This Week’s Top Climate Fake News

This week featured some spectacular examples of junk science and outright fraud from the collection of crooks known as government funded climate scientists.

From MIT and the National Academy of Sciences :

The bigger danger here is that global warming will mean many more days with a mean temperature above 32 ˚C—specifically, an increase from one per year in the average U.S. county today to around 43 annually by around 2070, according to an earlier UN report cited in the study.

Global Warming May Harm Children for Life – MIT Technology Review

The first problem with this claim is there is no such thing as an “average US county.” Days with mean temperatures above 32C are extremely hot and are confined to a few locations in a few states in the south and southwest.  Most states haven’t seen temperatures that hot since 1936. But the bigger problem is that days with mean temperatures above 32C have been declining in the US for a century.  The only two years with widespread mean temperatures above 32C were 1936 and 1934.  The other three hot summers were 1954, 1980 and the Texas/Oklahoma heatwave of 2011.

The next graph adds in the MIT forecast to 2070.

The MIT/National Academy forecast is utter nonsense, with no basis in fact, science or rational thought. Which is why it made it through climate science peer review. I can remember when MIT was a respected and respectable institution, before government climate money corrupted them.

The other amazing news story is the starving Polar Bear in Baffin Bay – where sea ice extent is right at the 1981-2010 mean. I flew over Baffin Bay yesterday and didn’t see any starving Polar Bears.

N_daily_extent.png (420×500)

Arctic sea ice extent is close to normal, and nowhere near a record low.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Polar Bear expert Susan Crockford pointed out that whatever afflicted the bear probably has nothing to do with sea ice, and that the people who filmed it were aware of that fact but didn’t care about facts in their propaganda piece.

Facts and climate science have nothing to do with each other. It is about the corruption of science via billions of dollars of government funding.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to This Week’s Top Climate Fake News

  1. gator69 says:

    But, but, but… the models!

    • Phil Jones says:

      Wow!! Arctic Ice is down 8% from the 30yr Average!!


      Wish my Electric Bill was down 8%, instead prices have gone up 1100% here in California since the 70’s…

  2. Robertv says:

    Communism failed in the 20th century, but is allowing the super-rich to dictate to the rest of humanity the only alternative system? Perhaps we need to design a socialist system, which also recognizes achievement.

    Bill Gates, the second-richest person on Earth, has repeatedly criticized capitalism. Back in 2015 he explained his reasoning was based on a simple ecological calculation: the use of fossil fuels has to be radically reduced if we are to avoid a global catastrophe, and the private sector is too selfish to produce clean and economical alternatives to fossil fuels, which means humanity has to act outside market forces. Gates himself plans to spend $2 billion of his own money on green energy, even though there’s no fortune to be made from it, and he called on fellow billionaires to help make the US fossil-free by 2050 with similar philanthropy.

    Gates himself plans to spend $2 billion of his own money on green energy”

    Why only $2 billion ? Is saving humanity and the planet not worth everything you have? So he doesn’t do it for that reason.

    And how can they say that capitalism and the free market are bad ? They don’t exist. In a capitalist system there would be no income tax or any other form of direct taxation. Capitalism and the Free market need Freedom and form 1040 tells you you are just a slave.

    • gator69 says:

      A few years ago a survey was taken of Prius owners, and it asked what was the primary motivation for buying a hybrid. Most common answer? “What it says about me”.

      Leftists make decisions based upon feelings, not logic or facts. They are all about appearances, and not about solving problems, they could not care less about their fellow man.

      • Rud Istvan says:

        We drive a MY 2007 hybrid Ford Escape small SUV, AWD with class 1 tow hitch. (Essentially an SUV Prius, as Ford traded its Euro diesel engine design package for the Prius hybrid design package at zero cost to either—smart move saving both billions of R&D).
        A financial no brainer for this hard core climate skeptic. The hybrid premium over equivalently capable V6 Escape was $2600; the Federal hybrid income tax credit was $3000 in 2007. Forget the fuel economy savings (about 45%). The Otto cycle V6 required premium gas. The hybrid Atkinson cycle I4 used regular— a savings hereabouts of about $1/gallon, nevermind the fewer gallons. ‘Kermey’ (Kermit the frog green, the SciAm Escape advertizing Ford placed for the hybrid in 2007) still going strong after 76000 miles and ten years on the battery.

    • Brad says:

      Perhaps we need to design a socialist system, which also recognizes achievement.

      While you are at it, can you make water less wet?

    • Phil Jones says:

      Wow, this Robertv sucks, time to turn the Channel..

      Oh, and by the way, Bill Gates is an asshöle.. Instead of rewarding people who helped build Microsoft, or lowering prices… This Greedy Turdd kept all the money Capitalism gave him, then preaches against it..

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Makes sense. In Serengeti ilion prides, it is the females that do the hunting. (Why? Because there are more ofbthem and pack hunts are more successful.) This young adult male lion was cast out of the pride by the alpha male, and did not learn enough solo hunting skills from his mama. Darwin at work. That is why young adult males form ‘social groups’ of all male ‘prides’—enhanced hunting. This guy was somehow a loner.

  3. jaytee says:

    Arctic sea ice does not appear to be “near normal” in the plot you show above. It appears to be greater than two standard deviations below the 1981-2010 mean. What were you trying to show with that graph?

    • tonyheller says:

      Bell rings. Dog drools.

    • sunsettommy says:

      You missed this,jaytee:

      “Arctic sea ice extent is close to normal, and nowhere near a record low.”

    • AndyG55 says:

      jaytee, did you know that Arctic sea ice is currently in the top 10% of Holocene extents

      It is actually ANOMALOUSLY HIGH for the current interglacial, only marginally down from the most EXTREME extents of the Little Ice Age.

      • jaytee says:

        I just downloaded 2 of Stein’s papers from 2017 that addressed arctic sea ice extent. I’ll need to read them. Thanks for the lead. (It would be better to give a more complete citation though.)

        • Rud Istvan says:

          Jaytee, in addition to the Stein papers, read essay Northwest Passage in ebook Blowing Smoke. It does historical ice extent qualitative historical inferences using Tony Heller techniques (irrefutable visuals and historical references),discusses the problems with sat ice extent inferences, than has a lot of fun concerning the warmunist notion of an ice free Northwest passage in 2012 and 2013.(The book was published in fall 2014.)

        • AndyG55 says:

          Also look for work from Julian Mueller (I think that’s the name.) Lost a lot of stuff about a year ago.

          Fram Strait biodata etc.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Another graph you can chase up if you are interested.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And you can see how well they actually correlate with the GISP Greenland ice temp charts (rotate 180)

      • AndyG55 says:

        Note.. I added that little bit in red as the late 1970’s peak.

        That peak is clearly seen in the Icelandic sea ice index.

      • jaytee says:

        Don’t these just mirror what’s already known about the Holocene temperature record? It’s the rapid warming over the last 100 years that looks like an anomaly.

        • gator69 says:

          Rapid warming? Just like we saw in the 19th century?

          IPCC AR5 (2013): “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85°C over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 °C, based on the single longest dataset available 4 (see Figure SPM.1). … [T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade).”

        • AndyG55 says:

          You cannot put recent high resolution instrumental data with lower resolution proxy data.

          It is statistical fudge and a mathematical no-no.

          which is, of course, why climate scientist do it…. Ignorance.

  4. GW Smith says:

    Hi Tony-
    How do we answer this “Climate Science Special Report”?
    Soooooo official looking and scary.
    Keep up the fight!

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.