New Video : 2018 – One Of The Least Extreme Years On Record In The US

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

235 Responses to New Video : 2018 – One Of The Least Extreme Years On Record In The US

  1. Stewart Pid says:

    Excellent one Tony

    • Mark Sagan says:

      Unfortunately, Tony chose to leave out the over 600 temperature records the U.S. set last year. Amazing he would miss that since it was worldwide news along with record-breaking heat around the globe last summer.

      • tonyheller says:

        You have no clue what you are talking about Mark

        • Mark Sagan says:

          Your chart is too small to decipher. But I’m going to assume for now that the high point was back in the 30s, which is certainly beyond argument. However, the 30s heatwave was a U.S. phenomenon. For the rest of the world, the warmest decade on record is the one we’re in right now.

          Also, record lows have dropped precipitously and consistently since 1990, now less than half the rate of pre 1990s years. Since the 80s, the number of record warm low temps has increased by 70%.

          Three separate studies released last year, by Climate Central, by the American Geophysical Union, and by the EPA, clearly show extreme heat days increasing dramatically and extreme cold days declining. According to the EPA study, heatwave lengths and frequency are increasing, from an average of 2 per year during the 60s to nearly 6 during the 2010s.

          The heat records broken in the U.S. last summer were chronicled in U.S. and News Report, and included over 600 total temp records broken, including the warmest May on record (avg temps). Europe also had its warmest May on record, and included the nations of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Netherlands, according to NOAA. Individual temp records were also broken in Durango and Torreon, Mexico, in Oman, Glasgow, Belfast, Shannon, Denver, Sante Fe, Montreal, Burlington, Tbilisi, Greater Los Angelas (Chino), Tianxiang, Taiwan, , Emirate of Dubai, Caribou, Japan, Hongcheon, South Korea, and 22 counties and cities in China. New Zealand had its warmest summer on record.

          I can’t comment or rebut your chart because I can’t see it. But I do think it’s misleading and disingenuous to ignore in your video the extremes that DID occur in 2018. It gives the impression that your cherry-picking and fibbing by omission.

  2. Norilsk says:

    Thanks Tony for yet another fact-finding video report. The world owes you a debt of gratitude.

    Watch actress Sigourney Weave doing a superb job of acting, a true denier of the reality on the ground. “The first generation to feel the sting of climate change.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xftw8Z3dGuQ&t=50s

  3. arn says:

    Indeed 2018 was the most extreme year ever.

    The Maledives have drowned,huge parts of manhattan are under water now.
    No more sea ice in the arctic and the only reason polar bears do not complain about the lack of surfable ice floes is that they are gone
    +there was the most extreme hurricane drought ever ((incl. the most extreme mediocre of the mill hurricane.

    Can’t hardly wait for 2019.
    New never seen before apocalyptic predictions,
    50-70 new genders&pronouns,
    3-5 five new hitlers,
    more slimey buttkissing Treudeaus,
    more pedophile hollywood directors&actors so worried about climate and
    religion of peace.
    New politically correct taboos
    and perverted crypto marxist BS to make progressives feel smart and superior,
    more censorship and banning by carbon tax pushing. global corporations.

  4. gregole says:

    On my Instagram account one of my friends just posted a picture of her and one of her girlfriends visiting Bisbee, Arizona. It was snowing. Bisbee is on the border with Mexico.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqGoKTyMqUw

  5. John of Cloverdale, Western Australia says:

    Great video, Tony. I wish someone like a Jo Nova, or, Jennifer Marohasy would put one, like this, together about Australia to blunt the continual alarmist dribble of ‘Climate Change’ by the usual suspects here.
    BTW, Dennis Jensen (ex Government parliamentarian) shared your video recently on his Facebook page.
    Cheers and have a Happy New Year.

  6. garyh845 says:

    Great video Tony. wow – 1957 . . you youngster. No wonder you’re standing out in the snow in your shorts.

    Hey – pls, do you have a link to your US land falling hurricane graph (20 yr centered mean)?

    Many thanks for all that you do.

  7. Chris Hitchens says:

    The LEAST extreme? Really? You didn’t notice that the thickest ice in the Arctic has just broken up and ships are now traversing its waters for the first time EVER? Just as Al Gore predicted would happen? Didn’t feel it important enough to mention? That was a HUGE extreme weather event in 2018.

    Or that 227 U.S. cities broke temperature records last summer, and over 400 overnight temp records? Or that records were shattered all over China, Japan, South Korea, Iran, U.K., France, Oman, and many more, including the Arctic Circle?

    How about three separate studies that all agree that extreme heat days are dramatically increasing throughout the U.S. Shouldn’t those have been included to balance your own cherry-picked data, which is so incredibly misleading?

    • tonyheller says:

      You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about

      • Chris Hitchens says:

        No clue? Ah, so all the media outlets that reported the thickest ice in the Arctic breaking up last summer were fake? The U.S. News and World Report on the record-shattering heat we had around the world? Fake? All those weather stations from Asia to the UK to the Arctic reporting FAKE temperatures? The three separate studies verifying that extreme heat days are increasing around the world? Shall I cite those studies for you? Or are those fake, too? Have you mentioned to your viewers NASA’s time-lapse video of Arctic ice, showing virtually ALL of the oldest ice vanishing in just a 20-year span? Is that fake, too? I urge your audience to check facts before coming to conclusions. I’d be happy to cite ALL of my sources and you can decide for yourselves.

        • spike55 says:

          Here is the Russian chart. See all that dark crimson.

          Yes, the media are LYING !!

        • spike55 says:

          DMI Ice Volume last 10 years

          Yes, the media are LYING

          • Chris says:

            “The data shows that the extent in summer is 30% smaller than it was at the beginning of the 1980s. The extent during winter has diminished by about 10%.”
            —-DMI, Polar Portal

            “The sea ice in the Arctic has reacted noticeably to the rise in air and ocean temperatures. There is significantly less ice now compared to 30 years ago.” —–DMI, Polar Portal

          • Gator says:

            How old is the Earth Chris?

          • spike55 says:

            the late 1970s was an EXTREME high anomaly, up there with the extent of the LIA.

            Current levels of sea ice are STILL IN THE TOP 10% of extents for the current interglacial.

            If you are IGNORANT of this fact, and choose to remain IGNORANT, you are nothing but a brain-washed dolt.

            Here is the Icelandic sea ice index, LIA and all,
            See that peak in the mid-late 1970s.

            Why to you think that having SO MUCH arctic sea ice is the “normal”, when for nearly all the Holocene, sea ice extent has been FAR LESS than now.?

        • spike55 says:

          MASIE sea ice extent last dozen years

        • spike55 says:

          And here is something that the media will NEVER time you, nor will NOAA.

          The late 1970s was a time of EXTREME high sea ice extent, similar to the extent in the Little Ice Age.

          When compared to the rest of the current interglacial, the current sea ice level, while down a bit from the late 1970s, is actually STILL IN THE TOP 10% of the last 10,000 years.

        • spike55 says:

          “I urge your audience to check facts before coming to conclusions”

          I urge YOU to actually check facts, from actual data, NOT from propaganda AGW sites like NOAA and the MSM.

          Tony Heller works PURELY from actual data, even you could access that data if you want to.

          Go up the top, and download “Unhiding the decline”, this access REAL DATA straight from the original data sets. Learn to use it , THEN start putting forward your arguments.

          • Chris Hitchens says:

            Sorry, you’re completely indoctrinated by bullshit. Ice extent means NOTHING. That’s one-year ice. 95% of the old, thick, pure-water ice that’s so difficult to melt is GONE.

            See NASA’s time-lapse video of arctic ice for a reality check.

          • rah says:

            Anyone that knows a thing about Arctic sea ice knows that it is storms, winds, currents, and wave action rather than melt which are the major factors that determine the extent and age of the ice. It is SEA ICE after all.

          • spike55 says:

            Only one yapping BS here is you.

            Interesting that you would rather watch a propaganda video animation than look at real facts.

            It sort of shows your intelligence level as being less than that of a muppet.

            You are one of those gullible fools, incapable of a rational thought of your own.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Chrissy,
          Stick around. You have a LOT to learn.

        • spike55 says:

          For Chris.

          Read the following, from 1922, particularly note the following.

          “and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of the Spitzenberg”

          • Chris. says:

            Yes, let’s do science by old newspaper articles. I’m sure those ship captains consulted with their submarine sonar and satellite data to map the ENTIRE ice sheet over a period of several years? Get serious.

          • tonyheller says:

            Holocaust deniers also like to ignore and rewrite history

          • spike55 says:

            Chris is a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER

            Refuse to LEARN, choose t to remain IGNORANT, Chris,

            IGNORANCE is all you have to support your silly little AGW religion

        • spike55 says:

          Now look at the current Russian ice charts,

          What do you notice circled in black ?

        • Disillusioned says:

          You are very clueless.

          Disillusionment is a good thing.

        • tom0mason says:

          Chris Hitchens,
          As we leave the LIA it should be perfectly normal to loose the Arctic Ice. This HAS happened before (unless you believe the Vikings enjoyed living in the freezing cold on Greenland). We should expect the ice amounts to vary and reduce over the years because climate (like weather) is NOT static. If it the ice trend doesn’t reduce but increases then we are in BIG trouble, as that indicates we are once again trending towards a cool period! That is the reality of our climate.

          All this climate change falls well within normal historical values, nothing, BUT NOTHING, unusual is happening. So go ahead Chris Hitchens prove that this ice variation is not natural.

      • Gator says:

        Ah, so all the media outlets that reported the thickest ice in the Arctic breaking up last summer were fake?

        Yep! They act like this has not happened before, faking history.

        All those weather stations from Asia to the UK to the Arctic reporting FAKE temperatures?

        Yep! They do not use actual data.

        Have you mentioned to your viewers NASA’s time-lapse video of Arctic ice, showing virtually ALL of the oldest ice vanishing in just a 20-year span?

        How old is the Earth?

        You have no clue what you are speaking of, find a new hobby.

        • Disillusioned says:

          This is his new-found hobby. Or class this semester. When they immediately cite GISS as if it is the paragon of facts it’s a dead giveaway.

  8. Disillusioned says:

    Is anybody else experiencing delays on this website? Posts are taking a long time to show up.

  9. Gator says:

    Yup! And new comments get linked before they appear on the page.

    38 minutes past the hour, let’s see what happens…

  10. Chris Hitchens says:

    Wow, Tony Heller has separated you people from reality like some kind of cult guru. You are beyond misinformed. You’ve gone over the cliff with him. That you’re convinced that NASA and NOAA and the rest of the world’s scientific agencies are lying speaks volumes about your critical thinking skills. Because you BELIEVE a non-climatologist video hack with an incentive to be provocative. Think about it. Do you REALLY think Heller has presented the actual facts? Or is it more likely that you have been cleverly duped? Think of the principle of Occam’s Razor. It applies.

    New, one-year ice is NOT a meaningful measurement of long-term Arctic ice gain or loss. That ice melts every year. Ice will likely always form there during the winter months, just as it always has. The true measure of loss is OLD ice. After taking a look at NASA’s time lapse of vanishing arctic ice (OLD ICE), pay attention to that feeling of cognitive dissonance stirring in your bones, because it’s trying to tell you something.

    When you come back from the video, consider that “as 2018 came to a close, Arctic Sea Ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record,” according to Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, National Snow and Ice Data Center, January 7, 2019.

    The Russians, Chinese, Americans and others are scrambling to set up shop throughout the Arctic, including the military—precisely due to the melting ice there. The Russians sent the Venta Maersk commercial container ship through an area of previously locked-in old ice last summer and made it to St. Petersburg, along the Northern Sea Route, a first through this area. Gas ships are also plying these waters.

    “Because of climate change, because of the melting of the sea ice, ships can operate for longer periods of time in the Arctic,” says Scott Stephenson of the University of Connecticut, “and the shipping season is already longer than it used to be.”

    “In the past decade melting ice sheets have opened up previously inaccessible Arctic shipping lanes. China’s state-owned shipping company is among the most active players. Since 2013, it has completed more than 30 journeys in the region,” so reports The Economist, Sep. 24th, 2018.—

    “For a long time, we weren’t looking at the Arctic as a viable option for a shortcut for Asia-to-Europe, or Asia to North America traffic, but that’s really changed, even over the last couple of years,” said Bryan Comer, senior researcher with the International Council on Clean Transportation’s marine program.

    Meanwhile, a report by the Copenhagen Business School found that at the current rate of melting, large-scale trans-arctic shipping will become economically viable by 2040.

    Wake up, people. Tony lies by omission. That Russian graph I saw showed one-year ice, new ice, not old.

    • Gator says:

      There is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years.

      Why don’t alarmists speak of this? Do they lie by omission?

      Quit hyperventilating Chris.

      • Chris says:

        Are you talking about one-year ice, which is meaningless? What happened to the heavy, thick, ice that was there for centuries? The ice that was completely drained of its brine and therefore so much more difficult to melt? Where did it go? Because it’s old ice that is the true indicator of Arctic warming, not new, thin ice that melts every summer. And that old ice is almost entirely GONE.

        Can you explain why shipping companies and the military are scrambling to the Arctic to set up shop now?

        NASA, the Snow and Ice Data Center, the militaries of Russia, the U.S., China; cargo shippers; gas shippers. Apparently they haven’t heard of Tony Heller’s information on the Arctic Ice being as thick now as it was 60 years ago. You should give them all a heads-up before they all get stuck in the ice and can’t get out.

        • tonyheller says:

          You have no clue what you are talking about

        • spike55 says:

          WRONG again, Cwiss.

          Plenty of thick sea ice

          DMI volume is basically on the 13 year average

          Polar Portal shows LOTS of thick ice and more widespread than 10 years ago.

          • Chris says:

            Polar Portal actually says Arctic ice has dropped by 30% in the last 30 years. Do you read what they say or just project what you want to see onto their graphs?

          • spike55 says:

            Yawn, 1970s was ANOMALOUSLY HIGH.

            It is a stupid starting point.

            Thank goodness the sea ice extent dropped.

            But its still NOWHERE NEAR the much lower “normal” Holocene level.

            Why do you continue with this 30 year farce?All it does is indicate your manic inability to look at reality. Indoctrination and brain-washing.

      • Gator says:

        Let’s try again Chris.

        Focus.

        There is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years.

        Why don’t alarmists speak of this?

    • rah says:

      LOL! As if we all read and learn nothing about climate but what Tony posts. Are you really that stupid Chris Hitchens? Is DMI lying? The Arctic was supposed to be “virtually ice free” during the summer months by now according to what you would consider “experts”. Besides as I tried to give you a clue above. The really dynamic annual changes in Arctic Sea ice are due to storms, wave and wind action, and not melt. BTW who transited the NW passage last summer in a non icebreaking vessel?
      http://arcticnorthwestpassage.blogspot.com/2018/09/an-early-end-to-arctics-2018-minimum.html

  11. Chris says:

    The record temps of the 30s was unique to the United States. It hardly reflects world-wide climate nor does it negate the long-term warming trend. With every passing year, it’s much more difficult to break new temperature records. Tracked long-term, individual temp records must mathematically decline, even with climate change. What is the long-term trend worldwide? Showing a graph of declining record temps is incredibly misleading because it does not show overall warming over time over the entire globe.

    • tonyheller says:

      You have no clue what you are talking about

      • Chris says:

        That’s the best rebuttal you have, Tony? No rebuttal to NASA’s time-lapse video showing old Arctic ice vanishing in a 20-year span? So they faked that video? No rebuttal to the quotes I gave you from companies and the military looking to set up shop in the Arctic? They’re all delusional? They’re pretending all that ice is melting and opening up waters that were previously closed?

        “You have no clue what you are talking about” translates to mean that Tony Heller has no good answer.

        • Gator says:

          Chris, is the Earth 20 years old?

          PS – Here is your chance to prove Tony wrong.

          • Chris says:

            So you’re admitting to warming now, even though you weren’t a couple of posts ago? So in view of the inconvenient facts I presented, you revert back to thousands of years ago, with a climate not driven by C02 as it is today. Way to move the goalposts, Gator.

          • Gator says:

            No Chris, I am stating quite clearly that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.

            Are you as stupid as you pretend?

        • Disillusioned says:

          Ignorant Chrissy said, ” They’re pretending all that ice is melting and opening up waters that were previously closed?”

          Your ignorance on this topic is breathtaking. They were previously OPEN.

          • spike55 says:

            St Roch, Prince of Wales Strait 1944.

            Last ship that sailed through Prince of Wales Strait was ???

            Even with modern satellite maps it hasn’t been sailable the last many years without serious ice breaker help

          • Phil. says:

            Coriolis 14 and Octopus both did it in 2012.

          • spike55 says:

            So, we had to wait, but finally, in the year with the very least Arctic sea ice in recent years, and using satellite navigation in a modern boat,

            ,.. we get something that happened unaided in 1944 is a small wooden hulled underpowered boat

            Thanks Phil for showing the facts. ;-)

            There is still one heck of a lot of sea ice up there.

          • Phil. says:

            Well Dione Sky and Octopus also did it in 2010. Also Larsen got navigation reports by radio, he had been told that off point Barrow was blocked and that he wouldn’t be able to make it through, however an easterly wind came up when he reached Herschel island and he knew that would open up a lead along the shore and that he might be able to get through.

          • spike55 says:

            oh dear, Phlip is now trying to equate radio reports with modern satellite navigation

            Try anything phlip, each comment you make makes you look more and more like a mindless dolt.

    • spike55 says:

      “The record temps of the 30s was unique to the United States”

      WRONG or IGNORANT or DELIBERATELY LYING

      Which is it, Cwiss.?

      Here is a selection from around the Arctic

    • spike55 says:

      And from HadCrut

      Seems you are pretty much KNOWLEDGE-FREE on this topic..

      and determined to stay that way.

    • pmc47025 says:

      This was for Chris.

      • Chris says:

        Right, provide posts to Tony’s manipulated graphs and lies of omission. Tony misleads by what he leaves out. But unfortunately, everyone here seems oblivious to what exactly is left out. How about data from a REAL science site, with actual climatologists?

        • spike55 says:

          Poor Cwiss. is real DATA too hard for you?

          Only person using LIES from omission is YOU

          Always starting at the ANOMOLOUSLY HIGH peak of the 1970s

          Always ignoring the fact that current levels of Arctic sea ice are still in the top 5-10% of the last 10,000 years

          WILFUL LIES, the AGW way.

        • rah says:

          Oh we do! But don’t consider proven liars and deceivers of the likes of Heidi, Mann, Hayhoe, etc “REAL” scientists with REAL science sites.

          We also believe that other disciplines like Geology provide a far more accurate picture of the paleoclimates.

          WTF do you believe we’re here in the first place? Or do you still believe that 97% of scientists believe man is causing significant warming?

        • Disillusioned says:

          Chrissy, you have it really bad. Stop with the generalities about how Tony is a liar and please document specifically his lies – the deceptive manipulations and omissions you have found. Put up or shut up.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Chris wants to begin a sea ice record starting from the 1970s, while ignoring evidence of lower ice amounts of ice during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and then has the audacity to claim that citing the zero drop in sea ice over the last dozen years is cherry picking.

      It would be very hard to think of a better example of cherry picking. Chris is projecting onto others what she is actually doing, herself. Chrissy is the consummate projectionist.

  12. Chris says:

    “The Arctic ice is melting. Areas that previously have been covered with ice are opening up, facilitating increased access for ship traffic in the Arctic Ocean…It may even be possible to cross the North Pole on voyages between the west and the east within 2030.” —ScienceNoridic, University of Bergen, Dec. 30, 2018.

    “Early this year, the Eduard Toll set a record: laden with liquefied natural gas, the tanker was the first commercial vessel to cross the Arctic in winter without an icebreaker.” —Horizon, the EU Research and Innovation Magazine, Dec. 17, 2018

    “China’s ready to cash in on a melting Arctic…Bejing has big plans for its own Polar silk Road.” —-Foreign Policy, May 1, 2018

    “Norway Bets on Global Warming to Thaw Arctic Ice for Oil and Gas Drive”—-Scientific American (The area Norway will explore for drilling has now been free of ice year-round for a decade)

    “Over the past three decades of global warming, the oldest, thickest ice in the Arctic has declined 95%,” according to NOAA’s annual Arctic Report Card.

    Sure, but its the wind just blowing the ice around, right? Too bad all the oil companies, governments, shippers and military haven’t been tipped off by Tony Heller and made aware before they all perish. :)

    • rah says:

      Everything started in the 70’s right?

    • rah says:

      BTW the AMO appears to be transitioning into it’s cold phase and when it gets there all your BS and that from others will be for naught. Already far fewer non ice hardened vessels transited the full NW passage in 2018 than did in 2017 despite more of them trying.
      “Emerging negative Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index in spite of warm subtropics” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11046-x

      • Disillusioned says:

        Yeah, I’ve heard this before as the AMO began dipping over the last year. But I think Nature, Joe and you are a little premature. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) ;-)

        At about this same time in the positive side of the cycle, the AMO dipped like this, in ‘1947-’48. Then it resumed back to the + side for quite awhile longer.

        • Disillusioned says:

          AMO graph from your Nature article

        • Disillusioned says:

          If this is a repeat, mea culpa. The delays are agonizing.

        • rah says:

          Watch the NH Atlantic SSTs this summer. For the last two summers the warm anomalies have been week in the mid latitudes and strongest up north. It’s plateaued and most likely heading down.

          We are not yet to the minimum of the lowest sustained period of solar activity in 200 years and nobody is forecasting cycle 25 to be a strong one. It takes time but that will have a cooling effect on the oceans and eventually the poles too.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Chrissy said, “But meanwhile you continue to dodge why when we’re so far out from the Milankovitch cycle…”

            The Milankovitch cycle? What? There are several Milankovitch cycles, and we’re in them all. Your extreme ignorance shows it’s ugly head every time you write.

            “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” – Mark Twain

            Below is the Vostok core data graph. Remember that one? Yeah, an Inconvenient Lie, when Al Gore implied CO2 was causing it? (I believed him back then.) Anyway, we’re over there on the right (the bottom right hand corner of the little red triangle). Yeah, that’s right – we’re at the bottom right corner of the little red triangle.

            Ignorant one, take a hard look at the four interglacials to the left. Notice something? Yeah, there are cycles, and perturbations. But, how… ahem… hot is this present interglacial compared to the last four? Do you know what the levels of CO2 proxied from the ice core bubbles were? Is this the warmest or the coolest of the interglacials over the past 420,000 years.

            Now answer Gator’s questions.

            And then read about why your insane desire to adjust past temperatures is about fraud, and is not about correcting the temperature record.
            https://realclimatescience.com/?s=TOBs

          • Disillusioned says:

            .

          • rah says:

            Latitude
            Did you see Joe’s latest Saturday summary and the comparison of 2005 SST anomalies compared to those for this year in the Atlantic? If not here they are: First is 2005 the next current 2019.

          • rah says:

            2019 SST temperature anomalies

    • spike55 says:

      Always the IDIOTIC “melting since 1979” meme, without any reference to that time being an anomalously HIGH extent

      REFUSAL to accept that current levels are still well in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

      Why do you continue to display your ABJECT IGNORANCE, Cwiss?

      Are you a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, that you refuse to accept that the world is actually very much in a cold period of the current interglacial, barely 1ºC above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years .

    • spike55 says:

      Now why would they choose to start in the late 1970s, Cwiss.

      Its called PROPAGANDA cherry-picking. !!

  13. Chris says:

    Interesting comments about the Holocene as your starting point but no mention of the perihelion phase of the Milankovitch cycle that started that warming and subsequent albedo feedback that kept it going, which is utterly irrelevant today. Or don’t you people accept facts that defy your dogma? We are out of the natural Milankovitch cycle forcing range, so warming today has nothing to do it. The ice extent and thickness is changing for other reasons today. The issue today is C02 and methane.

    “Since 1958, Arctic ice cover has lost two-thirds of its thickness, as averaged across the Arctic at the end of summer. Older ice has shrunk in area almost 800,000 square miles.” —Ron Kwok, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, published in the journal, Environmental Research Letters, October 2018.

    2018 FACTS: The Arctic experienced its second warmest temperatures in recorded history…Arctic warming was twice the rate of the rest of the world….Arctic sea ice coverage was second lowest on record….Winter ice in the Bering Sea was the lowest on record—-
    —-NOAA Arctic Report Card, 2018, sourced from 81 scientists from 12 nations.

    Keep kidding yourselves, people. When you lower yourselves to snarky comments and references to Holocaust denial, I know you have run out of good information.

    • Gator says:

      This interglacial looks perfectly normal, except for when delusional folks like you spew your ridiculous beliefs all over place. Then we know we live in an unprecedented era of willful ignorance.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.

      The sky is not falling.

    • spike55 says:

      Just a degree above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, Cwiss.

      Get over it, and stop cherry-picking.

      Its cooler now than for all but 300-500 years of the last 10,000 years

      A highly beneficial recovery from the COLD ANOMALY of the LIA.

      And there is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with it.

    • spike55 says:

      Poor qwiss, needs to read up on his history

  14. rah says:

    It occurs to me that Chris doesn’t even know that Tony and many others here, including me, once believed the CAGW meme but started trying to look behind the curtain when some event or events just didn’t add up or ring true. For me it was that 97% claim which pegged out my BS meter and made me start looking deeper into the question and the science. I started paying attention to predictions of doom and noting when they not only did not come to pass but that they didn’t even appear to be about to and in fact in some cases the opposite happened. The more I looked the more counter evidence I found and as I learned about the MWP and LIA and paleoclimate and the way climate has fluctuated in the past I realized that not only was our climate not turning deadly, it has in fact been relatively benign and stable during my time on earth.

    • Chris says:

      Uh, no, Disillusioned, the oldest, thickest ice that broke up last summer north of Greenland has NEVER been open. Not even in summer. Are you thinking about the Northwest Passage? That’s not where this is.

      “This was the area that was seen as the last bastion,” reported Walt Meier of the U.S. Snow and Ice Data Center, because this area had the thickest, oldest ice, and was assumed would be the last to break up. “The only zone where multi-year ice has survived is north of Greenland, but this last holdout is now opened up and moving away from the coast,” reported Peter Wadhams, director of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University.

      The extraordinary thing is this ice melted and broke up twice—once in February and again in August. The water that opened up was 62 miles wide. February is when the ice is nearly at its maximum, so this was a bizarre occurrence, with ten days of temps above freezing in an area that’s normally well below zero.

      By the way, Prince of Wales Strait is Canadian, nowhere near the north of Greenland, where the thick ice broke up.
      Your ignorance on this topic, Disillusioned, is breathtaking. Right back at you.

      • spike55 says:

        The ice DID NOT melt, that is a LIE

        Wind blown ice, while the thick ice formed over towards the Russian coast, You can see it clearly on the Russian maps.

        Has happened before.

        Why do you think that LIA levels of sea ice, as in the late 1970s, are normal or even desirable??

        Your ability for rational thought has been clouded by your fetid brain-washing

        and Wadham’s , SERIOUSLY ????

        Mr “ICE-FREE by 2008”, or whenever his idiotic prophesy was.

        roflmao.

        He even has a unit of Arctic sea ice extent named after him, to mark his failed prophesy (Courtesy a guy named AndyG55) ;-)

        1 Wadham = 1 million km²

        The guy is a scientific JOKE.

        Just the sort of clown you would turn to.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Chrissy, Who are you taking to?

        And you’re not very original, Ignorant Chrissy.

  15. Disillusioned says:

    If somebody has only seen what CNN, CBS, NBC, Climatist Central, etc., put out, then it’s perfectly acceptable that they would believe there is a heating/ice melting ‘problem.’

    But, when alarmists are given actual climate data, and their response is simply to repeat the propagandist LIE that from 97-99% of scientists around the world agree (without citing any data whatsoever), I know they are not looking at the data. At all. They’re only protecting what they WANT to believe.

    Climate Alarmists who do that are the real science deniers.

    Disillusionment is a good thing.

    • Chris says:

      Hilarious. Yes, let’s get our “science” from Fox and Friends, where all the oil industry PR people offer up their non-peer-reviewed pseudo-science and paid shills pitch outlier opinions that mainstream science rejects.

      Sean Hannity, with no science background and no college degree. Mark Steyn, no science background and a high school dropout. Rush Limbaugh, former disc jockey with no science background and no college degree. Anthony Watts, no college degree and uncertified by the AMS, but paid by the Heartland Institute. Patrick Moore, paid oil industry PR man. Then we’ve got all the Heartland Institute’s other brilliant minds to pitch their bullshit, the same way Heartland pitched the tobacco industry’s lies about the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer. The nearly 100 climate change denial groups, small army of PR people and borderline “scientists” paid for with over $500 million in donations from ExxoxnMobil, Koch Industries and others, according to Drexel University and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Sure, they’re credible. Roy Spencer, partially funded by Peabody Energy, and on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a religious group who believe God wouldn’t allow climate change to hurt our planet (he would allow the Holocaust but not climate change). Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, who believes 911 was God’s punishment for not supporting Israel enough.

      Yeah, these are credible people. But it’s CNN that’s fake? WOW.

      • Gator says:

        Not one shred of science. Typical of the mouth breathing believers like Chris.

        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 like yourself.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Ignorant Chrissy,
        Your ranting about Exxon, Koch, God, Republicans, FOX, Roy Spencer would allow the Holocaust about how only shows how much this is political for you, and not about empirical science. Nobody truly interested in empirical science thinks the Union of Concerned Scientists is the place to look, let alone that they are credible. Sheesh.

        Look, extremely ignorant one – I was YOU. I used to listen to NPR on all radios I owned, I was a Democrat for a quarter-century. I passed out Al Gore’s DVD out of fear that we’re causing the planet to warm. Then I began to study, so I could debate those “climate deniers,” of course.

        Something happened. I got schooled. I took it hard. Then I went to work – reading everything I could on this subject. It took me years. Some people learn when reality is put in front of them. Others reject it, because their religion/politics are more important than the empirical facts.

        The jury is out for you. But your arrogance doesn’t bode well for you being the type willing to find out if you are wrong. You’re too busy proselytizing what you want to believe. That chip on your shoulder is likely going to get in your way and keep you in denial the rest of your days.

        You may begin by trying to answer Gators questions. If you try real hard, and cannot, disillusionment may be in your future. But I don’t think so. You seem way too caught up in your religion.

  16. Chris says:

    How honest is someone who puts raw temperature data in a graph that ends up showing a COOLING trend without either adjusting or at least mentioning that the temps were collected in the morning in one part of the century and in the afternoon in the other?

    How honest is someone who shows a graph of high wildfire activity early in the last century without mentioning that many of these fires were left to burn due to a lack of access roads, inferior monitoring and communication, little or no air support, and inadequate fire-fighting equipment compared to today? Why wouldn’t this person mention that fire historians NEVER use data early in the century to compare to today’s wildfire rates because of the differences I just noted?

    Why wouldn’t you mention that while hurricane numbers have dropped, all the data shows that they are increasing both in number and in intensity in Asia. And that 9 out of 10 of the costliest hurricanes in American history, after adjusting for inflation, all occurred after the year 2000? Might you want to add that to your video to be fair and balanced? Might you add, as an interesting contrast to 2018, the costliest hurricane in history occurred just the year before, in 2017? If you have an agenda, no. You wouldn’t. If you’re blinded by confirmation bias, no. You wouldn’t.

    You don’t see any misrepresentation there?

    Interesting how nobody here directly addresses the fact that so many sources around the world are noting the Arctic ice loss. But you cling to your denial like teddy bears.

    Have to love how you conveniently ignore how far out we are from a Milankovitch Cycle, yet think nothing of the fact that we’re continuing to warm when we should be cooling. Anybody want to directly address why the sun is exhibiting super low activity yet we continue to warm? Where is the warmth coming from?

  17. Gator says:

    How honest is someone who puts raw temperature data in a graph that ends up showing a COOLING trend without either adjusting or at least mentioning that the temps were collected in the morning in one part of the century and in the afternoon in the other?

    Far more honest than those who rape data to make it match failed models.

    How honest is someone who shows a graph of high wildfire activity early in the last century without mentioning that many of these fires were left to burn due to a lack of access roads, inferior monitoring and communication, little or no air support, and inadequate fire-fighting equipment compared to today? Why wouldn’t this person mention that fire historians NEVER use data early in the century to compare to today’s wildfire rates because of the differences I just noted?

    Far more honest than those who hide historic data in order to make it appear that fires are worse.

    Why wouldn’t you mention that while hurricane numbers have dropped, all the data shows that they are increasing both in number and in intensity in Asia. And that 9 out of 10 of the costliest hurricanes in American history, after adjusting for inflation, all occurred after the year 2000? Might you want to add that to your video to be fair and balanced? Might you add, as an interesting contrast to 2018, the costliest hurricane in history occurred just the year before, in 2017? If you have an agenda, no. You wouldn’t. If you’re blinded by confirmation bias, no. You wouldn’t.

    Why would we cherry pick Asia, and ignore the decline in major hurricanes in the US? Why would we class hurricanes by cost? Maybe because people have more stuff now and that makes it look worse? Yep!

    You don’t see any misrepresentation there?

    Nope!

    Interesting how nobody here directly addresses the fact that so many sources around the world are noting the Arctic ice loss. But you cling to your denial like teddy bears.

    Unlike you, we do not deny natural climate change, or the fact that there is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years.

    Have to love how you conveniently ignore how far out we are from a Milankovitch Cycle, yet think nothing of the fact that we’re continuing to warm when we should be cooling. Anybody want to directly address why the sun is exhibiting super low activity yet we continue to warm? Where is the warmth coming from?

    Too bad you never bothered to study previous interglacials. But it does explain your massive ignorance about our current climate.

    You are in way over your head and have no clue what you are talking about. Find a new hobby.

  18. Chris says:

    I’m in over my head? At least it’s not up my ass. You guys are addled with conspiracy theories and nonsense.

    Nobody “raped” data. When you have weather stations moved to different locations or you collect temps in the morning in one part of the century and then in the afternoon in another, that must be accounted for. Have you actually read the explanations of the data adjustments? For Tony to create a graph and NOT mention qualifying data is no more ethical than what you’re accusing the government of doing.

    Nobody “hid” historical data on wildfires, either. Fire historians discount data early from the last century for all the reasons I gave. It’s like giving statistics on tires and failing to mention that 2019 suffered far fewer flats than the 1930s due to better roads and technology. Leaving out information is misleading.

    By all means, note the low hurricane number. I have no problem with that. But leaving out the other data paints a distorted picture. Hurricane costs are totally relevant, especially after being adjusted for inflation. And unlike the damage from the distant past, most of the damage from hurricanes today is coming from EPIC RAIN and flooding. That is not the norm and is therefore worth noting. Every degree of warming results in a 7% increase in the atmosphere’s ability to hold moisture. THAT is a relevant fact to mention.

    You admit to warming. GOOD. But at this point in our interglacial, we should be COOLING now. So again I ask for your explanation of our warming when all the data shows we should be COOLING.

    How can it be happening? By what mechanism? Put more energy into proving yourself with science and less with snark and you’ll win my respect. Otherwise, you’re blowing bubbles. When you call ME ignorant and fail to provide scientific evidence to support your viewpoint, I begin to suspect you have absolutely nothing of substance to share.

    • spike55 says:

      “you’ll win my respect”

      Nobody gives a stuff about winning the respect of a brain-washed AGW toady.

      You have provided ZERO scientific evidence, just mindless opinionated brain-hosed yapping, straight from the propaganda pages of the AGW scammers.

      The interglacial HAS been cooling, for 3000 years… Called the “Neoglaciation”

      We are very lucky to be living in one of the little temperature bumps , less than the MWP and RWP .

      There is ZERO evidence that anything out of the NATURAL climate cycles is actually happening.

      There is ZERO empirical evidence of warming by increased atmospheric CO2.

      Are you are so dumb that you don’t comprehend that the ocean is one great huge energy sink, that takes many years to respond to solar extra warming (last century’s Grand Solar Maximum) and less warming (the current sleepy sun)

      As for your fetish of LYING about cyclones and hurricanes, global cyclone and hurricane energy data shows absolutely zero AGW signature.

    • Gator says:

      BS Chris, pure BS.

      I was a climatology student right after the ice age scare, and right before the great global warming swindle was hatched. I have seen firsthand the tape of data, the torture until it confesses. Your doomer claims are not supported by science.

      Let’s try again denier…

      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.

      It is a very simple puzzle really, and only a fool’s errand for a select few.

    • spike55 says:

      “Nobody “raped” data.”

      BS.

      In Australia a good 70-80% of stations have been “ALTERED” from cooling trends to warming trends.

      It is data rape.

      And the way the 1940s peak in temperatures was “removed” at the whim of the GISS/HadCrud data fakers, is totally disgusting.

      Data should never be treated like that.

      Thank goodness Tony has access to the original GHCN data, and the FAKERY and LIES of GISS et el can be ignored for the USA at least.

      You should download “Unhiding the Decline”, and see what result you can come up with

      But you are here to YAP and type propaganda BS, not to actually look at real data.

      Isn’t that right, little cwiss

    • spike55 says:

      “or you collect temps in the morning in one part of the century and then in the afternoon in another, that must be accounted for”

      You again show your ignorance of even the most basic facets of climate data.

      a change in the time of day, on a properly maintained and read station will not make any difference what so ever. Resetting the thermometer discounts that possibility.

      And even if there was a change in when data was read , and there was a change, then it would be a single , one-step change in a stations data, not a continual maladjustment like GISS et all fake.

      ACTUAL DATA shows there is no difference, the trends in the US are exactly he same for morning and afternoon read sites.

      TOBs adjustment accounts for a large percentage of the US warming in GISS,

      and it is a LIE !!

    • spike55 says:

      ” most of the damage from hurricanes today is coming from EPIC RAIN and flooding”

      You mean like the Galveston 1900 hurricane?

      Oops

      poor quiss and his IGORANCE of history, faceplants in his own BS, yet again.

  19. Chris says:

    Yes, it’s all lies, I’m sure. But meanwhile you continue to dodge why when we’re so far out from the Milankovitch cycle and should be cooling and sitting under a reduced-activity sun and should be cooling and are under an umbrella of increasing sulfate aerosols from China’s coal emissions and should be cooling, we are not. WE ARE WARMING. Your scientific explanation? You call it a “temperature bump.” A bump from what? How long is this “bump” going to go on? Do you have a graph to explain it?

    And by the way, your Accumulated Cyclone Index actually shows quite an increase in intensity from 1992 to 2018. Did you even look at it? According to the National Hurricane Center, referencing the index for strength, frequency and durations of storms per year, the “Atlantic Ocean is in the midst of its worst stretch on record.”

    • Gator says:

      Focus Chris!

      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 like yourself.

      Quit dodging the truth Chris, doing so makes you a liar.

    • Disillusioned says:

      I believe this was missing from the prior post…

    • spike55 says:

      Yet another load of fact-free, zero-evidence BS from qwiss.

      The world has only warmed from El Ninos and ocean events over the last 40 years.

      So, NATURAL forcings only, CO2 cannot warm oceans, that is SOLAR.

      There is ZERO-EVIDENCE of any human effect on world temperatures.

      Certainly a BIG human fabrication effect in the surface data farce, though,

      .. but they are NOT real. The surface warming faster than the atmosphere is totally against all the crap science behind the AGW scam.

      Seem you are now DENYING that the LIA was the coldest period in 10,000 years, and that we are only just a small amount above that coldest period.

      You have great difficult understand FACTS , don’t you qwiss. !!!

      And now you are cherry-picking a short period in obviously cyclic data.

      Try again, qwiss-fool !!

      Do you have any empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming.. or is it just a brain-hosed fantasy of yours.

  20. Chris says:

    I notice, Gator, how you continue to dodge my question. Everything points to the fact that we should be cooling now, yet we’re not. Low solar activity. Growing aerosol pollution. And your explanations include? List them all, from least important to most. Please provide peer-reviewed papers to back up your explanations, not the the usual self-deluded horseshit you’ve spewed so far. And tell me why it’s NOT C02 and methane.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Chrissy, You’re swinging wildly and projecting. I notice you continue to avoid Gator’s questions. You haven’t provided any scientific proof for what you believe. Why is that?

    • spike55 says:

      Yet another evidence free rant from little qwiss

      You want the LIA climate back? move to Siberia.

      Most people prefer a much warmer climate.

      I note that you duck and weave answering even the most basic questions..

      Seems you are full of NOTHING but empty brain-hosed rhetoric.

    • spike55 says:

      poor qwiss,

      DENIAL of the Grand Solar Maximum

      DENIAL that the oceans are a HUGE SOLAR energy sink.

      DENIAL of NATURAL climate change.

      Any empirical evidence of warming by increase atmospheric CO2 yet, qwiss?

      Duck and weave.. or take the headless chook route. !!!

      Brain-washed DENIAL, his only defence.

    • Gator says:

      Chris, I am answering all of your questions, but you are too dense to know it. Answer my questions and your questions will be answered.

      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.

      It is a very simple puzzle really, and only a fool’s errand for a select few.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Really, Chris, why do you refuse to provide any scientific proof? You seem to be absolutely certain you are right and you clearly think of yourself as very educated. It should be a piece of cake to back up your hypothesis, should it not?

      Until such a proof is provided, the null hypothesis is considered valid, i.e. there is nothing out of the ordinary with the weather and the tiny increase of atmospheric CO2 doesn’t have the effect same have fancied it to have.

      And the skeptics are not required to prove you wrong. Demanding such a thing suggests you are not a scientist in search of the truth but just another cult follower who already knows “the truth”.

      • spike55 says:

        “And the skeptics are not required to prove you wrong”

        But we do it anyway ;-)

        • Chris says:

          The latest data suggests that the Little Ice Age was most likely triggered by a series of volcanic eruptions, with aerosols reflecting solar energy, causing cooling, which started a feedback loop with expanding ice sheets and more reflectivity, and in turn causing more cooling.

          Or are you clinging to your Maunder Minimum story?

          You still haven’t presented your argument, with evidence, why we’re not cooling now. If you’re such believers in the level of the sun’s activity influencing climate, why are we continuing to warm? And what if we removed all of the aerosol pollution we’re spewing? Where would we be right now with warming?

          I’ll wait while you all think up clever insults and dodges.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Bless your heart, Chris, but stop worrying so much about the weather. Everything is fine and you are needlessly tormenting yourself.

          • Gator says:

            No, you will continue to dodge Climate 101. But let’s try again anyway.

            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.

            It is a very simple puzzle really, and only a fool’s errand, tailored for folks exactly like you Chris.

  21. Gator says:

    Chris, you keep making claims, but consistently do so without any scientific basis. Quit being a blow hard, and put up or shut up.

    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 like yourself.

    Why do you avoid the most obvious questions and answers? It appears that even you know that your beliefs are paper thin, and you are afraid to look behind the curtain for losing your world. Fear prevents you from discovering the truth.

  22. Chris says:

    Climate 101, Gator, is a straw man dodge if there ever was one. Speaks volumes that you answer my queries with such slips of the noose. But you have to throw up diversions. You CAN’T answer my questions, can you? Neither you nor Tony Heller has an answer. We should be cooling, but we’re not. You’ve got NOTHING to defend yourselves with except shit and snark.

    Conspiracy-addled, self-deluded goofballs, relegated to the dank basement of the climate science debate. I’m sure your mothers love you, though. And your Teddy bears.

    • Gator says:

      So you refuse to answer the most basic questions needed to analyze our climate. If you cannot answer my questions Chris, then you cannot make the wild claims you have been spewing.

      The fact is Chris, that you cannot answer your own question, and you know that. You are a climate change and science denier of the highest order.

      Nobody claimed any conspiracy, that is a childish strawman argument. Is Christianity a conspiracy?

      You are an idiot.

    • Gator says:

      We never mentioned conspiracy, but now that you have, I think it appropriate to post direct quotes from alarmists…

      “We need to get some broad based support,
      to capture the public’s imagination…
      So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
      make simplified, dramatic statements
      and make little mention of any doubts…
      Each of us has to decide what the right balance
      is between being effective and being honest
      .”

      – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
      Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
      we will be doing the right thing in terms of
      economic and environmental policy.”

      – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
      climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
      bring about justice and equality in the world
      .”

      – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
      on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
      .

      – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “The models are convenient fictions
      that provide something very useful.”

      – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
      on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

      – Al Gore,
      Climate Change activist

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      It doesn’t matter what is true,
      it only matters what people believe is true.”

      – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      <i."The only way to get our society to truly change is to
      frighten people
      with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
      – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
      reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
      has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
      governments and individuals and an unprecedented
      redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
      will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
      of every human action
      be integrated into individual and
      collective decision-making at every level.”

      – UN Agenda 21

      Chris, I think you need to address this conspiracy theory that alarmists have created, and tell them to knock it off.

    • Rah says:

      Not a single claim you made was backed by data or example. Go away little troll.

      • Gator says:

        Correct Rah. It is exactly as Chris Folland stated…

        “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.
        – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    • spike55 says:

      “We should be cooling, “

      TOTAL and UTTER BULLSHIT !!

      Just because you keep repeating that little piece of crap, doesn’t make it true.

      There is still a HUGE amount of solar energy from the Grand Solar Maximum stored in the oceans.

      That is where energy is absorbed, that is where it finally comes back from.

      The ONLY warming in the last 40 years has come from ocean releases of energy.

      You and your idiot handlers are totally CLUELESS.

    • spike55 says:

      Any empirical evidence of warming by increase atmospheric CO2 yet, qwiss?

      Still waiting !

      So far all you have done is yap mindlessly like a demented chihuahua.

  23. Cwiss says:

    Nice dodges from all of you. Just a little sidestep two-step and I won’t notice your brain freezes, right? Cherry-picked quotes taken out of context, Gator, are a wonderful way to mislead someone who hasn’t been around the block a few times. Unfortunately for you, I’ve been around the block a few times. Give me the word and I’ll cherry-pick a hundred quotes to convince you that Trump’s a brilliant man and the entire world’s media who say otherwise is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    Why aren’t we cooling again? Well, let’s continue to ignore the principle of Occam’s Razor and pretend C02 and methane aren’t accumulating in the atmosphere. Let’s play make-believe with our Teddy Bears so we can feel important and smarter than all those dumb PhDs. Right, guy who hides his masculine insecurity by calling himself SPIKE?

    • tonyheller says:

      “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

    • spike55 says:

      Well that was a childish little tantrum, qwiss.

      Do you need a hanky, or a bottie wipe?

      Do you “feel” better now ???

      No science involved as usual…..

    • spike55 says:

      “I’ve been around the block a few times.”

      And you still can’t find your way out of your brain-hosed maze.

      Keep going in circles, quiss. its all you capable of.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Stop tormenting yourself, Chris. The world is not ending. Everything is fine. Lay off the junk and try to get some sleep.

      • spike55 says:

        Pretty sure he can only work up the courage to comment after several shots of cheap saki and a helping of wild mushrooms.

        Living in perpetual and manic fear, brought about by his own delusions, must be so tough on his mental health. ;-)

    • Gator says:

      Chris, those quotes were not cherry picked, they were gathered with a combine as they are everywhere we see alarmists. And these alarmists that you call scientists are telling us exactly what they are up to, and it definitely is not science.

      Occam’s Raxor says that climate change is natural, and that you are an idiot.

  24. Cwiss says:

    So Spike, Solar energy stored in the oceans since the peak of the last Grand Solar Max is to blame? And you explain the ocean breaking temperature records year after year after year, how? The ocean is CREATING more heat than the Grand Solar Max deposited? How does that work? What’s the science behind that?

  25. Cwiss says:

    Spike, you are amusing with your willful glaucoma. The latest data from NOAA, the Chinese Academy of Science and others: ‘WORLDWIDE, MOST OCEAN BASINS HAD HIGHER THAN AVERAGE HEAT CONTENT IN 2017. And “MUCH HIGHER THAN AVERAGE HEAT CONTENT IN MUCH OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND MUCH LOWER THAN AVERAGE IN WATERS SOUTH OF GREENLAND.”

    According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of St. Thomas and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the “RATE OF OCEAN WARMING HAS NEARLY DOUBLED OVER THE LAST 2 DECADES.”

    And I can’t help but notice all the pseudoscientific sites you provide links for. Media Bias/Fact Check Org rates Climate Depot as “Strongly” pseudoscientific. It rates Principia-Scientifc as both strongly conspiratorial and pseudoscientific with factual reporting rated as LOW. The Global Warming Policy Foundation, of course, is a climate skeptic’s haven with an agenda to obfuscate real data and, big surprise here, they refuse to disclose their donor list. They exposed themselves rather foolishly in Climategate, though. And then, of course, we have Tony Heller’s bogus site, where his biggest crime is to simply LEAVE OUT important, balancing information, in order to mislead. Mislead via ad ignorantium—creating statements that are true only to the degree of the viewer’s ignorance.

    Your problem, Spike, is ad ignoranitium—the statements you make are true only to the degree of the reader’s ignorance.

    • Gator says:

      Right!

      Chris, you choose to believe those who have openly said that they would deceive you. You also choose to believe those who have openly told us that they do not use data for their science, that they only use convenient fictions for their work. You choose to listen to those who have openly said that they will lie to get their way, and that they truly don’t care if the science if CAGW s wrong because it serves other agendas.

      “We need to get some broad based support,
      to capture the public’s imagination…
      So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
      make simplified, dramatic statements
      and make little mention of any doubts…
      Each of us has to decide what the right balance
      is between being effective and being honest
      .”

      – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
      Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
      we will be doing the right thing in terms of
      economic and environmental policy.”

      – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
      climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
      bring about justice and equality in the world
      .”

      – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
      on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
      .

      – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “The models are convenient fictions
      that provide something very useful.”

      – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
      on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

      – Al Gore,
      Climate Change activist

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      It doesn’t matter what is true,
      it only matters what people believe is true.”

      – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      <i."The only way to get our society to truly change is to
      frighten people
      with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
      – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
      reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
      has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
      governments and individuals and an unprecedented
      redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
      will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
      of every human action
      be integrated into individual and
      collective decision-making at every level.”

      – UN Agenda 21

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Chris, you have also failed to show that this interglacial is any different from any other in that it is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor supports natural climate change, and not some hair brained man made CO2 Control knob.

      Care to try for the first time ever?

      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 like yourself.

    • rah says:

      Your problem and that of all of the alarmists is the despite data tampering actual observations do NOT agree with what the climate models upon which all of this bull shit doom is based. Not a thing that the “experts” have predicted has occurred in the real world contrary to the fictional world of doom the religious cult you choose to live in.

      NO persistent hot spot(s) in the upper troposphere over the equatorial band as the physics upon which the models are based demands. The hypothesis of CAGW is thus falsified. NO “tipping point” has ever been reached and the date of irretrievable climate doom has thus been pushed back multiple times.

      The Arctic is NOT “virtually ice free” during the summer months as so many “experts” once declared it would be by now.

      The SMB of the Greenland ice sheet is growing not declining according the DMI.

      Polar bears are doing great! And down south contrary to predictions of doom by “experts” the Adelie penguins are thriving.

      The rate of Global SLR is NOT increasing. Every single one of the 1,000+ Maldives remains above water despite predictions by multiple “experts” they would be submerged by now.

      Global weather is NOT getting more violent.

      The Children of Southern England DO know what snow is because they have had some this year and will get more even this winter. And quite obviously S. England is not turning into a subtropical paradise as some “experts” proclaimed it would.

      The permanent drought in Texas and Oklahoma was NOT permanent as several “experts” declared it would be and in fact was followed by flooding rains contrary to the declarations of those “experts”.

      Ski resorts from California to Scotland are doing a booming business despite the predictions by multiple “experts” that they would go out of business due to lack of snow. Several this year in California had to close temporarily because of too much snow.

      The world is greening and the global harvest of grains has increased nearly every year thus defying the claims by multiple “experts” that climate change would threaten the worlds population ability to sustain it’s self. And there are no climate refugees. Contrary to the claims of many “experts” the global GDP rate per population has sky rocketed and thus more people are better off than they ever have been in history.

      The first “Earth Day” was observed in 1970. On that day the Secretary of Smithsonian backed by various other “experts” declared that “…in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” WRONG!

      The incidence of Malaria in Africa is declining despite the claims of “experts” that it would increase due to climate change.

      Every single prediction of “peak oil” ever declared, and there have been many by many different “experts” running over a century, has been proven to be bad fiction.

      The list goes on and on and on and yet you still believe and you call Spike ignorant? LOL!

      • rah says:

        My message above was intended for Cwiss. How the hell it got here when I hit the reply under the Cwiss post I cannot say.

        • Gator says:

          I posted four minutes before you, and because of the delay, my comment had not yet appeared

          • rah says:

            Ah well, I’m out the door for a bit. It’s snowing and I have to stock up on seed blocks and seed and my girls called and asked my wife “Does Dad do fire wood deliveries?” So it’s out to the wood pile to put a load in the back of the FJ to take over for my girls. Won’t take much to keep them happy since their fireplace is small.

          • Gator says:

            Yes, plentiful wood in small places usually makes women happy.

    • spike55 says:

      Poor qwiss,

      You haven’t presented one bit of evidence that the very slight warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years is anything but NATURAL and is in any way a problem.

      Your feeble little mind is trapped in an echo chamber of ignorance and brain-washing that you can NEVER allow yourself to escape from.

      No-one care how a bunch of dopey AGW fact-check (lol) clowns rate sites like Climate Depot etc, do you mean snope? roflmao two fools in their backyard. meaningless.

      Only people exposed in Climate gate were the FRAUDSTERS behind all the fabrication and adjustments of the lol surface temperature fabrications, even after all their deceit and lies, they still can’t get anywhere near what they promised would happen in their useless and idiotic models.

      Its about the science.

      And you can’t even produce any scientific evidence of even the most basic fallacy of the AGW farce, ie warming by atmospheric CO2

      You remain an EMPTY SACK

      Rant and yell all you want, its HILARIOUS, like a 5 year old chucking a tanty.

      Until you can produce some actual science, all we are doing is LAUGHING AT YOU.

    • spike55 says:

      “LEAVE OUT important, balancing information”

      You mean like the fact that:

      Arctic sea ice is in the top 5-10% of the last 10,000 years

      Greenland was far warmer during the MWP

      Ocean warming is just a tiny squiggle compared to the OHC lost during the Neoglaciation.

      Biosphere is expanding rapidly due to increased atmospheric CO2

      World temperature is really only just a small amount out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

      Warming by increased atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

      Yes qwiss, leaving out anything that puts a realistic perspective on the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL NATURAL WARMING since the LIA is a crime.

      So why do you and your fellow scamster and fraudsters do it ?

      Is it from wilful IGNORANCE, or just plain DECEITFUL LYING.

      You are gradually being exposed… and it scares you, doesn’t it.

  26. Cwiss says:

    Spike, you are amusing with your willful glaucoma. The latest data from NOAA, the Chinese Academy of Science and others: ‘WORLDWIDE, MOST OCEAN BASINS HAD HIGHER THAN AVERAGE HEAT CONTENT IN 2017. And “MUCH HIGHER THAN AVERAGE HEAT CONTENT IN MUCH OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND MUCH LOWER THAN AVERAGE IN WATERS SOUTH OF GREENLAND.”

    According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of St. Thomas and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the “RATE OF OCEAN WARMING HAS NEARLY DOUBLED OVER THE LAST 2 DECADES.”

    And I can’t help but notice all the pseudoscientific sites you provide links for. Media Bias/Fact Check Org rates Climate Depot as “Strongly” pseudoscientific. It rates Principia-Scientifc as both strongly conspiratorial and pseudoscientific with factual reporting rated as LOW. The Global Warming Policy Foundation, of course, is a climate skeptic’s haven with an agenda to obfuscate real data and, big surprise here, they refuse to disclose their donor list. They exposed themselves rather foolishly in Climategate, though. And then, of course, we have Tony Heller’s bogus site, where his biggest crime is to simply LEAVE OUT important, balancing information, in order to mislead. Mislead via ad ignorantium—creating statements that are true only to the degree of the viewer’s ignorance.

    Your problem, Spike, is ad ignorantium—the statements you make are true only to the degree of the reader’s ignorance.

  27. Cwiss says:

    Since you’ve been backed into a corner and proven incapable of answering why we’re continuing to warm when we should be cooling, I have the information I was looking for. Your non-answers (the oceans are creating their own growing heat! The arctic ice is as thick as ever! Check our pseudoscientific websites for confirmation!) fully substantiate my previous opinions of you as a group and the fringe “science” sites you rely on to confirm your perspectives. My work here is done.

    • Gator says:

      Chris, you claim to know what is driving current climate changes. In order to do that you must first prove that you can…

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

      … and…

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

      Until you do this, you have all the credibility of a rabid dog.

      Now hop to it, and quit psychologically projecting.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “My work here is done.”

      Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, that’s exactly what that other alias said last summer.

      Cwissy, your work has not yet begun. As hard as my disillusionment was on me, it looks like yours will be much tougher on you. So, keep deluding yourself, keep convincing yourself that all the incriminating data are cherry picks, and keep delaying the inevitable as long as you need.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Cwissy,

      You are projecting your own ignorance onto others. spike55 isn’t the one backed into a corner. Spike didn’t become a CAGW skeptic out of ignorance. spike55 has admitted, like I, that he was once a believer who promoted CAGW.

      There has been no appreciable or scary warming over the past three decades, and you should know that. The “should be cooling” period will be here sooner than anyone will want, in about a decade. The AMO is about 2/3 through with the warm side of its cycle. The sun may be dampening it a bit. But, we are still in the warm phase. So you’re premature in wishing for cooling.

      You should also know there is nothing unusual with the climate now that has not happened before. The only thing you have is that CO2 has gone up. Which nobody disputes. But CO2 is irrelevant. If it were actually relevant, you would have gladly answered gator’s requests.

      Rather than corroborating your religious leaders’ predictions, CO2 has made a mockery of them. Instead of the predicted “desertification” and a brown earth, the earth has been actually greening. https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html. All of the predictions of your religious leaders get knocked down by Mama Gaia.

      As rah, gator, Tony spike and others have shown you, what is “supposed” to be happening, according to your high-priests, is not happening. Get used to it, because the future is not going to be getting any better for your alarmunism. You will never get the CO2-caused catastrophe you so badly wish will happen. CO2 and mother nature have, and will continue to betray you alarmunists.

      I finally got off of the idiocy train. Some people need to play the fool longer than others. You are a chump. You will choose to be that chump as long as you need. It isn’t necessary. You have the power to look deeper than you have. Disillusionment is a good thing.

  28. spike55 says:

    Found any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 yet , qwiss?

    Zero science, EMPTY sack.

    You have made a total goose of yourself, yes, your work is done.

    Deep ocean is cooling, releasing energy upwards.

    Do at least try to keep up, if your feeble little mind will let you.

  29. SHARK says:

    I just watched the NASA TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF ARCTIC ICE. Pretty convincing. Is it faked?

    • Gator says:

      Does ice melt? Has it melted in the past? Would ice be more or less likely to melt during an interglacial, or during a gkaciation.

      How stupid are you? That’s the only question really left.

      • Shark says:

        Deny, deny, deny. Goalposts back!

      • Shark says:

        So, let me get this straight, we’re cooling steadily for the last 2000 years and suddenly we begin to reverse, for what reasons? We should have MORE ice now, not less. Confirmation bias once again twisting your logic into a mobius strip of denial. I’ll hand it to you, denying the stunningly obvious greenhouse effect takes some mighty impressive mental gymnastics. I just hope you don’t hurt yourself with such leaps of lameness.

      • Shark says:

        Pretty funny how Tony continues to insist that Arctic ice is as thick and voluminous as ever, despite overwhelming and obvious evidence to the contrary. But now you can’t support that contention and look sane so you move the goalposts back and point to NATURAL melting with an interglacial. Unfortunately, the interglacial answer doesn’t cut it, either, with the long-term cooling suddenly and “inexplicably” turning into warming just after we began to industrialize.

        • Gator says:

          You have no idea what you are talking about.

          A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.

          • SHARK says:

            EXTENT is not a measure of warming. You’re thoroughly snookered by Heller. The measure of warming is ice THICKNESS AND VOLUME. 95% of the oldest, thickest ice in the Arctic is now GONE. See NASA TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF ARCTIC ICE.
            Extent is thin, one-year ice and it changes every winter—large extent, small extent, medium extent. Totally IRRELEVANT. Thick, multi-year ice is the measure, especially since it has lost its salt content and is harder to melt. Go soak your head to relieve your numbness. That you think you’re brilliant is hilarious because every one of your posts reveals your brainwashing. I’d be embarrassed. But Dunning-Kruger people are pretty detached from their actual IQ.

          • Gator says:

            I don’t get my info from Tony. I was a geology, climatology, and remote sensing student right after the ice age scare and right before the start of the great global warming swindle. I have spent 45 years studying climate, and I know that you Sooners have zero empirical evidence to back your silly hypothesis.

            Car to prove me wrong?

            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 like yourself.

  30. Shark says:

    Why is solar irradiance going down while temperatures keep rising?



    • Gator says:

      Do we have oceans? Hmmmmm?

      • Shark says:

        Ah, so the oceans are generating their own heat now? What is it, over 60 years from the peak of the last GSM? I know the ocean is slow in releasing its heat store, but it isn’t that slow. Last year NOAA measured the warmest ocean temps EVER. These temps have not existed since that GSM, so again, where is that record heat coming from? They need to find that hidden heat pump, right, Gator? Because you’ll be damned if you’ll accept the most obvious greenhouse warming. Maybe some Rube Goldberg device will turn up to explain it all.

        • Gator says:

          Warmest ever! So how warm were the oceans 2.7 million years ago?

          Oceans have many currents over many periods of time. You have no idea what you are talking about.

          • SHARK says:

            Warmest ever recorded by human beings, clearly. 2.7 million years ago? How in hell is that relevant to today’s warming? Stating that oceans were warmer 2.7 million years ago is like telling me the sky is blue. No shit. You couldn’t address my point so throw out a straw man and beat the shit out of that. Want to throw up another brick? I’ll even let you shoot from the little girl’s foul shot line.

          • Gator says:

            Right, historical precedent has no business in science, if you are a science denier.

  31. Shark says:

    Weird that the proxy data shows earth cooling for roughly the last 2000 years and then all of a sudden it reverses and begins to warm—right after we begin spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Coincidence, right?

    • spike55 says:

      Do you have any actual empirical evidence of CO2 warming the atmosphere?

      Or are you a genuine ignoramous of the fantasy realm.

      • Shark says:

        When NASA and Japanese satellites (IRIS and IMG) measure less longwave radiation leaving the outer atmosphere (which has cooled) and surface spectroscopy reading bounced-back heat specifically from C02 and methane molecules, I would say yes, we have evidence. There are at least ten studies I know of that actually quantify the human contribution as well. But as you’re quicker to insult than check data, I’m guessing you won’t bother looking.

      • SHARK says:

        Google HOW DO WE KNOW MORE C02 IS CAUSING WARMING over at your favorite site, SkepticalScience. They present lots of graphs, which I know you love, and links to original studies. You don’t have to believe Cook, which I’m assuming you’d have a problem with, just link to those original studies.

        • Gator says:

          So you know all the drivers? Then why have you not answered my simple questions?

          Let’s try again!

          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 like yourself.

          Why do you deny climate change and science Snark?

          • SHARK says:

            Answered your question already. But if you refuse to retrieve actual peer-reviewed science data at SkepticalScience, I can’t help you.

          • rah says:

            You did not! Show me your listing and prioritizations of forcings. I can’t find it.

          • Gator says:

            Answered your question already

            You can now add “Liar” to your resume, Snark.

            There is no point in continuing this back and forth with you if you are simply going to lie. But, it is what your role models do, so I guess you come by it honestly, so to speak.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Lying and denial are common with global warming cultists.

          • rah says:

            Colorado Wellington says:
            April 14, 2019 at 8:26 pm
            Lying and denial are common with global warming cultists.
            ————————————
            But they’re great for laughs.
            https://twitter.com/heckyessica/status/1116682623391272963

    • Gator says:

      Weird that you have never heard of the RWP or MWP, when you seem so interested in climate.

      How stupid are you? That’s the truly burning question.

      • Shark says:

        Are you referring to the schematic that purports to show how much warmer it was in the Medieval Warm Period and other warm periods? Because if you are, you might want to do a little more research. You’re referring to a well-known rough sketch based on temps from central England by HH Lamb, according to Jones et al (1982) which, to make matters even sillier for you, ends at around 1950, neglecting to show our seven warmest decades, and using techniques long ago rendered obsolete. It’s one of Tony favorite fake-outs, but you’re oblivious, and I’m pretty sure you’re going to refuse to go look it up. However, if you’re brave:
        Google MONCKTON MYTH #13: THE MAGICAL IPCC

        .

        • Gator says:

          Looks like somebody needs to do their homework. LOL

          • SHARK says:

            Keep hitting the books. According to the PAGES study involving 78 scientists from 60 different scientific institutions, Medieval Warming, when averaged worldwide with the cooler areas, equaled our temps during the early to mid 20th century. NOT WARMER THAN TODAY. That’s the trouble with you nitwits here. You live and die by graphs and don’t bother getting further information. Cut and paste and you think you’re informed. LOL.

          • Gator says:

            I don’t see a graph, or a link to any peer reviewed paper. Claim dismissed.

        • rah says:

          Mounting evidence compiled by honest scientists is indicating the MWP was global. That’s contrary to the alarmists claims that the MWP was a regional event that was not that warm. I’ll take what you consider “techniques long ago rendered obsolete” to the newer techniques of the likes of Mann.
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/03/yet-another-study-illustrates-that-the-medieval-warming-period-was-not-regional-but-global/

          • Gator says:

            The real science deniers are those like Snark, who deny hundreds of years of science and history. Only climate change deniers deny the MWP and LIA.

          • SHARK says:

            Global, yes, but you also have to average it with the cooler areas then. When that was done (the PAGES study), Medieval Warm Period came in around the same as our early to mid 20th century—-a 1950 timeline excludes our seven warmest decades, exactly the point I made in an earlier post. NOT WARMER THAN TODAY. COOLER.

            Wattsupwiththat is a pseudoscientific site that frequently fails fact checks by MEDIABIAS/FACT CHECK Use an actual science site, not a crackpot hideout.

          • Gator says:

            Wattsupwiththat is a pseudoscientific site that frequently fails fact checks by MEDIABIAS/FACT CHECK Use an actual science site, not a crackpot hideout.

            https://youtu.be/NzlG28B-R8Y

            Snark is just another science denier, unable to release his Gaian religion.

          • rah says:

            So the best the little harmless Dog Fish can do is attack the source and not the paper or data. LOL!

  32. Shark says:

    Kind of a strange occurrence. NOAA measured the warmest global ocean temperatures on record in 2018, yet solar irradiance has been down since about 1978. The peak of the last grand solar max happened, what, sixty years ago? So why is the ocean generating heat greater than what the sun deposited?

    • neal s says:

      You are being misled. NOAA reported warmest …. They didn’t actually measure that. Its like a lot of things that NOAA report. You ask ” So why is the ocean generating heat greater than what the sun deposited?” Well maybe what is being reported about temperatures is actually a misrepresentation and is just plain wrong.

    • Gator says:

      Kind of strange that you do not take into account everything that the Sun produces. The oceans do not generate heat.

      The Sun is bright, but you are not. The oceans are deep, but you are not.

      • SHARK says:

        MEDIABIAS/FACTCHECK rates Wattsupwiththat as “strongly pseudoscientific and conspiratorial” and finds “LOW FACTUAL REPORTING” there. Your sources are absurd.

        You believe Tony Heller and Anthony Watts keep NASA and NOAA in check, instead of the other way around, which is hilarious. How many scientific papers have Heller and Watts published and presented for peer review? Any satellites launched? Men put on the moon?

        • Gator says:

          News flash Snark! I learned climatology at a university. I don’t get my info from blogs, I share info on blogs.

          Now, Mr thinks-he-knows-it-all, show. me the money.

          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 like yourself.

          You might want to spend four decades studying climatology, like I have, before you reply out of ignorance once again.

          • neal s says:

            Shark enjoys replying out of ignorance. He also has certain superpowers. One of these is projection. He readily accuses others of what he is guilty of. Another is the incredible self assuredness of the truly ignorant. And yet a third is his belief in the pronouncements of his chosen ‘experts’. I don’t know if there is anything that could possibly change his mind. And to the extent that nothing could, his beliefs are his own religion.

            Attempting to reason with Shark is like playing a game of chess with a pigeon. The only value in such an attempt is that others, less vocal, but more intelligent, might learn, while Shark does not.

    • rah says:

      So Shark, please do tell us how CO2 caused the oceans to warm!

      • SHARK says:

        Really? You’re that dumb?

        • rah says:

          That’s what I thought! Thanks for confirming it.

        • rah says:

          While your at it Dog Fish, can you explain why the all time highest official surface temperature record of 134 F set at Evergreen Ranch (Now Furnace Creek) in 1913 still stands during this time you consider to be so anomalously hot?

          • SHARK says:

            How, Rah, does Furnace Creek remotely represent GLOBAL climate? It’s just like saying 1934 was the hottest year ever in the United States, which it was. But the United States represents less than five percent of the world’s land mass, and over half the world was actually cooler that year.

          • rah says:

            Dog fish is so stupid he cannot understand that if the climate is getting warmer then high temperatures should also get warmer. Climate, in the real world, is the accumulated weather record. the IPCC has declared the weather records accumulated over a 30 year period to be climate. So why have we not seen a new official record all time high temperature recorded anywhere on this globe since 2013 with all this warming going on.

            I’ll answer it for you Dog Fish since it is obviously beyond your ability to answer. The limited warming we are seeing is natural variation and not artificial. The “Climate Science” you believe in is based upon computer model simulations and not real world observations. Their ability to project future conditions has been proven to be lousy because of GIGO! Your faith is based on a computer generated bill of goods sold by those who present themselves so that they appeal to the weak that rely on what they believe to be authorities instead of lifting their head from the sand and looking around to figure out what is going on in the real world.

          • rah says:

            Yea, that leaves about 300 more you need to compare to the body of work compiled over many decades that say otherwise. And then there is the fact that the evidence has been steadily growing that the even was global and not regional as alarmists claim.

  33. Shark says:

    The sun has been exhibiting its lowest activity level in years. Try to comprehend what that means. A COOLER sun cannot WARM an ocean to a greater temperature than it was before. NASA has been measuring earth’s outer atmosphere for 40 years and finds that it has indeed COOLED. Yet our inner atmosphere continues to WARM. Just accept reality and stop making a fool of yourself.

    In an enclosed room, brain fog begins to set in at 1000 ppm of C02. Do you have adequate ventilation down in your Mom’s basement?

    • Gator says:

      So you know what drives climate? Great!

      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 and doomers like yourself.

  34. SHARK says:

    Ironic, Gator, that you would ask such a question when the number one forcing is greenhouse gasses. Was that questioning a Freudian slip on your part?

  35. SHARK says:

    Rah, I didn’t just kick the legs out from under Wattsupwiththat because it’s a site designed for pseudoscientific geeks, I actually provided a massive, peer-reviewed study (The Pages study), refuting that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now. IT WASN’T.

  36. SHARK says:

    Rah, I’m actually quite capable of answering. Cherry-picking one heat record and calling it a trend is what my children might have concluded. Mike Trout was the highest paid player in all of sports last year, with a contract worth $426 million. Therefore, his team must have won the World Series, right? Actually, the angels record was 80-82. Not even close. You’re extrapolating and swinging wildly, kind of like a strike-out artist.

    Last five years were the hottest on record. 20 of the 22 hottest years on record all occurred in the last 22 years. The oceans were the hottest ever recorded by humans in 2018. Record hot days are NOW OUTPACING RECORD COLD DAYS BY A TWO TO ONE MARGIN. In a stable climate, those numbers come in very close together. So, we IGNORE that data, Rah, in favor of one date, one location? Seriously. You are pulling the wool over your own eyes and making yourself look really foolish.

    • rah says:

      LOL! They have no friggin idea what the temperatures were over the vast majority of the earths surface before the satellite era. And they have virtually no reliable historic temperature data for the oceans and particularly the SH where there is the most water. The usual propaganda based on a nanosecond in climate history and for much of the earths surface and oceans just plain made up with interpolations for the vast areas where there is no reliable data. For alarmists the climate history of this earth starts in 1979 or later and it’s ridiculous!

  37. SHARK says:

    Gator, your unconscious is knocking at your prefrontal cortex in an attempt to wake you. Are you asking me about the greatest climate forcing, greenhouse gasses, in order to remind yourself of that reality?

    The sun’s daily, normal energy output is NOT counted as a forcing agent. You knew that, right? Forcings are any influence above and beyond or below our normal solar baseline , it is NOT the normal sun’s contribution itself. A solar minimum or a solar maximum would be counted as a forcing, but not the everyday sun.

    Greenhouse gasses DWARF solar irradiance as a forcing.

    “Since 1750, human caused drivers (forcings) have been increasing, and their effect dominates all natural drivers.”
    —NOAA, Climate.gov “CLIMATE FORCINGS”

    “It is currently estimated that the temperature variations caused by volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations are much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas forcing since the mid 19th century.—National Academies Press

    This is what you get when you source information designed for junior high-level students instead of an adult science site. Yeah, kids really do say the darndest things, as you would clearly know.

    • Gator says:

      Again Snark, you are making claims that you cannot back up with science. That makes it a belief system, a religion, if you will.

      The Sun dwarfs all other forcings, without the Sun we would not be here no matter how many greenhouse gases (correct spelling) that you add. The Sun changes climates across the surface of the Earth, regardless of greenhouse gases. Is the fact that the equator is warmer than the poles due to extra CO2 at the poles, or more direct sunlight?

      So let’s try again, quit dodging climate 101 and stop lying.

      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 like yourself.

      Hop to it Snark!

    • Gator says:

      Is the fact that the equator is warmer than the poles due to extra CO2 at the poles, or more direct sunlight?

      Correction: “due to extra CO2 the equator, or more direct sunlight?”

  38. SHARK says:

    The sun’s baseline is not a forcing. Look it up. I also provided all the info about peer-reviewed papers on C02 and natural variability at SkepticalScience, where you can link to original studies on this topic all day long. But you’re allergic to real science, so you’re shit-out-of-luck. Why don’t you ask your junior high teacher or one of your pseudoscientific Internet sites where you get your other information?

    You’ve given yourself away enough. Someone who doesn’t know the definition of a climate forcing is a climate poser. You’re busted. Onto to bigger fishheads to fry.

    • Gator says:

      Solar radiation is the fundamental energy driving our climate system, and nearly all climatic and biologic processes on Earth are dependent on solar input.

      https://www.climate.gov/teaching/essential-principles-climate-literacy/teaching-essential-principle-1-sun-primary-source

      Soar is the basis of all climate, and therefore it is a forcing you twit. The Sun’s output varies over time and is not constant.

      Why is it you cannot answer my simple questions? Let’s try again…

      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 and know-nothings like yourself.

    • Gator says:

      If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.

      A WUWT reader writes via email:
      I thought I might ask you for your comment on this before I rush to judge John cook.

      The Reference Frame: Identity theft: the thief of Lubos_Motl turns out to be a well-known man

      Specifically, I’m curious:
      1) Why john would wish to post comments anywhere under any circumstances using another persons name?
      2) How many other times has he done this?
      3) Does he intend to do this again?

      This isn’t a brush away issue that he can ignore, as Dr. Lubos Motl found out yesterday, John Cook has been using the name of Dr. Lubos Motl to post comments that Dr. Motl has NOT written.
      Dr. Motl writes:
      ________________________________________
      Today, one hour ago, was the first time when I was seeing these pages but interestingly enough, you may find lots of things over there posted by Lubos_Motl. And this Lubos_Motl happens to use the e-mail address jc@sks… and the same IP addresses as another, less prolific participant of those discussions, John Cook! ;-)In the first thread – including comments about the possible influence of the Sun on the hockey stick and exchanges about a planned alarmists’ letter to Anthony Watts analyzing the meaning of the word “denier” – we read:
      John Cook: … If a few more agree with the idea of this blog post (noting it won’t directly engage Watts or even mention him, it’ll be a general discussion post) and the direction I propose we go with the d-word issue, I’ll have a crack at writing it over the next day.
      EDIT: sorry, accidentally posted this under my Lubos_Motl username, sorry for any confusion :-(

      Tim Curtis: would you please stop posting as Lubos Motl. There is reason to doubt his sanity, so I don’t like seeing his name. Further, it is his name, and therefore one you are not entitled to use.

      Rob Honeycutt: John… You freak me out every time Lubos Motl’s name pops up!

      John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
      For the record, if just one or two of you SkSers jumped over to the Technical Forum and posted some comments to the 4 Experiment Conditions, I’d get my 10 comments and wouldn’t have to log in as Lubos anymore. Only one or two more comments required to get the quota. Just some incentive for you :-)
      EDIT: one of the conditions now has 10 comments, so only 3 more threads (with 2 of them only requiring one more comment). So Lubos very close to being put to bed :-)
      EDIT: only one more thread to go…
      Minutes before this September 26th, 2011 commitment, we were reading these comments in the other threads:
      Lubos_Motl: Ocean acidification is a strong sign that humans are raising CO2 levels. But it’s also a grave environmental concern as the acidification is causing damage to coral reefs which are some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Adding insult to injury, the increased CO2 causes warming which is causing further damage to the coral reefs through bleaching. Corals provide both evidence for man-made global warming and concern over its impacts.
      ________________________________________
      Lubos_Motl: The past tells us much about what our future holds in store for us. In the past, when the Earth was warmer than it is now, sea levels were metres higher than current levels. So just on the sea level front alone, we can expect severe impacts on the vast majority of the human population living on coastlines. The past also describes these concerning feedback events, where warmer temperatures lead to further release of greenhouse gases. We’re already seeing this start to happen in the Arctic, with methane bubbling from the permafrost and methane clathrates. The past paints a vivid picture of our future and it’s a picture of great concern.

      Well, you can figure out that these paragraphs were written by a scientifically illiterate imbecile rather than Luboš Motl – because you are a TRF reader – but what about others? In Parts 2–4 of the other thread, the same Lubos_Motl wrote lots of other things:
      Lubos_Motl: Cherry picking: What this post fails to mention is other factors also affect climate. Urban heat island also causes nights to warm faster than days. Ozone depletion causes the stratosphere to cool. This supposed evidence is just cherry picking supporting evidence and hiding the rest.

      The article also cites ocean warming as evidence, and yet ocean warming has stalled since 2003. As more than 90% of global warming is going into the oceans, which means ocean heat is the best measure for global warming, the conclusion is obvious – humans can’t be causing global warming because global warming isn’t happening!

      Good point re cosmic rays. The simplistic argument that the sun can’t cause global warming only looks at one possible link between sun and climate – total solar irradiance. But the relationship between the sun and our climate is much more complicated than that, as the solar magnetic field modulates the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earth. This affects cloud formation which also interacts with our climate in complicated ways, with lower clouds causing cooling and higher clouds causing warming. A prettily coloured graphic created for young children doesn’t even begin to capture the complexities of our climate system.
      ________________________________________
      Lubos_Motl: It’s hilarious that this article cites Usoskin 2005. That paper concludes that over the last few decades, the correlation between sun and climate breaks down. Therefore, recent warming must have some other cause. This article’s own sources debunk its assertion that the sun is causing global warming!

      The full truth about the percentage of CO2 is that over 99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, both gases which are not greenhouse gases. So the fact that CO2 is a small percentage is irrelevant to the strength of its greenhouse effect. It’s like holding an election in a town of 1000 people where only 10 people vote. They may only be a small number but each individual has a significant effect. It’s the same with CO2. Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it – what do measurements find? Both planes and satellites measure heat as it escapes to space and both find a big bite out of the outgoing heat, at precisely the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat. The greenhouse effect is an empirically observed fact.
      ________________________________________
      Lubos_Motl: Good point re the co2 lag. Not only was co2 higher in the past, it also lags temperature, showing temperature drives co2, not the other way around. The ice core record is not kind to the warmist agenda.

      Good point re the number of scientists. The alarmists like to boast about there being 2500 scientists who wrote the IPCC report. But the number of skeptic scientists is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE greater than the number of alarmist scientists. Not only there is still a debate, the weight of opinion leans heavily towards the skeptic point of view. This article presents the compelling evidence that explains why.

      John Cook: Note re Lubos Motl: I won’t use the name Lubos Motl or any of our names in the final webpage used in the experiment (so the last two comments by Rob and Steve won’t be used, I’m afraid).
      Full story: http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html#more
      To me, this is the most telling comment:
      John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
      This is just unbelievable; “the UWA experiment”. Think about what this refers to: University of Western Australia. This is where Cook launched his career defaming climate skeptics by helping Stephan Lewandowsky in designing/running a gussied up poll that was never actually posted on climate skeptic websites, that purports to give answers by climate skeptics, to be used in a paper where it is claimed that climate skeptics are believers that “the moon landing was faked“. What sort of “experiment” was John Cook running by stealing the identity of Dr. Lubos Motl, and writing comments under his name?

      Cook is a man who has co-authored two papers about how climate skeptics are not to be trusted because in essence, “they are crazy conspiracy theorists”. Yet, John Cook, now of the University of Queensland after leaving his connections at UWA, has so little moral integrity that he’ll post comments on his own website as a skeptical scientist, such as Dr. Lubos Motl?
      Who else has John Cook impersonated? has he encouraged his team to do this? These are valid questions that need answers.

      This may be actionable, not just to get his latest smear paper retracted, like the first one was, but legally actionable. And maybe it’s time, because quite frankly I’m getting tired of this crap coming from this band of zealots in Australia who seem to have no scruples or integrity. Identity theft of another scientist’s name to post fake comments is just beyond the pale.
      This isn’t the first time Cook and crew has done something reprehensible like this. Readers may recall he and his team of moderator zealots have been caught changing user comments after the fact:
      On “Skepticalscience” – Rewriting History
      This is why Skeptical Science has it’s own special category on the links at WUWT’s sidebar:
      Unreliable*
      Skeptical Science – John Cook
      * Due to (1) deletion, extension
      and amending of user comments,
      and (2) undated post-publication
      revisions of article contents after
      significant user commenting.

      Then there’s all the questionable tactics Cook used to create a faked 97% consensus: Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper
      May I suggest Mr. Cook, that your next fake persona name be: What. A. Slimeball.

    • Gator says:

      Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censoredwhile Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted andsmeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

      John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

      Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

      “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist” – John Cook, Skeptical Science

      A link from the Skeptical Science “About” page originally went to his cartoonist page,

      “John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia” – SEV

      It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he desperately pads his resume. As opposed to the highly credentialed climate scientists his staff harassed and censored;

      Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

      Roger A. Pielke Sr., B.A. Mathematics, Towson State College (1968); M.S. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1969); Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1973); Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University (1968); National Science Foundation Trainee, Pennsylvania State University (1968-1971); Research Meteorologist, Experimental Meteorology Laboratory, NOAA (1971-1974); Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1974-1977); Distinguished Authorship Award, NOAA (1974); Leroy Meisinger Award, American Meteorological Society (1977); Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1978-1981); Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review (1981-1985); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (1982); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1982-1985); Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award (1984); Deputy Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (1985-1988); Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1985-2000), Abell Research Faculty Award (1987/1988); Researcher of the Year, Colorado State University Research Foundation (1993), Pennsylvania State Centennial Fellow (1996); Alumni of the Year, Pennsylvania State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (1999); Colorado State Climatologist (1999-2006); Engineering Dean’s Council Award, Colorado State University (2000); Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University (2003-2006); Fellow, American Geophysical Union (2004); Visiting Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona (2004); Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Senior Research Associate, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (2007-Present)

      References:
      Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science(PDF) (28pgs) (Lubos Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, March 29, 2010)
      Skepticalscience – Rewriting History (Shub Niggurath Climate, October 10, 2011)
      Roger Pielke Sr at the SS.com: A dark day in the climate science debate (Shub Niggurath Climate, September 18, 2011)
      Skepticalscience.com quote surgery on Pat Michaels(Shub Niggurath Climate, January 18, 2012)
      My Interactions With Skeptical Science – A Failed Attempt (So Far) For Constructive Dialog (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 17, 2011)
      Final Comments On My Interaction With Skeptical Science (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 21, 2011)
      Response To Skeptical Science On A Series Of Weblog Posts (Roger A. Pielke Sr., October 25, 2011)
      A Response to Skeptical Science’s “Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data” (Patrick J. Michaels, January 17, 2012)

      Update: In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked”and the contents posted online. What was revealed is simply astonishing,

      Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech
      “The impact of that ban on PopTech was to silence him.” – [Skeptical Science]
      Skeptical Science: “Ding dong, the witch is dead”
      “Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43” “Ding dong, the witch is dead…” – John Hartz [Skeptical Science], March 2, 2012
      Skeptical Science: “[W]e’re all a bunch of leftists”
      “It’s official, we’re all a bunch of leftists” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], August 26, 2011
      Skeptical Science: The Partnership with Al Gore
      “This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project. […] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. […] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we’re doing” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011
      Skeptical Science: From Al Gore to Al Jazeera
      “Al Jazeera want[s] to feature SkS as the Site of the Week… Am sending them some info and pics now.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 28, 2011
      Skeptical Science: Too Inaccurate for Joe Romm
      “Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011
      Skeptical Science: “Drown Them Out”
      “Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated “Crusher Crew” where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

    • Gator says:

      John Cook, the following are all the criticisms of Skeptical Science to which you and your moderators have not responded, and almost all of them focus on the science:

      motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
      motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-cooks-blog-photosynthesis-is.html
      motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/climate-sensitivity-from-linear-fit.html
      http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf
      joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/
      joannenova.com.au/2010/08/skeptics-iphone-app-endorsed-de-facto-by-critic/
      joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/
      joannenova.com.au/2011/03/unskeptical-science-uses-unitless-fudge-factors/
      joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/
      wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/tisdale-schools-the-website-skeptical-science-on-co2-obsession/
      wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/a-modest-proposal-to-skeptical-science/
      wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/flaw-found-in-arctic-temperature-analysis-exaggerates-warming/
      wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/18/sea-ice-extend-answer-to-skepticalscience-com/
      theinconvenientskeptic.com/?s=skepticalscience.com
      theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/12/more-bad-science-with-antarctica/
      pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/…/…
      icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/computer_model_temperature_predictions_accurate/
      http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html
      stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=%22skeptical+science%22
      nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

    • Gator says:

      “…resist the temptation to reply to [trolls].
      Instead, do what the troll hates most — simply remove the comment.”
      — John Cook
      The recent censorship episode at the skepticalscience.com brings an often overlooked aspect to the forefront. The target of deletion Prof Roger Pielke Sr, runs a blog. The actions of Skepticalscience were revealed because he posted them there.
      What if a scientist or a lay person, interacted with websites like Skepticalscience and did not have a blog?
      Consider what Skepticalscience did in reader Paul and AnthonySG1’s cases. In 2007, the website had an article explaining Antarctica’s cooling —a thorn in the pitch for a clean story about global warming— as an “uniquely” regional phenomenon. It talked of how ‘Antarctica was overall losing ice’, citing a peer-reviewed paper Velicogna et al 2003 for support.
      The response in the comments section from Cook’s readers was simple: ‘Antarctic ice is increasing. You cannot take a paper that has three years worth of data and conclude that the continent was losing ice’. They cited references that Skepticalscience neglected – which showed an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice.
      The rewriting that John Cook undertook is now recounted at Bishop Hill. In the first step Cook changed the entire article, taking off from the criticisms. Next, he deleted his original ‘responses’, and added new ones that made it appear as though these commenters did not know what they were talking about.
      The rewriting of Skepticalscience history
      After this was openly revealed, John Cook offered explanations for his actions. It went something like this: ‘I accidentally mistook my readers to have responded to my updated article. Thinking that was indeed the case, their comments sounded silly to me. So I ended up adding responses to guide new readers’

      A closer examination of the threads on Skepticalscience, reveals a different picture. Let us begin by examining a few examples to get a sense of what these might be.
      Let us start with the thread “Climate models are unreliable”. As is known, the website portrays skeptical arguments as such simple statements and offers rebuttals. The article was published sometime late 2007.
      In July 2008, ‘poptech’ left a comment which questioned assertions made in the article. He quoted scientists at the Realclimate consensus blog:

      Comment from reader ‘poptech’ – deleted in 2011
      From mid-2008, Poptech’s comment remained intact on the thread till as recently as Feb 2011 . At some point afterward, the comment was deleted. Another of poptech’s comments upthread, to which three commenters responded (example) was deleted, leaving the responses hanging mid-air.
      Consider the thread “Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?” In Sept 2007 reader Ben Lankamp left a comment supporting Cook’s assertions on the thread. It contained a graph of total solar irradiance. The comment remained intact for close to three years till Aug 2010.

      Inexplicably, at some point afterward the comment was deleted. The next snapshot shows the article with Lankamp’s comment missing and changed graphs.
      Was Cook deleting comments that didn’t play well with his changes? It is hard to say. Even innocuous ones seem to get the boot. For instance, observe once again Antarctic ice thread of 2007. Reader ‘irkantska’scomment from Aug 2009 is still there in Sept 2009:

      Look at the Jan 2010 entry next. The comment is gone. By this time, Cook has rearranged the conversation and added admonishing responses to readers who had provided links. He did not have any replies for irkantska. The comment was simply bumped off.
      Is Cook merely deleting comments from his readers alone? Let us look at the Hurricane Katrina weblog entry titled ‘Did Global Warming cause Hurricane Katrina’. The changes made by Cook start getting complex.
      Cook’s article on Hurricane Katrina came out in 2007. It claimed that global warming caused an increase in hurricane intensity. By November 2007 reader ‘Wondering Aloud’ (WA) had offered his comment,

      WA, as can be seen, joked about the article’s title and said that climate science theory predicted a decrease of hurricane frequency and intensity with global warming. Cook asked if WA ‘knew of any papers’ that showed this.
      WA offered a citation in the next post.

      ‘Wondering Aloud’ noted the irony of Kerry Emmanuel himself being the prime proponent of a theory of increasing intensity of hurricanes, when he was a co-author of the very Free et al 2004 that predicted no change in intensity.

      You can look at the thread today. Comments 2 and 4 are gone. Comment 3 has been left behind and its content doesn’t make any sense (it was a response to Cook’s comment in 2). And presumably since comment 4 was deleted comments 5, 6, 7, and 8 by readers responding to WA’s point in #4, have all been deleted. They were present until Sept 2009. They were gone by Dec 2009.
      If a reader stumbles on the Katrina thread at Skepticalscience today, he or she would not know any of the above. Instead, what one sees is a comment, with a response from Cook. The changes make it look as though ‘the science’ changed from 2004 to 2005 which Cook is helpfully pointing out.
      The whole conversation has been turned on its head.
      What’s more, Cook has gotten rid of his own comments in the process. In 2007, a more thoughtful Cook began his response to WA: “Statements such as “Katrina was caused by GW or GW causes more hurricanes” are on shaky ground”.

      These remarks are wiped clean from the historical record.
      In a recent letter to a local newspaper editor, global warming professor Michael Mann guided its readers in Colorado to skepticalscience.com as an authentic source of information. He asserted that the true story about his hockey-stick graph was told there. Let us examine what skepticalscience.com did with their hockey-stick threads.
      One of Cook’s earliest pages on the hockey stick came out sometime late-2007. There were hardly any reader responses, and by November 2009 the thread had accumulated a grand total of eleven comments. In Nov 2007 commenter ‘nomann’ had disagreed with Cook’s contentions, with Cook’s response following close behind. Commenter ‘Will Nitschke’ posted a series of comments pointing out aspects of the hockey-stick issue that were left out, and again Cook responded. Then notably, ‘saluki’ left a comment that drew attention to researcher Linah Ababneh’s dissertation, the proxy weightings used by Mann, and the problem with the stripbark phenomenon that affected Mann’s work. In early 2009, reader ‘sjkhayes’ posted a numbered summary of the issues with Mann’s work and inquired if there were any proxy reconstructions that were free from these problems.

      In Jan 2010, all these comments were gone.
      The page changed as well. McIntyre and McKitrick’s graph of a corrected-hockey stick, which Cook had used from a Michael Crichton page, was gone.
      A fresh round of commenting began on the same thread.
      By May 2010, in line was commenter poptech again, who posted a list of papers and reports which refuted, in part or in whole, the Mannian hockey-stick.

      John Cook was obliging. He posted a response:

      Poptech’s comment survived on the page till as recently as May 2011. On the current version of the page, it is gone. Again, the responses to poptech were left hanging in the air.
      So, the problem is not confined to just a handful of comments, here and there. Whole batches of them are deleted at times. Is a strange computer glitch wiping out comments in bulk on the skepticalscience.com server?
      Let us look at another topic on Skepticalscience that relates to Michael Mann’s paleoclimate work – the Medieval Warm Period.
      The page came out sometime before October 2007 and this is how it looked in Sept 2009. Compare that with the current version which is here.
      Cook has deleted virtually dozens and dozens of comments on this thread. None of them appear to be abusive, or offensive, or ‘ad-hominem’. The changes are simply too many to be adequately documented with screen captures. The comments are from late 2007 – early 2008 and the deletions occur somewhere between Sept 2009 and Dec 2009.
      Take the exchange between ‘Adamski’ and ‘chris’ (comments 36, 37, 38, 39 originally):

      Comments from ‘Adamski’ and ‘chris’ as they appeared in Sept 2009

      Nov 2009 – the Adamski-chris conversation moves up due to bulk deletions! Comment #37 from chris goes missing

      Feb 2010 – Comment #37 makes a comeback but chris has lost his name.

      Sept 2011 – the comments as they are, in their final position
      What is more: as can be seen from the screen captures above, Cook goes into the comments and deletes commenters’ references to each others’ posts. This is no computer glitch and it demonstrates he knew what he was doing. Nor does this square with the explanations Cook provided at Bishop Hill. . Again, as before, parts of a conversation are deleted and altered in such a way, the end result looks like something that never happened.
      Let us look at yet another page that relates to Michael Mann’s paleoclimate work – the ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’.
      Scientist Phil Jones’ email about his using ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ in order to ‘hide the decline’ is famous. However, even the ‘trick it seemed could be defended by skepticalscience. Their initial page, published sometime before Mar 2010 was customarily simple and suggested that the whole thing was a non issue.
      By Dec 2010, author James Wight had extensively updated the page. This is how he explained Jones’ actions:

      Reader ‘JeanS’ now added the first comment, referring to the key claim in the last sentence:

      John James Wight clearly understood his reader’s critique because he took its message to heart.
      The main article was rewritten deleting all previous references to what exactly the “trick” was. Instead of the claim that the hiding involved the truncating of ‘unreliable’ tree ring data – which was the basis for claiming that no malfeasance occured, one now sees simply a proclamation from the Muir-Russell review to the same effect. The highlighted claim is missing from all three versions of the article.
      Just as in instances before, JeanS’ comment has left hanging in the air referring to a statement that doesn’t exist.
      Why does John Cook do this?
      The deletions carried out by Cook don’t make sense as an exercise in moderation. They seem driven by an ardent need to present a clean and neat view of global warming. Of a need to reassure that no intelligent discussions exist, and all possible questions have (long) been answered.
      The structure of Cook’s website appears to push things in his direction. In the beginning, pages are born as undemanding and easy arguments. Cook then seems to realize that the skeptical arguments are more involved and complex than the simplistic picture he presents. He updates the same pages with more detail. But messy comments have accumulated below the line, sticking out like sore thumbs. The ‘broad picture’ that Cook so wants to convey is sullied.
      In the meantime fresh readers, oblivious to the confusing mish-mash of claim and counter-claim, arrive in greater numbers on the shores of the global warming debate. Journalists, policy-makers and other influential opinion-makers land up everyday at skepticalscience, looking for a quick grasp on the consensus position in climate issues. How does one protect these newcomers?
      Cook’s solution: the inconvenient comments go flying out the window.
      One clearly sees that the mission of the website underwent a change ~end of 2009. In the earlier years, Cook seems welcoming to comments. His interest it seemed was to point out findings from scientific papers, that he thought contradicted climate skeptics’ claims. By November 2009, Cook had arrived at a dramatically different viewpoint. He saw ‘global warming skepticism’ as a sort of a mental illness or a psychiatric condition, with the afflicted being beyond any hope. Psychologic diagnoses permeates his thinking from that point on.
      Cook voices his thoughts on the shift in a post in November 2009. It is hard to fathom, why, anybody who ran a website and worked hard at attracting and nurturing an online community, would commit the most fundamental of indiscretions with his readers’ comments – deleting and moulding them at his own whim.

      As seen in his response above, Cook viewed the comments section of his website topics as a resource, to be used for ‘educating’ the public.
      From there on, editing, deleting and moulding the historical record probably did not seem any wrong to Cook.

    • Gator says:

      Again Snark, you are making claims that you cannot back up with science. That makes it a belief system, a religion, if you will.

      The Sun dwarfs all other forcings, without the Sun we would not be here no matter how many greenhouse gases (correct spelling) that you add. The Sun changes climates across the surface of the Earth, regardless of greenhouse gases. Is the fact that the equator is warmer than the poles due to extra CO2 at the poles, or more direct sunlight?

      So let’s try again, quit dodging climate 101 and stop lying.

      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 like yourself.

      Hop to it Snark! I’m still waiting…

  39. Gator says:

    A Response to Skeptical Science’s “Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data”

    Guest post by Patrick Michaels

    When the battle is being lost, there is a tendency to try to raise a level of distraction to shift the attention away from the desperate situation at hand. Such is the noise being raised concerning my presentation of the results from a recent series of scientific findings and observations—that lend further support to notion of modest climate change. The apocalyptics and the gloom-and-doom crowd are losing both the science battle and the policy war.
    Dana Nuccitelli (aka dana1981) over at the website Skeptical Science has recently written a screed purporting that I delete “inconvenient” data in order to make my points. In fact, what I have done is to highlight the major findings of the studies I have commented on—findings that have indeed strengthened the case that global warming in this century will be in the lower end of the range of projections issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Mr. Nuccitelli starts by digging up the dead horse of my 1998 testimony to Congress and my presentation of the global temperature projections made ten years earlier (in 1988) by NASA’s Jim Hansen. In my testimony before the Committee on Small Business of the U.S. House of Representatives in July 1998 (available here) I elected to focus on a comparison between the observed temperatures and those projected to have occurred under Hansen’s (in his words) “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario. Remember, this was in 1998. There was no worldwide treaty reducing carbon dioxide emissions (indeed, there isn’t one now). The only change to BAU that took place in the 1988 to 1998 time period was the Montreal Protocol limiting the emissions of CFCs. Reductions in production began only in 1994 and the radiative effect of the Protocol by 1998 was infinitesimal. To me, BAU means BAU. One of the main points that I was making in my 1998 testimony was that observations indicated that the global temperature were rising much less than Hansen had forecast under BAU, which is what happened. That was true then, and it remains true today, as the amount of warming he overforecast in 1988 is painfully obvious.
    Mr. Nuccitelli then criticizes my handling of the results of a pair of new scientific studies examining the earth’s climate sensitivity by Schmittner et al. (2011) and Gillett et al. (2012). Each of these research teams reported rather lowish estimates of the climate sensitivity. As in any scientific study, there is a lot of discussion concerning data and methods and results in these papers and caveats and uncertainties. In my summary of them, I focused on the major results much as the authors did in the papers’ abstracts. In both case I wrote positively about the findings. Not having obtained the actual raw data from the authors themselves to enable me to create charts directly illustrating the paper’s main points (a task that is commonly not altogether straightforward, timely, or even successful; see the Climategate emails for examples of the myriad of potential difficulties encountered in such an effort), I did the next best thing, which was to adapt the published figures to simplify and highlight the major results (and focus my accompanying text on the main findings).
    For example, from Schmittner et al., I removed from one of the original figures some data pertaining to individual components (land and ocean) because the paper was about global temperature and I am concerned about global sensitivity. I showed the global results (and noted in the caption of the Figure I presented that it had been “adapted from Schmittner et al., 2011″). The finding that I showed was the same one which the authors focused on in their abstract which I reproduce here in full:
    Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2–4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and non-zero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7–2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
    And the same is true for my encapsulation of the work of Gillett and colleagues. In this case, I simplified one of the original figures by removing some results that were derived using a shorter and incomplete (1851-2010 vs. 1901-2000) temperature record while retaining the same record that was preferred by the authors (and again noted in the caption to the Figure that I presented that it had been “adapted from Gillett et al., 2012″ and additionally added that “the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion”).
    That one of the primary scientific advances of the paper was the result derived using the more complete temperature time series is demonstrated by the paper’s title “Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations.” Note the words “improved” and “160 years of temperature data” (the full record).
    I invite you to compare the “before” and “after” images from these two papers as detailed by Dana Nuccitelli with the descriptions made in summary by the paper’s original authors and you’ll see that I was being true to their work. Further, read through my articles (here and here) spotlighting their results and you’ll see that I was also quite supportive of their findings.
    Mr. Nuccitelli, as a contributor to Skeptical Science—a website dedicated to trying to bolster the alarmist claims of human-caused climate change—realizes that it is in his best interest to try to obliterate evidence which paints a less than alarming picture of our climate future. Anyone who both produces and synthesizes such findings will be his target. That’s just the way the game is played by alarmists like Dana and the ever-obnoxious Joe Romm (who probably has done more damage to his cause with his over-the-top vitriol than he can possibly imagine).
    If evidence continues to accrue that the earth’s climate is not changing in a manner sufficient to inspire enough fear in the general populace to demand life-altering energy limitations, attacks will continue by those, to use Mr. Nuccitelli phrase “who simply don’t want to accept the scientific reality.”
    To keep up with the latest scientific findings concerning climate change highlighting the modest nature of the expected changes—findings that which are unlikely to be highlighted in the general media—I invite you to drop in from time to time here at World Climate Report , my “Climate of Fear” column at Forbes, my “Current Wisdom” feature at Cato, or any of the other sites, such as Watts Up With That? or Junk Science, that occasionally highlight my writings.
    And, as always, if you ever don’t believe what I have to say, or want to investigate the issue in more detail, I include a list of references of the papers that I am discussing. So, as Casey Stengel used to say, ‘you could look it up.’
    References:
    Gillett, N.P., et al., 2012. Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L01704, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226.
    Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 334, 1385-1388
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513

  40. rah says:

    Gator I think the Dog Fish already knocked the chess pieces on the board, declared victory, and returned to his normal environment on the bottom.

  41. Colorado Wellington says:

    Isn’t Dog Fish another identity of John Cook?

    Ex Uno Plures.

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.