Alarmists Outline Their Reasons To Ignore My Work

From Skeptical Science:

  1. WHY would you choose to believe Mr Heller/Goddard ( paid by the oil industry) rather than believe the thousands and millions of scientists worldwide?
  2. Arctic sea ice volume is collapsing.
  3. History is old.  Don’t trust news from 1989.

Are surface temperature records reliable?

  1. I’m still waiting for that first denier paycheck. Could one of those “millions of scientists” please remind big oil to send it to me?

2. Arctic sea ice volume is normal and highest in five years.

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180601.png (1337×1113)

3. In 1989, NOAA hadn’t yet realized there was money to be made via data tampering.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Alarmists Outline Their Reasons To Ignore My Work

  1. Anon says:

    I noticed that the post date was October 2016. Same as the Wikileaks Podesta email releases, which contained this reference:

    WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/wikileaks-john-podesta-silenced-climate-change-dissent/

    There is no doubt that had I read that in September of 2016, I would have supported Eclectic. I am a scientist and was an avid consumer of the MSM; NYT & WaPo, CNN. I can I even imagining myself writing what Eclectic wrote and just dismissing Tony as a “tinfoil-hat” conspiracy type.

    However, after reading Wikileaks in depth, I realized I was a lot less informed than I thought I was. And Mark Twain’s quote: ‘If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.’ really hit home.

    So, I set out to find the truth about Roger Pielke Jr. (a fellow scientist) and that led me to realclimatescience.com . I am glad it exists.

    Thanks for all of your work Tony. I can’t say swallowing the Red Pill has been a lot of fun, but the world (Climate Science, Politics, etc) is a lot more understandable now.

  2. Funny we never see list of Cassandras with science degrees swearing that the thermometers are lying and the planet is warming “because we say it is.” Back when banning freon was the key to survival the Petition Project got some 31000 signatures from degreed scientists successfully urging the Senate not to ratify the Kyoto Kapitulation. Those names are all verified since way back then. If the 31000+ are the 3%, where are the 97% listed?

  3. Rosco says:

    No one can believe anything published on Skeptical Science – they lie, lie by omission or deliberately misdirect. Everything on their site is simplistic distortion like this one –

    “We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).”

    They neglect to tell the reader that one lunar hour is the equivalent of more than an Earth day – about 29 Earth hours.

    So their implication “the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).” is a lie.

    Diviner data shows the lunar surface cools about 240°C in 6 lunar hours – about 40°C per lunar hour. But turn that into Earth hours and it becomes ~1.4°C per earth hour.

    Such cooling rates happen on Earth all the time. Without an atmosphere Earth’s land surfaces would probably be significantly hotter as the atmosphere reduces the impact of the sun’s radiation.

    But such comparisons are stupid anyway because no-one knows what would happen to the oceans if there were no atmosphere.

    Anyway the point is Skeptical Science are cartoonish liars.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      They ignore the mechanics of the lunar sunrise/sunset as well.
      The lunar ‘day’ is determined by it’s orbit, 360 degrees change in ~29.5 earth days.
      Since the sun subtends ~.5 degrees of arc, it takes nearly an earth hour to ‘set’ on the moon. Leading up to that, the reduction of insolation is very gradual, and temp drops accortingly as the lunar day is ending. None of this is ‘sudden’, or ‘rapid’ in any way.

      Cheers!

  4. frederik wisse says:

    Eclectic is using the standard leftist tactic . First they create a statement and thereafter it becomes your obligation to disprove it . With all their falseness the laws should be rewritten in such a way that the burden of proof lies with the creator of a an unproven statement and the victimized person has a right to receive a compensation for damages as this false statement remains unproven after a well-defined limited amount of time .
    In this case Eclectic could be blown out of the water fairly quickly and be sued into oblivion .

  5. RAH says:

    Your over the target Tony. Got your flack jacket and helmet on? Some guys that were seated doing their jobs preferred to sit on their flack jacket to protect the family jewels as opposed to wearing it. And in more than one case that worked out well.

  6. Kris Johanson says:

    Yes, he’s right, a lot has happened since 1989. Take CLIMATEGATE for example, where the principal CAGW evangelists admit to themselves in writing that it’s hocus pocus, and encourage one another to cook the numbers. Were these austere, truth-seeking “scientists” lying to each other? I don’t think so….

  7. steve case says:

    I’d reply over at Skeptical Science except that I’ve been banned from posting there since 2012. I’m guessing Tony is too. I’m banned at Tamino’s “Open Mind” page as well.

  8. BobW in NC says:

    Keep going strong, Tony! Good job!

  9. RAH says:

    And here we go again! The same pattern as the last several years for Arctic temps. The green line falls below the red line. Summer temp once again falling below the mean.

  10. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Yep 10 years of global warming.

  11. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Forgot to include figure.

  12. David M. says:

    1) To paraphrase Reagan: It isn’t green zealots’ ignorance that threatens society. The threat is so much of what they know isn’t so. Eclectic’s screed illustrates this threat.

    2) Those who do not learn from experience are doomed to repeat mistakes. Eclectic is doomed to humiliation because he or she willfully chooses to ignore the repeated failures of doomsday climate change forecasts–thoroughly documented and brilliantly communicated by Tony–and others mistakes made by green zealots.

    3) Do not waste time arguing with fools. The time is better spent with the open minded and critical thinkers.

    4) Tony, RAH, John of Cloverdale and others keep INFORMING and promoting critical thinking. Your efforts are much appreciated.

  13. Tim says:

    This is why I have all but given up the “conspiracy” podcasts. Here they have something that is provable beyond a doubt but even the conspiracy theorists insist there is “global warming”. When I hear that I just assume that they just told me an hour or more of lies and they don’t know what they are talking about.

    Keep up the good work Tony and I will listen to your appearances on the Delingpole podcast.

  14. TA says:

    All those millions of scientists can’t be wrong, can they?

    That seems to be the focus of Eclectic’s argument. Eclectic doesn’t offer facts. Eclectic appeals to authority. And the authorities Eclectic appeals to are unknown since Eclectic does not single any of these authorities out. Eclectic wants you to believe that *all* real scientists see things Eclectic’s way.

    You don’t have to have any facts to make this kind of argument. I assume that’s why Eclectic did it this way. Appeals to Authority are easy to do.

  15. --B-- says:

    Ever notice how skeptics these days are people who defend the official narratives against those who are skeptical of them? Also note how they never examine the official with any scrutiny. Those with differing views are examined under an electron microscope.

    But this only results in stronger more refined and better supported alternative views. The crazy and not so well thought out ideas drop away and we are left with very strong soundly supported arguments on one hand and on the other official or mainstream arguments that rely primarily on authority.

  16. Yves says:

    Hello, everybody here seems well informed, in any case better than me – but I don’t understand the sea ice thickness graphs, when I check at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
    , on the different graphs (e.g. “ice temperatures”) there are clearly areas of ice-free water which however have a positive ice thickness on graphs; also, the Danish institute also finds a decrease of 11% per decade of sea ice area in september…. Are they also in the big scam ?

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.