Stunned – By Stupidity And Dishonesty

Last April, the fake news Washington Post said scientists were stunned by a warm day in Greenland.

Scientists are stunned by what just happened in Greenland – The Washington Post

They were stunned by a warm day in April, 2016, but apparently were not stunned by the below normal melt for the rest of the melt season.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

The scientists also were not stunned by the record Greenland ice growth since September, 2016.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

One of the favorite techniques of climate fraudsters, is to cherry-pick one outlier and then fail to report the much larger picture when it doesn’t fit their narrative.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Stunned – By Stupidity And Dishonesty

  1. There are 180 countries, if you count cities – thousands. There are perhaps a dozen ways to measure the climate from max,min, average temps, to winds, to RH, to pressure, rainfall etc.
    There are 12 months a year. 12x180x12 = 25920. In other words each year a “once in 10,000 year” record is likely to take place.

    And if you do the same with all the possible ways to measure climate and look at small enough areas, etc., you can always find an amazing “once in 1000 or 10,000 years” type of event. Because despite being so rare, because there are so many ways to cherry pick the data to get them – they are in fact very common.

    And that … is what fills newspapers.

    • CheshireRed says:

      Exactly. Some time back I think Tony compared the ‘once in 10,000 years’ claims to a lottery win. An individual has almost no chance of winning the jackpot but every few weeks someone somewhere absolutely will win the multi-million jackpot. So is that a one in several million chance or a one every few weeks chance? Lies damn lies and climate statistics…again.

      • cdquarles says:

        Both and neither :). Both, because someone buys tickets, enough for them to sell millions of tickets each week. Given that, it is no surprise that there are winners every few weeks on average, some times there are months between winners and some times there are back-to-back winners.

        Random processes are those where there are lots of causes and lots of effects, so much so that no one can know all of the known knowns, the unknown knowns (yet, maybe), the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns (yet, maybe). For instance, an observer within a system can’t know all of the processes that act on the system from outside the system. An observer on the outside could know these. If you’ve ever watched a drawing, they use air powered ‘shufflers’. The labeled ping pong balls go in and the air turned on. You have the base 1 km/sec, on average velocities of the air plus the effects of the blowers, the collisions and the resulting ‘brownian motion’ of the suspended ping pong balls inside the machine. They either push or suck the bouncing ball that is in the right place at the right time. Which ball will be the one pulled cannot be known with certainty, but one will be pulled as long as the machine does not fail.

  2. gnome says:

    Stunned a few times too often and now their tiny brains no longer take in reality.

    • arn says:

      Well-they are always “stunned” by nothing when it is about to create fear and blowing things out of proportions.

      Strange somehow that they are absolutely not stunned
      by all the failed predictions they made over the past three decades-
      but that”s how they operate.
      Everything is turned upside down

      They are upset by 2 criminals being killed by cops and pretend
      that “black lives matters”
      and protest for months,
      but they don’t give a shit about 10000 black people killing each other each and every year .

      They are upset about slavery in the USA more than 150 years ago,
      but they don’t give a shit about black people still being enslaved in Mauretania and Sudan etc.

      They are so upset about women&gay rights in the USA,
      while they don’t care that women and gays are treated like shit
      in muslim countries.

      They are upset about Assad killing 70 women&children with gas though
      they have no proof,
      but they don’t care about Obama killing thousands of people and destroying 3 countries.Instead they gave him a peace prize.

      The reason why they are UPSET is AGENDA.
      All these weather anomalies which make them cry and scream for a co2 tax are absolutely normal and have been happening in the past decades
      and centuries and millenias-
      the only difference:
      Decades ago they did not give a shit about such an anomalie and acted in a reasonable way but
      Now they start to scream every single time it gets a little bit warmer in a certain region.

      That”s the same method they use when they call someone Nazi,Islamophob etc to silence people.
      It is just a:Who is crying the most will get the most attention and as soon as they get a tiny minority that is big enough and workin together+many usefull idiots they can pretend that their primitive agenda is the will of the silent majority.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey arn! “All these weather anomalies which make them cry and scream for a co2 tax are absolutely normal and have been happening in the past decades and centuries and millenias-”

        Yes, this is the first time ever recorded where the planet is on the edge (maybe already over the edge) of absolute biosphere shattering, mega-extinction, planet destroying, life-as-we-know-it-ending, catastrophe… and yet the alarmists cannot even point to any discernible or unusual event to show that climate is outside the norm.

        Every bit of bad weather is the new “proof” that the world is ending. To rephrase an old aphorism, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat whatever lies they have been told.”

  3. Griff says:

    “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance,” according to DMI. “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

    And yes, last year was a record melt event… a record snowfall in one year is not going to reverse the trend

    • AndyG55 says:

      Ah a topic on stunned stupidity.. of course griff shows up.

      Greenland Ice Mass and area are very near the peak of the last 8000 years , griff. You know that because you have been shown the data many times.


      • Andy says:

        Why do you always have to be insulting in your replies? It makes people reading think you can’t use science as a repudiation and have to resort to FAKE NEWS style tactics.


        • sunsettommy says:

          Because she has been shown MANY times about the 10,000 year Arctic past, only to be completely ignored.

          When people do that,then push their silly 20 year time frame about a cyclic sea ice changes,and be worried about it,are deserving some insults.

          Such person are behaving like a cultist.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Because griff has been shown this information hundreds of time and continues to remain wilfully IGNORANT.

          And it should be noted that your posts are also starting to head down towards his level of moronic stupidity and ignorance.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And in case you STILL haven’t been able to comprehend basic maths.

      Here is a graph of the Total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      I somehow knew the “STUNNED ONE” would crawl out from under his rock to comment on this stunning post.
      Back in your hole Griff.

  4. Pathway says:

    When glaciers are calving it means they are growing. Got to love Griffs logic when it contradicts itself in the same sentence.

  5. Andy says:

    Surely picking one outlier, ie Greenland, and not commenting on Antarctic sea ice extent, which is still at record lows, is also cherry picking Tony??

    This is interesting, wind driven explanation for Antarctic ice shelf losses.

    • Cam says:

      Record low for today happened in 1980.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Thank you.

        Sunshinehours shows this clearly.

        There is NOTHING untoward happening at either pole. There is too short a record to make any worthwhile comment on the Antarctic.

        And we know that the Arctic sea ice extent has been LOWER than current for some 90-95% of the Holocene.than

    • AZ1971 says:

      This is interesting, wind driven explanation for Antarctic ice shelf losses.

      Of course it’s interesting, because it explains most of any perceived decline in polar sea ice extent.

      2012’s “record low minimum” in the Arctic had NOTHING to do with warmer-than-average air or sea surface temps. It had EVERYTHING to do with sustained, long-duration cyclonic winds pushing old-growth ice southeastward through the Fram Strait. Period. But the wind-driven event has never really been framed in terms of natural variability, and absolutely has never been substantiated by a spike of abnormally higher Arctic air or ocean temperatures. Why then is the event continuously categorized as “evidence” of human-induced climate change?

      Because it fits the propaganda promotion of AGW alarmists.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Where were you and many warmists, when it was for years running at RECORD HIGH levels?



    • paul homewood says:


      You conveniently miss the point.

      Tony is calling out supposedly professional, objective “scientists” , who continually cherry pick like this.

      Yet you seem to expect him to have higher standards than them

    • paul homewood says:

      BTW Andy

      It is pleasing to see that the BAS have actually caught up with what Jim Steele and I have been saying for a while. That the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula ( which actually stopped 20 years ago) was due to fohn winds, and not global warming.

      Given that this is a weather event, it is likely we have seen such a thing many times before

    • charles nelson says:

      I have very sad memories of an anorexic friend of mine standing in front of a mirror in her underwear. She was surrounded by family and close friends (myself included)
      During this ‘intervention’ she doggedly insisted that she was fat…the rest of us saw someone who was dangerously emaciated.
      Warmists like you, remind me of my anorexic friend.
      There is simply no convincing them that things are ‘normal’, OK, ordinary, not out of the ordinary, unremarkable etc etc.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Surely picking one outlier,”

      You mean like Antarctic this year ?

      A one year OUTLIER in a general increasing trend.

      And you force yourself to keep harping on it.

      because you KNOW its all you have left.

      DOH !!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Oh dearly me, little Wrong Andy will not be happy with this

      You really need to get over your foot in mouth disease, PWA.

  6. Andy says:

    “One of the favorite techniques of climate fraudsters, is to cherry-pick one outlier and then fail to report the much larger picture when it doesn’t fit their narrative.”

    Ok, so report on the current situation in Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic as a whole so not to be painted by the same brush.


    • AZ1971 says:

      Challenge accepted.

      Greenland: record high SMB levels since at least 1979.
      Arctic: (a) warmer than average Arctic temperatures resulting from the record high El Niño only as of 2015 forward, perhaps in conjunction with the record low extent of 2012, but still not showing any unusual summer melt warmth (; (b) 2012’s record low minimum came on the heels of a return to the long-term median in the AMJ period
      Antarctic: long-term sea ice extent has been on an upward trend in recent years ( but the larger truth is that Antarctic sea ice extent has a very low normal, so “record low Antarctic sea ice extent” is far less meaningful than the recent record high, especially in terms of albedo effect

      It is also worth noting that temperature sampling in all three locations is some of the poorest sited on the planet and relies on model algorithms for infill rather than direct measurement.

      How’s that?

      • paul homewood says:

        Not to mention:

        1) Arctic temperatures were just as high as now in the 1930s

        2) The Antarctic ice sheet (not sea ice) has been growing since measurements started

    • Timo Soren says:

      Yep Andy, that is why the cryposphere NASA and ice folks for 12 years were reporting the dismal spiral of Arctic Sea Ice, would post, ANOTHER TERRIBLE year….. and not a single mention of the Antarctic Record growth and now for the fist time in 3 decades a small redution in Antartic and you pipe up with

      We now have to report record low in Antarctic? When they NEVER reported the highs.

      Take a flying leap. Always the dismal news I love the fact we have pretty good measurements on Greenland, care to give me empirical evidence on the calving rate?

      Those calving models are a ton of computer line crap. Just FIND one EMPIRCAL study on the calving rates and we can pick up the imbalance in Greenland.

      • neal s says:

        Even if you accept the 200GT / year loss, (or whatever figure they may claim it to be) just ask them how many years that would mean before it is even HALF gone. The result is astonishing for any who do not realize just how tiny 200GT actually is compared to the total amount of ice there.

      • CheshireRed says:

        @ Timo.

        Great point. Go to Nasa’s website and they cheerfully show an Arctic section complete with added hysteria. What’s missing is a matching Antarctic section showing what conditions are like there. The reason is obvious; Antarctic conditions aren’t playing AGW ball. It’s lying by omission and reveals bias which means Nasa is NOT objective or neutral on the matter. Simple as that really.

    • sunsettommy says:


      you have a bad habit of making a comment then run off, then you get answered by others, who wait for your reply, you hardly ever respond.

      az1971,Paul and AndyG55 among others, replied exposing your incorrect comments. Where is your counter reply?

  7. Jim Steele says:

    See how the DMI baseline changed from 2015. The 2012 loss (red line) of surface ice was considered the worst but it has been shifted 3 times now varying loss mass by over 120 Gt

  8. Psalmon says:

    So if this year’s ice accumulation melts back to net average accumulation, be ready for “stunned by above average Greenland melt” stories. Guaranteed. Probably already written.

  9. Dale says:

    The implication here is not quite the same as the DMI web site states. For example, this statement from their site is missing from the above: “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

    • Jim Steele says:

      Dale, lost mass has varied over the years and partially due to adjustments for surface mass balance. As I wrote in an article on the subject

      Velicogna’s (2014) previously published average mass loss of 280 +/-58 gigatons/year using GRACE satellite data, or the maximum loss of 570 gigatons in 2012-2013, there was only an insignificant loss of 6 gigatons from June 2013 to June 2014, or mere 1% of the previous year’s loss.

      The DMI adjustments of SMB could obscure possible mass gains since 2012, or minimize reported losses

      • Steve Case says:

        I’ve seen people quote papers saying Greenland’s losing mass and others that say it’s gaining. If there is a trend:

        1. The sign isn’t known
        2. It’s not very much different from zero.

        • Sparks says:

          Why is Greenland important? More glacier calving equates to man climate change, and Less glacier calving equates to man climate change! seriously, you can’t have a constructive debate with anyone who goes along with this type of logic.

  10. Brian G Valentine says:

    Here’s your answer, right here:

    “Mooney was born in Mesa, Arizona, and grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana. Both of his parents were college English professors. He attended Isidore Newman School before entering Yale University, where he graduated with a B.A. in English in 1999.”

    He never had to get kicked out of an accredited science or engineering program for knowing nothing!

  11. CO2isLife says:

    In ten years they will all deny this and claim there was never a global warming scare like they deny the coming ice age.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; Sea Ice Sophistry

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose; Hansen Used to Argue Less Greenhouse Gas Would Cause Warming

Leave a Reply

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