trends are still in the noise… especially if it is based on “average” temperatures. The ClimAstrologists need to do more “quality control” on their equipment and measuring sites .

    MMTS Specs: link

    And that is JUST the thermometer/temperature measuring device error. If someone even bothered to routinely re-calibrate the sucker.

    • Squidly says:

      Nice resources Gail, well done.

      One simple note however. It is not possible to calculate an “average global temperature”. There is no such thing as a “global temperature”, as it is impossible to measure.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Oh, I very much agree but that argument is completely over the head of someone like Griffy. I doubt he even understands WHY thermometer readings are a really miserable way of ESTIMATING the heat content of the earth’s atmosphere.

        Is a 100°F in the Desert of Algeria equivalent in heat content to 90°F in Barcelos, Brazil? HMMMMmmm Griffy? Which has the higher atmospheric heat content?

      • cdquarles says:

        Oh, it is possible to do the calculation. Just like you can calculate an average of the numerical labels of lottery balls. That said, I agree that the resultant number is meaningless, as a predictor, in either case.

        The thermodynamic temperature is a property of a defined sample of matter. It only has meaning for that defined sample of matter. It has no meaning for any other sample of matter, except by ‘chance’, since all of the conditions needed may or may not be similar enough. The thermodynamic temperature, as opposed to a radiant color or brightness temperature, is a function of the kinetic energies of the constituents of the sample. More simply put, the T = the geometric mean of the kinetic energies. NB, kinetic energy. Potential energies of any kind don’t count until they get converted to kinetic energies. For gases at typical surface conditions, the atoms and molecules are moving at around 1 km/sec.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And then you get into the site error.

      That is if the location of the thermometer meets Class 1 or 2 of the Climate Reference Network Rating Guide

      Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.

      Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.

      Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

      Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

      An on site inspection and rating was done of the stations used in the USHCN network. A paper was written, peer-reviewed and accepted. link

      The results show:
      Class 1 and Class 2 have an error of less than 1 degree C BUT only 1.2% of the sites meet Class 1 and only 6.7% meet Class 2.

      There were 21.5 Class 3 sites with an error greater than 1 degree C.

      Leaving the majority of sites, over 70%, (64.4% Class 4 and 6.2% Class 5) with an error greater than 2 degree C.

      During the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age it is thought the average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present. So given the error in the current sites we could still be in the Little Ice Age! Might explain the Arctic ice in 1979. ?

      https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

      Little Ice Age thermometers – History and Reliability

  6. CheshireRed says:

    Lies, damn lies and statistics. How can they throw out 66% of abstracts simply because they arrived at the ‘wrong’ conclusion?! Absurd. It’s like throwing out votes for your political opponents because you don’t like them and then claiming you won the election. Pathetic banana republic stuff, yet this drivel has gained traction as ‘truth’. Fake news indeed.

    “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

  7. Squidly says:

    Everyone agrees that humans have caused some warming.

    I don’t … I don’t agree at all. In fact, humans haven’t caused a change (warm or cool) of one single kelvin degree to the global temperature of our planet. Not a single kelvin degree. No gas in the universe can cause a planet to warm, period.

  8. Jason Calley says:

    I hope to do a survey on world religions to find which is correct.

    My plan is to poll ministers, rabbis, imams, and priests from every continent. I will then throw away every answer except those from Jesuits who have published papers on the Roman Catholic Church.

    I wonder what the result will be?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Hey Jason,

      that sounds like a reasonable approach. Let us know what comes out of it.

      I’m planning to poll a sample similar to what you have listed but I will include animists, wiccans, satanists and atheists. I will keep all the data and calculate the image of an average global god so we can finally construct the correct religious doctrine.

      • Jason Calley says:

        “calculate the image of an average global god”

        Ha! Hey Colorado! Dang! You’ve outdone me! Best laugh I have had today. :)

  9. frederik wisse says:

    Suggest to poll the agw-friendly scientists and ask whether , where and how long they studied thermodynamics . My suspicion is that a maximum of 3% of these “scientists”is holding a partial degree in thermodynamics . For most scientists thermodynamics is way above their heads and they are bottom-line not interested to dig deep in scientific theory as long as the grants with the help of simple computer-models and a few statistical tricks keep coming . These magicians in the eyes of the public are taking fat rewards from the public , based upon fear-mongering and a hidden agenda , rehearsing every trick in their books until eternity , if you and I continue to support their gravy-train.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “….where and how long they studied thermodynamics.”
      EEEEKkkk… ?

      I HATED thermo and we only got one semester in chemistry. Most chemists barely scraped by with a C or a D and that was AFTER the Uni had already flunked out over 50% of the starting class.

      IIRC the only ones taking that particular course were chemists, chem engineers and physicists. My bio lab instructor (grad student) blanched when he saw my thermo text. It was an elective for them and their course was at a lower level to boot.

      I very much doubt 99% of the ClimAstrologists students today could pass that course especially since we only had slide rules not calculators or computers.

      • Jason Calley says:

        “I very much doubt 99% of the ClimAstrologists students today could pass that course especially since we only had slide rules not calculators or computers.”

        To make it even more difficult, unlike the ClimAstrologists, YOU had to get the right answer.

      • cdquarles says:

        Seconded. My experience is similar. My physical chemistry classes covered two semesters (one whole year). Of the 40 or so students in the class, about 20 got chemistry degrees and 20 chemical engineering degrees. Ultimately there were about 30 degrees each conferred at the following commencement (includes some from the previous year that had to take the class a second time). I don’t recall any physics majors in the class, though there may have been one or two. Most of the losses happened subsequent to the freshman level classes. (And yes, there was political crap in the textbooks even then, though Arrhenius was a bit of a laughing-stock for his carbonic acid ideas).

  10. Nicholas Schroeder says:

    “Everyone agrees that humans have caused some warming.”

    Everyone minus at least one, me.

    Believing that 0.04% of the atmospheric gases magically influences weather and dominates the climate takes a real sci fi flight of fantasy.

    The upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation of greenhouse theory is comic book science, Saturday morning cartoon science, cinematic shape-shifting, mutant superhero science defying six of the three most fundamental laws of thermodynamics and physics.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/agw-myth-of-back-radiation.html

    Believing in the upwelling/downwelling”/back” radiation GHG/GHE theory is like believing in the X-men, but without the kewl movies. Not surprising since they share a common fan base.

  11. Nicholas Schroeder says:

    1) Per IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 prior to year 1750 CO2 represented about 1.26% of the total biospheric carbon balance (589/46,713). After mankind’s contributions, 67 % fossil fuel and cement – 33% land use changes, atmospheric CO2 increased to about 1.77% of the total biosphere carbon balance (829/46,713). This represents a shift of 0.51% from all the collected stores, ocean outgassing, carbonates, carbohydrates, etc. not just mankind, to the atmosphere. A 0.51% rearrangement of 46,713 Gt of stores and 100s of Gt annual fluxes doesn’t impress me as measurable let alone actionable, attributable, or significant.

    2) Figure 10 in Trenberth et al 2011jcli24, in addition to substantial differences of opinion, i.e. uncertainties, 7 of the 8 balances considered, 87.5%, showed more energy leaving ToA than entering, i.e. atmospheric cooling.

    3) Even IPCC AR5 expresses serious doubts about the value of their AOGCMs (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3).

    The sea ice and sheet ice is behaving as usual for decades (DMI) and does not affect sea levels. Polar bear population is the highest in decades, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 turned into yet another empty and embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Emily Letilla, “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”

    BTW James Hansen just said, “Never mind.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/

  12. garyh845 says:

    NASA’s statement on top of their Global Climate Change page.

    Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

    They then go on to claim:

    In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements . .

    But do they really? 16 of the 18 say nothing about any period of time prior to 1950 – with a bias leaning with a starting date in approx. the 1970’s.

    A few samples:

    AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

    American Geophysical Union (ACS): “Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.”

    American Meteorological Society: “that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases . .

    The Geological Society of America : . . “that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”

    International academies: Joint statement from 11 academies: “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).”

    U.S. Global Change Research Program: “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.”

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due . .”

    • Gail Combs says:

      AND it is the bureaucrats that came up with those statements WITHOUT polling the members. This caused many members to quit in protest including me.

      Monmouth University Poll: 100% – 27% = 73%

      , 73% of Americans reject the ‘CAGW consensus’ that humans cause climate change..

  13. Colorado Wellington says:

    Seth Borenstein reports on the fundamentalist doctrine of climate science, the precautionary principle, as applied in weather forecasting:

    Washington (AP) — Before the first snow fell, U.S. meteorologists realized there was a good chance the late-winter storm wasn’t going to produce giant snow totals in big Northeast cities as predicted.

    But they didn’t change their forecasts because they said they didn’t want to confuse the public.

    National Weather Service meteorologists in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington held a conference call Monday afternoon about computer models that dramatically cut predicted snow amounts. They decided to keep the super snowy warnings.

    “Out of extreme caution we decided to stick with higher amounts,” Greg Carbin, chief of forecast operations at the Weather Prediction Center in suburban Maryland, told The Associated Press. “I actually think in the overall scheme that the actions (by states and cities) taken in advance of the event were exceptional.”

    They didn’t want to confuse the masses by telling them the truth. And they made them do things! I’m sure next time it will work again. After all, catastrophic predictions by climatologists made everyone a believer.

    • RAH says:

      I wonder if those guys were forced to buy health insurance under Obamacare?
      I have come to understand what the real problem here is and why our society is so screwed up. Back in the late 60 through the 70s the States eliminated their mental hospitals. So now they walk among us and they gravitate towards network news! I suspect that your pic CW shows two guys that forgot to take their meds.

  14. DMA says:

    Being aware of the AMS poll referred to at the end of this article I was amused to see the letter AMS executive directer sent to Mr. Pruitt in response to his statement about not thinking CO2 was the climate control knob. (https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-position-letters/letter-to-epa-administrator-pruitt-on-climate-change/)
    He seems a little disingenuous to be calling Pruitt out for agreeing with almost half of the members of his society. Maybe some AMS members could get him to divulge those extensive studies that prove CO2 from fossil fuels is the ” dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century” or better yet he could provide that information to the EPA that, so far, has relied on broken models to get to that conclusion.

  15. stpaulchuck says:

    99.7% of 11,944 climate science papers did NOT say CO2 caused most global warming since 1950. Only 0.3% did. [Legates et al. 2013]

    • garyh845 says:

      These studies referenced global warming in the abstract – so they fit into the 99.7% group:

      “Life cycle assessment of a biobased chainsaw oil made on the farm in Wallonia ”

      “An Ant Colony Algorithm for efficient ship routing,”

      “A closed-circuit gas recycling system for RPC detectors”

      “2050 Scenarios for Long-Haul Tourism in the Evolving Global Climate Change Regime”

      “A Comparison of Water Quality Between Low- and High-Flow River Conditions in a Tropical Estuary, Hilo Bay, Hawaii”

      “A coral reef refuge in the Red Sea”

      “A knowledge-aid approach for designing high-performance buildings”

      “A Materials Life Cycle Assessment of a Net-Zero Energy Building”

      “A success story: water primroses, aquatic plant pests”

      “Acid Resistance and Curing Properties for Green Fly Ash-geopolymer Concrete”

      “Adult behavior of an ambrosia gall midge Illiciomyia yukawai”

      “Ambient temperature and congenital heart defects”

      “Assessment of wastewater treatment technologies: life cycle approach”

      “Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States”

  16. Keith says:

    You can add that a peer-reviewed poll of Alberta geologists and engineers showed only 36% believed humans are causing a climate change problem.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/#4cb1d5fa617c

  17. Gerald Machnee says:

    ATTN Griff:
    Now to your absurd comments, here is my question: Will you, Griff, provide us with ONE paper which MEASURES the amount of temperature change caused by CO2. While you are at it, please name the scientist(s) who have done it. Please, please……. Waiting, waiting….

    Still waiting Griff……..

  18. Thomas Barbeiro says:

    The “Science” of Man-Made CO2 Induced Global Warming
    —- aka – the Poker Faced “Craps Shoot” of Climate Science —-

    (….and it is Actively Welcome – any contradictory learned discussion)

    First, one must recognize that Statistics and Math Modeling are “Science” each with an established and agreed upon degree of uncertainty. Example being the thermometer that you have in your house is usually within a 1.50 degree Fahrenheit of uncertainty (a reading of 70.00 degrees could be 68.50 degrees or 71.50 degrees)

    Second, when Math Modeling, a math model must work both forwards and backwards in its predictions.

    Finally, the data points that one uses to input into a statistical analysis or a math model must be from a consistent set of data from similar locations and similarly measuring items.

    In other words, if you believe that Meteorology is a “Science” when a weather man tells you there is a 60% “Chance” of Rain tomorrow, then you believe that Statistics and Math Modeling are Science.

    So to Scientifically debunk the claims of Man Made Carbon Dioxide Induced Global Warming, here you go:

    Since 1990, there have been more than 300 different Climate-Expert Produced “Math Models” for predicting the Earth’s climate. The overwhelming vast majority of these Math Models have used the level of Human-Produced CO2 in the atmosphere and the (prediction) of future CO2 in the atmosphere as their basis in calculating future global temperature ranges.

    In the years 2014 – 2016, of those 300 “Math Models” only three (yes, three, or an embarrassingly paltry 1.00%) of the Math Models predicted (within the established degree of uncertainty) predicted the Earth’s climate in the years 2014, 2015 or 2016. And of those three Math Models, none, not one (a big fat ZERO) predicted what the now-known Earth’s climate was looking to the past — in 1980 or 1970 or 1960.

    Remember. For a Math Model to be accepted, it must work both forwards and backwards.

    To date, NO Scientist has ever created or justified any Man Made Climate Change Math Model that predicts both forwards and backwards, even within a span of 20 a mere years forward and 20 a mere years backwards.

    Another Big Fat ZERO for Man Made Climate Change Predictions and the Climate Experts.

    SERIOUSLY — Were this any OTHER Peer-Reviewed Research, the scientific community would have taken the 99% failure rate of statistical and math-modeling predictions as an accepted conclusion that CO2 is NOT the core cause of Global Warming.5

    To be entirely condescending, I am certain that in 1990, we could have had 300 high school seniors with this same data in front of them create their own predictions of what the Earth’s climate would be in 25 years and had an equal (or better?) change of their random guesses resulting in more than merely (3) out of (300) being statistically accurate.

    Finally, the data points collected before Weather Satellite Imaging are entirely different than the data points collected after Weather Satellite Imaging.

    Since Weather Satellite Imaging, 70% of all data points are over the oceans. And those data collection points are determined by the temperature of the water.

    Prior to Weather Satellite Imaging, 87% of the data points were land-based. And those temperatures were all air temperatures.

    So, before Weather Satellite Imaging, we measured the AIR Temperature. After Weather Satellite Imaging, we now measure the WATER temperature (over the oceans) and the GROUND temperature (over land). These two data collection systems are entirely different and almost entirely unreconcilable with one another.

    Before Weather Satellite Imaging, 87% of all temperatures were measured on LAND. After Weather Satellite Imaging, 70% of all temperatures were measured over WATER. Again, two data collection systems entirely different and almost entirely unreconcilable with one another.

    To summarize: Before Weather Satellite Imaging, 87% of all temperature data was LAND based, AIR temperatures. After Weather Satellite Imaging, 70% of all temperature data is OCEAN based, WATER temperatures.

    And finally, with regards to Weather Satellite Imaging, the “Degree of Uncertainty” when measuring the ocean temperatures or the land temperatures increases 10-fold when there is dense cloud cover over the region the satellite is measuring. In other words, the degree of uncertainty of Weather Satellite Imaging in a densely clouded area is really not much better than your household thermometer.

    How is THAT for scientific accuracy….?!?!

    For all the clamoring about the Established Science of Carbon Dioxide Induced Man-Made Global Warming, there is yet to be one (not even ONE!) Scientist who has ever been able to Statistically / Math-Model any correlation between the Earth’s Climate “Changing” and CO2, well along “predict” the Earth’s climate even a mere 20-years forward into the future (following established Math Modeling protocols).

    YET, Climate Scientists continue to point to their (dire?) predictions for our future, when (again), not one single math model prediction meets the criteria for a Scientifically Acceptable Math Model.

    ZERO.
    ZIP.
    NADA.
    NONE.

    But because Climate Scientists have nothing (other) than Man-Made Carbon Dioxide to explain Climate Change (as it is no longer “Global Cooling” or “Global Warming,” or “Climate Warming” because all of those theories have not passed as time passed) – then it must be CO2, because, what ELSE could it be?

    Good GAWD people – If I came to you with an experiment that had a 1.0% demonstrated degree of accuracy, why would anyone ever accept that as ‘fact?’

    Statistics and Math Modeling are “Science.”

    The Science of Predicting Carbon Dioxide Induced Man-Made Global Warming has been little more than a demonstrative “Craps Shoot.”

    — Or, is it — As one wise man so eloquently stated:

    — “Figures Do Not Lie, BUT Liars Do Figure”

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.