Hot Off The Press : Today’s Climate Fraud From NRDC

NRDC is holding a press conference today claiming that heatwaves are increasing in AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, HI, KS, MA, MT, NV, NH, NC, OR, RI, TN, UT, WA & WY.

That is simple enough to test out. I ran an analysis for all of the USHCN stations in those states (none in DC, AK or HI.)

The average maximum temperature has declined over the last century. The 1930’s were much hotter.

The average summer maximum temperature has declined over the last century.  The 1930’s were much hotter.

The percent of days over 90 degrees has plummeted over the past century. The 1930’s were much hotter.

The percent of days over 95 degrees has plummeted over the past century. The 1930’s were much hotter.

The percent of days over 100 degrees has plummeted over the past century. The 1930’s were much hotter.

As with everything else climate alarmists claim about climate, the NRDC claims are wildly fraudulent and the exact opposite of reality.  NRDC is sliming the public with their lies, as I write.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Hot Off The Press : Today’s Climate Fraud From NRDC

  1. Latitude says:

    than a few decades ago……that’s the way they roll

    Like tuning/hide casting the models to the only period in time that both CO2 and temps were rising….30 years ago
    If they tuned to models to another time…..when CO2 was rising and temps were falling…it would destroy their game

  2. Gator says:

    Why only compare temps to “few decades ago”? Oh, right! Grantologists believe that 1979 was the dawn of climate.

    • Andy DC says:

      Yes, 1979 is the gift that keeps on giving for climate alarmists, one of the sweetest cherry picks in the history of junk science.

      • AndyG55 says:

        They start accepting the use of satellite data at the very coldest part of the last 100 or so years

        The use of thermometers started at the very coldest period in 10000 years.

  3. kyle_fouro says:

    I assume they are using NOAA for their analysis. I’m also curious what the graph for maximum temps in AZ looks like.

  4. Richard “Moose” Haas says:

    So the heatwaves are happening in WA, OR, NV, UT, WY, AND MT, but not my home state of Idaho. Good sense immediately makes one wonder: “Why not?! Then I remember the scheisters putting this garbage out…..

  5. Anon says:

    The dam may be bursting, finally:

    Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/

  6. How does that compare to the other states? Did they cherry pick?

  7. Steve Parker says:

    I’ve lived in the Portland, OR area for the past 22 years. In that time we have had exactly ZERO extreme heat days. I’m sorry, but 103 with low humidity is not extreme heat. And that’s a once every five years thing. This Summer we had excessive heat warnings out on days that I woke up to temperatures near 60. Well, in the urban heat island it was much warmer, but that’s not CO2.

    Now, there was that stretch back in ’81 that was close to extreme…..

  8. randy says:

    i like your analysis. i do think however spokane has been hotter in the summer the last 10 – 15 years than per its averages. 45 ninety plus days this year. still your analysis seems compelling.

  9. randy says:

    moderator: the 45 days is for spokane valley per my tabulations from accuweather.com. i come up with avg. of 25 ninety plus days 2004-2016; i think above avg. then this year had 45. for what its worth.

    • gator69 says:

      Above what average, and based upon what set of figures? And why isn’t the Stevenson screen for Spokane Valley at least 100 feet away from pavement, and why is it sited in a gravel utility yard instead of grass?

      https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6810538,-117.6262167,3a,15y,284.36h,86.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNwq0BvLmkCYUPGAUGeOa7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

      Poorly sited stations give false readings.

      • randy says:

        at a library: Weather America had spokane w/ 18 ninety+ days; Weather of US Cities had 20 such days. Dont know their timeframe for avgs. my numbers came from weather.com, accuweather.com and could be off just a little. mine a mix of spokane, sp. valley. sorry. dont know whos summers are hotter or by how much. will say SV is east of spokane and courd’alene yet further east is cooler. the Weather of US Cities is really neat to look at (2 volumes, interlibrary loan, thank you valley library). as suspected it showed SV snowfall year-by-year totals jumping around QUITE a bit (1940s thru 1980s). i’m not from this area but 10 or so years ago we had successive snowfall amounts of like 93, 96 (record set), 14 (2nd least ever). i realize spokane is not “global” weather. just some tidbits. i have no idea why they located their station where they did. my readings at my apt. seem lower than the numbers i see posted by accuweather for SV. i have a rinky dink thermometer though so who knows. your gravel comment is appreciated but link didnt work on my cheap smartphone. spokane meteorologists care to correct me ? at this point i’m like the ice sheet that is both growing and shrinking, becoming a believer and skeptic simultaneously. does seem the bigger picture is we can use cheap alternative energies AGW or not. i like your website and the skeptic science one (believers). i tune out the bombastic comments as best i can given my significant ignorance.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Randy,

          No skeptic I know is saying we shouldn’t use cheap renewable energy but that is not the bigger picture.

          The market determines what is cheap and we don’t have to discuss it any more than we should be talking about what kind of cars we buy or how expensive clothes we chose to wear.

          The bigger picture is that the alarmists are using fraudulent CAGW science to control our lives through governmental coercion and enforce punitive measures against us. I assume that anyone who cares about freedom and liberty agrees with me there.

          The bigger picture is that millions of people—the poorest of the poor—are dying because of limited access to energy and lack of economic development caused by misappropriation of public funds and coercive redirection of private spending and investments.

          By the way, what price of energy do you consider cheap? What cost of kWh is cheap to you, personally, and in what price range do you find gasoline, diesel or natural gas inexpensive?

          Last but not least:

          The skeptical position is logical and simple to explain since the hypothesis behind the CAGW alarm has been falsified many times through failed predictions. In science, a hypothesis has to work 100% of the time to be considered an accepted theory and even one contradictory result forces us to reject or modify our assumptions and statements.

          I don’t think I fully understand what you wrote above. What do you know that makes you simultaneously “a believer” in CAGW and what does it even mean?

          • randy says:

            science im guessing doesnt throw out a theory based on a small contradictory result else Kuhn wouldnt be famous today. scientists it seems are all too human.
            simultaneously: just saying both sides have something useful to offer. youd never guess it from posts of either camp though. i fault the believers a bit more than the skeptics on this one. yes these are bland generalities – i dont know the science enough to feel i can tell whos more in the right. i’ll keep listening to both sides not that both sides are equally sound and complete.

          • gator69 says:

            i’ll keep listening to both sides not that both sides are equally sound and complete.

            Randy, science does not have “sides”. Science is the pursuit of truths, and you are either with us, or you are against us.

          • randy says:

            FWIW, wasn’t crazy about cash for clunkers since really poor folks probably couldn’t benefit from it that much w/o going into debt.
            i cant argue with the points you make though cant necessarily agree either out of lack of knowledge.
            a bit of a tangent: ken thompson wrote a great piece of software, unix, in the 70s. now smart as he was it may have had a few bugs in its infancy. a critic might have jumped on the bugs and suggested he trash it. i said might have. the bugs were very real we might presume. but trashing would have been a terrible thing.
            now i don’t think the CC sw models are probably as useful (but truly who am i to say since i know so little of them) as unix/linux turned out to be. point is: what good do they provide versus shortcomings. honestly i am just asking. you can probably tell im not playing stupid i just don’t know say how many good predications it has made (has it made any good predictions ?) versus bad ones.
            it might be useful if the skeptics haven’t already done so to list “failed” past predictions and what measures mann/IPCC took to patch their models accordingly. too many and/or too big of patches implies bad model. not too many or minor ones maybe its okay as a “theory”.
            i know unix was a great piece of sw have no idea about this one (apples to oranges comparison true as well).

          • gator69 says:

            it might be useful if the skeptics haven’t already done so to list “failed” past predictions…

            Randy, if you would hang around sites that actually discuss the science of climate change, you would have run across many of these…

            FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

            1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
            Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

            ****

            2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
            Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

            ****

            3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

            Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

            ****

            4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
            Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

            ****

            5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
            Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

            ****

            6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
            Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

            ****

            7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
            Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
            Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

            ****

            8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
            Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

            9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
            Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

            ****

            10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
            Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

            ****

            11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
            Spiegel, 1 April 2000

            ****

            12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

            3Sat, 26 June 2003

            ****

            13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
            IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

            ****

            14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
            Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

            ****

            15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

            and

            “ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
            Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

            ****

            16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
            Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

            ****

            17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
            Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

            ****

            18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
            Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

            ****

            19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
            Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

            ****

            20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
            FOCUS, 24 May 2006

            ****

            21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
            Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

            ****

            22. “Winters: wet and mild”
            Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

            ****

            23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
            Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

            ****

            24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
            Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

            ****

            25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
            Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

            ****

            26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
            Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
            Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

            ****

            27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
            Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

            ****

            28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
            Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

            ****

            29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
            German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

            ****

            30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
            Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

            ****

            31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
            Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

            ****

            32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

            ****

            33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
            State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

            ****

            34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
            Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

            ****

            35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
            David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

            ****

            36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
            BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

            ****

            37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
            Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

            ****

            38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
            Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

            ****

            39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
            Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

            *****

            40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
            Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

            ****

            41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
            IPCC Climate Change, 2001

            ****

            42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
            IPCC Climate Change, 2001

            ****

            43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
            IPCC Climate Change, 2007

            ****

            44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
            WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

            ****

            45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
            Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

            ****

            46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
            Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

            ****

            47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
            Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

            ****

            48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
            Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

            ****

            49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
            Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

            ****

            50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
            Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

            ****

            51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
            BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
            [BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]

            ****

            52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
            Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

            ****

            53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

            “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
            Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

            ****

            54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
            NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

            ****

            55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
            Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

            ****

            56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
            Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

            ****

            57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”
            Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008

            ****

            58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
            Guardian, 14 February 2004
            [4 January 2013: “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.”]

            ****

            59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
            David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

            ****

            60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”
            Spiegel, 3 June 2006
            [The Local 2013: “Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record … I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season.”]

            ****

            61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe

            Reuters, Nov 09, 2012

            FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.

            “The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”

            ****

            62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
            Guardian, 26 August 2006.
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/26/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

            ****

            63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)

            “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)

            Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
            Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

            ****

            64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”
            Telegraph December 14, 2006
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536852/The-hottest-year-since-1659-spells-global-doom.html

            ****

            65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”
            BBCs Climate Change Experiment
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml

            ****

            66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)
            67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)
            The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:
            http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/PageFiles/19049/SumIB_uk.pdf
            Impacts of climate change in Belgium
            Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
            Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.

            ****

            68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
            NASA, June 2, 1999
            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

            ****

            69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
            Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

            ****

            70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
            David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
            February 14, 2004
            http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/14/climatechange.scotland

            ****

            71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”
            Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/03/research.sciencenews

            ****

            72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”
            Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard
            http://www.standard.co.uk/news/british-seasons-start-to-shift-6358532.html

            ****

            73. “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
            Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
            Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

            ****

            74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

            ****

            75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”

            ****

            76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”

            ****

            77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
            [Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won’t be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]

            ****

            78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”

            ****

            79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

            ****

            80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

            ****

            81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

            ****

            82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

            ****

            83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

            ****

            84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

            ****

            85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

            ****

            86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

            ****

            87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”

            —****

            88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

            ****

            89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”

            ****

            90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

            ****

            91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

            ****

            92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

            ****

            93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

            ****

            94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

            ****

            95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

            ****

            96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”

            ****

            97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

            ****

            98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

            ****

            99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”

            ****

            100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

            ****

            101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”
            [Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]

            ****

            102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

            ****

            103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

            ****

            104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
            [Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

            ****

            105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

            ****

            106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

            ****

            107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “science im guessing doesnt throw out a theory based on a small contradictory result …”

            You have no idea what you are talking about and writing it down without punctuation doesn’t make it any better.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” i tune out the bombastic comments as best i can ”

          Yes, Its obvious that you don’t read what you write.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          BTW Randy,

          By “skeptic science” website you mean John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” at skepticalscience.com?

          This examination of “the science and arguments of global warming skepticism“?

          Getting To The Bottom Of Cook’s 97% Lie

          Don’t you think a bit of skepticism would be healthy?

          • randy says:

            yes i did mean skepticalscience.c om. good post. they took liberties with that one.
            obvious question: why not conduct an internet survey of the authors of these papers ? can’t agree on the appropriate 3, 4, or more questions to ask ? or do the two sides not trust that it would be conducted w/o fraud ? using software to process the abstracts is proving controversial i guess so what else is there to do ?
            i’ve only been to their site once or twice and liked it but almost all of the science is beyond me so cant judge quality of comments only their tone and surface validity.

          • randy says:

            again they really seemed to be wrong to suggest carlin’s article supported consensus. agreed.
            i don’t recall if it was at skepticalscience.com but someone claimed they did a study (?) that implied the 40% that didnt fall into one of the 3 or 4 catagories were of the same 97% consensus… not saying i necessarily believe it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Learn English, FFS, randy

            You are typing incoherent garbage,. !!

          • randy says:

            not surprisingly not all skeptics are the same… some have useful comments while others just vacuous words.
            my comment on not throwing away a theory because a small contradiction may have cropped up : i suspect there are theories and laws in science that are far from pristine, i.e., in some sense they commit errors of ommission and/or commission. dont think i’m saying anything profound. and i’m not a scientist. certain skeptics here come across as having serious chips on their shoulders. comments such as “you just dont know what you are talking about” are not very useful. be specific with criticisms.

          • randy says:

            are any of you fairly knowledgeable w.r.t. machine learning and/or neural network learning algorithms ? i’ve read parts of Machine Learning by Michalski, Carbonell and Mitchell. sections of the book deal with theory formation. if you are quite familiar with this research (of decades and quite active no doubt) great. if you know next to nothing about this well perhaps it is you who could learn alittle more…

          • gator69 says:

            Randy, I was a climatology student right after the ice age scare, and right before the great global warming swindle. After having reviewed the science of cvlimate chnage for four decades, I can assure you there is zero empirical evidence for man made global warming. Every CO2 based model has failed utterly to predict anything. That is how theories are falsified Randy.

            Then there is this.

            According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

            Page 24, Middle column

            According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

            He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

            The models have been falsified at 95%, according to the experts.

            Time to move on.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Ouch.. that site should be classified as

        “UNFIT FOR PURPOSE”

  10. randy says:

    gator69: your link worked this time. thank you. does the gravel affect the readings much or not ? i kind of think my highs at my apt. are a degree or two lower than what i see posted on accuweather. maybe my thermometer or location difference, dont know. dont even know where this site is in the valley.

    • Gator says:

      Gravel, like pavement, a no-no. Stevenson screens are supposed to be a minimum of 100 feet from any form of pavement, and the SV station is not only over gravel, but adjacent to asphalt. This would skew temps higher.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And those close metal buildings and radar dish.

        Another no-no.

        At least there is no air-con unit as far as I can see.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Actually, Its probably on the right side of that building, hidden from view by the metal enclosure in the foreground.

          Notice the chimney stack as well.

          Great place for a weather station … NOT !!!

  11. Steven Fraser says:

    I think you all will like this one, too: The time series from HOTIKITA AERODROME:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=5379

    I don’t know if this is a siting fail, but certainly seems like a calibration fail.

  12. randy says:

    i cant defend the believers; sorry, only in last year have read a bit on the subject matter. would respond more but the form wont scroll for me. sometimes it does sometimes not. frustrated.

  13. Greg Palmer says:

    Here in Kansas we’ve just ended back to back very comfy and not hot summers. There have been only a handfull of dates that temperatures edged over 100, much better than the early 80s when I (not so fondly) remember 6 straight weeks that were over 95 (most with 100+) and nights that never cooled down below the mid 80s.

    • randy says:

      i really wasnt trying to make a case for cc. my relatives live in ohio and they had a pretty nice summer. cc has found its true one (and only?) home here in spokane. :-( .

      • AndyG55 says:

        “cc has found its true one (and only?) home here in spokane.”

        Now you are just talking arrant rubbish !!

        You have outed yourself as a brain-washed AGW operative with your childish typing. Stop your moronic pretence.

  14. randy says:

    i cant defend the believers; sorry, only in last year have read a bit on the subject matter.
    (form scrolling now). sorry if govts are heavy handed. i would like cheaper energy am aware of govt subsidies to alt energy. but while media may have lied in past about oil running out by now it apparently is becoming more challenging to come by. i like the results of cheaper fraced gas (although i only drive 600 miles per year; walk/bike mostly, age 60) but feel there should have been more societal discussion before fracing went on a blitzkriek. yes liberals may have lied some but who am to know how safe it really is.
    generally speaking the believers sadly pretend the skeptics have nothing of value to add and pretty much true vice-versa. you are worse than the dems/repubs in the usa. skeptics make some good points but you would seem still more convincing if you could find something good of the bad guys effort. oh and a little less sarcasm unless its funny that is.
    it does surprise me that the blogs are so dicotomized.
    and not so much idealism! dont know which is worse liberal or conservative idealism. sherry seethaler has a nice book aimed not at PhDs but more avg jills on being critical of media’s take on science. y’all would like it but its a gray area i think she’d agree as to how much a theory can be patched before its deemed broken.
    here’s a small jab at skeptics:. read most of a book, “climate change: the facts.” informative but why does one skeptic think solar forcing has almost everything to do with CC and yet another focuses much more on say water vapor or something else. also, no one on either side goes into any details of how the models work. what stats are used, some details short of looking at code. how are weights assigned to various pieces of “evidence”). the field of AI has dealt with this since at least the 70s. see Mycin project for instance. or Hearsay. judea pearl has a technical book (ive not read) dealing with belief justification. see non-monotonic reasoning, also Simpson’s paradox (probabilities version of it in some sense). maslin in “climate change: a very short intro” says science is not about beliefs . i think kuhn (and paradigm shift folks) along with most cog scientists would disagree. if the facts just spoke for themselves why all the disagreement ?
    like your comment regarding bad location for SV’s temp reading apparatus. how inconsistent are these measuring places by the way ?

    • gator69 says:

      Randy, the one thing that those who are honest, unbiased, and informed can say is that CO2 does not drive climate change. That said, nobody knows, but the Sun is an obvious large player. The best thing that could happen to and for climate science, would be the dismissal of CO2 as a major driver, or even any driver of any sort at current levels and above. It’s time to move on.

      As for station siting…

      JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015146/abstract

      The current rating of surface stations (82.5% surveyed) as of 07/30/2012

      CRN Rating:

      CRN1-2, 7.9% of stations
      CRN3-5, 92.1% of stations

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

      2 Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding
      Vegetation 5°.

      3 (error 1°C) ‐ Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating
      sources within 10 meters.

      4 (error ≥2°C) ‐ Artificial heating sources <10 meters

      5 (error ≥5°C) ‐ Temperature sensor located next to/above an
      artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot,
      or concrete surface

      So over 92% of sations surveyed had readings of 1°C to 5°+C due to siting issues. Translation: We can’t possibly know what the trend is with this kind of garbage in the equation.

      Your attitude toward the skeptic community betrays your ignorance of the subject, Randy. Type less and read more here, and you will learn what real science really is..

      • AndyG55 says:

        “5 (error ≥5°C) ‐ Temperature sensor located next to/above an
        artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot,
        or concrete surface”

        Which applies to the site shown up the thread.

        WOEFUL to say the least,

        and definitely UNFIT FOR PURPOSE..

        basically ANY purpose. !

      • randy says:

        gator69:
        thank you for the station info. do the IPCC folks agree to the CRN ratings and the the associated temp increases attributed to these sites ?
        if so do they attempt to make adjustments for them ? or do they just figure errors are ok as long as we are consistent with them over time… e.g. a plus 3 degree reading in 2013 is okay if you got that plus 3 degrees in 2000, 1986, etc. well ok as far as temp changes over time are considered. of course it would seem problematic comparing to more distant past temp proxy results not including these errors. i’m asking how do the models deal with it ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” do the IPCC folks agree ”

          IPCC is a political organisation.

          ZERO science, so it is immaterial if they agree or not.

          WAKE UP, little trollette.!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And please.. learn to string a coherent sentence together. !!

        • gator69 says:

          What do the IPCC and models have to do with climate science? The IPCC is a governmental panel of bureaucrats who fashion their findings around an agenda, and models are science fiction.

          Randy, if you really want to learn about climate science, the first two things you need to dismiss are biased politicians and make believe machines. Study our planet’s climate history, observe real data, and you will discover there is absolutely nothing unsual about our current climate or how we got here.

          But I suspect you are not an honest inquisitor, and that you have no interest in truths.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Whack a mole.

          • Gator says:

            Whack a troll.

          • randy says:

            when i say ipcc sorry if i’m being imprecise. i’m speaking loosely about anyone who creates the models etc. i’m not a troll or mole whatever. y’all come across as smug how sad. probably i would be better off arguing with AI folks over something. and i’m not southern but i can use y’all if i want to. criticize that good grief.

            the list of failed predications was pretty good i was actually hoping for more specific screwups from mann or his colleagues. but then the little i’ve read of ipcc predictions they use ranges w/ confidences. so lessens liklihood they’ll look too foolish.

            try to understand this very simple point. many entertainers or politicians may say stupid things about AGW. this shouldn’t negate any positive contributions from scientists that do find AGW effects.
            just as trite criticisms of me here do not negate the helpful/useful posts.
            my greatest interests are in the fields of AI and so i will not be spending too much time at either your or skepticalscience site.

            you definitely have something in common with the believers: an attitude we are right, they are wrong. on everything. neither of you are close to right on that one.
            when one of you says they have zero science behind them i don’t believe that. you have good criticisms of them, but that doesn’t make all their efforts null and void.

          • Latitude says:

            Randy, the problem with being right…is you have to prove it
            ..the “believers” stated something as fact….they can not prove it

          • Latitude says:

            “about anyone who creates the models”

            If I was one of those people that creates the models….I would be so pissed glaciers would melt

            For one thing, models take a long time to build, input data…and run them
            They are constantly changing the past temp history…the temp numbers you put in and are running are no longer valid….the numbers they give you today are not valid by the time you run the model.
            Models are hind cast to a 30 year period that is not representative of the whole past history…they are tuned to the one 30 year period when both temp and CO2 were rising

            Constantly changing past temps, and tuning to that one 30 year period….guarantees that the models will never be right……………

          • gator69 says:

            you definitely have something in common with the believers: an attitude we are right, they are wrong

            Randy, you clearly do not get it. Skeptics do not claim to know the unknowable, we admit our knowledge has limts. The climastrologists/grantologists believe (or want us to believe) that they hold all the answers, when they obviously do not. That’s a damn big difference. One side lies, and the other is honest. Your inabilty to discern this difference is very disturbing Randy, and more than a bit suspect.

            Let’s get dolwn to brass tacks Randy.

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

            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.

    • Latitude says:

      randy….reread what you just wrote…the truth is in there
      Neither side…no one…knows enough to make predictions
      When the believers are pined to the wall…they fall back on perverse version of the precautionary principle…….do everything because it might happen..even though zero nada not one of their predictions have come true .

      If the science was settled…it would be over….and not still debated for over a 1/2 century.

      Personally, I find fault with the science itself…..when models are hind cast/tuned to the only period of past history when both CO2 and temperatures were rising simultaneously….and then run forward…of course, the only results you are going to get is increase CO2 = increase temperature. And of course, the models are all wrong, no model predicted the present temperatures right.
      When, as Tony constantly shows, temperature history has been retroactively “adjusted” to fit the narrative. How can you believe anything they say today about temperature, when in the future they will change it…and don’t even realize it makes them look like liars or worse.

      No, if the science was settled…this blog would not even exist

    • Latitude says:

      ” if the facts just spoke for themselves why all the disagreement ?”

      Because the believers tend to except it without questioning the science…
      …the skeptics tend to question the science for the same reasons you just listed

      If there were “facts” the science would be settled…. no facts, no settled science

      • randy says:

        Latitude: at least you have a good attitude. I appreciate your
        responses.

        I don’t know that much about this subject matter. Two sides
        both claim to be experts on the matter. I am obviously very
        reluctant to believe either side just because they claim to be
        right. I know you have the facts on your side. But I don’t
        know this. I don’t understand everything you say for instance.
        This is not your problem. Fine.
        What I learned in a VERY SHORT TIME was that both sides
        dispute EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING that the
        other side says. And I’m the dip for not knowing who to
        believe ? You clearly HAVE pointed out some problems with
        believers posts in the very short time I’ve visited your website.
        Kudos.

        Then again I come across a James Taylor guy
        who titles an article (March, 2012) “Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics” in Forbes. He then goes on to say: “89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.”.
        Pretty amazing. Because only 30% are very worried, the 89% that believe it is happening is to be understood as
        “I am a skeptic ?”. Really.
        I’m guessing Mr. Taylor is not part of your
        group. Subsequently I found that he posted more articles of meteorological surveys and the numbers looked more favorable from a skeptics stance. I didn’t bother to spend much time with the articles. Hopefully you can see why stuff like this is why I distrust both sides.

        Doug Hofstadter is an AI researcher and in one of his books
        he criticizes some of the efforts/approaches of other AI
        researchers. They undoubtedly didn’t take it all that well.
        But it doesn’t come across as “I’m all right and they are
        fools” as the climate science industry strikes me.

        Sorry I don’t know more about the science so that I can
        tell who’s telling the majority of the truth. I agree with
        you that it is up to the “believers” to convince us that
        AGW is truly happening.

      • gator69 says:

        “89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.” Pretty amazing.

        The only thing that is amazing is that 11% said that they don’t believe that global warming is happening, Randy. Virtually everyone agrees that the globe has warmed over the past 150 years.

        Randy, you are so ill informed that you are conflating the rebound in temperatures since the LIA with CAGW, they are not one and the same. We are in an interglacial and we should expect temperatures to be rising, that is what happens during interglacials.

        Randy, type less, read more.

        The hypothesis of CAGW is dead, time to move on.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          ”What I learned in a VERY SHORT TIME was that both sides dispute EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING that the other side says.”

          Randy is not only in the dark about basic climate facts, he’s even ignorant about the arguments made in the global warming debate. And he shouts his ignorance to the world. He pretends to be humble but his writing betrays him.

          I doubt he will learn a thing.

  15. AndyG55 says:

    wake up everybody….

    randy is play-acting as an ill-educated 10 year old.

    just another agw operative. don’t be fooled.

Leave a Reply

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