List of excuses for 'the pause' in global warming is now up to 52

Updated list of 52 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming (compiled by WUWT and The HockeySchtick)

RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming

An updated list of at least 29 32 36 38 39 41 51 52 excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

11) Pine aerosols

12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”

36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?

38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed

[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]

39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”

[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]

42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:

“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]

43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]

“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]

44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:

I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]

45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:

“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]

46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:

“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]

47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both

this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]

48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:

It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:

” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]

“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]




Additional related comments from climate scientists about the “pause”

1) My University screwed up the press release & didn’t let me stop them from claiming my paper shows the “hiatus will last another decade or two.” [Dessler]2) “This [the ‘pause’] is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate.” [Andrew Dessler]

3) “In a few years, as we get to understand this [the ‘pause’] more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.” [Andrew Dessler]


3.7 3 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 11, 2014 1:43 pm

“What’s firmly established is that the climate is warming, that the buildup of human-generated heat-trapping greenhouse gases is contributing substantially to the warming and that while the buildup of gases is steady, the rise in temperatures is not.”
The climate is warming but the temperatures are not. OMFG, is that the argument now?

Reply to  Neil
September 11, 2014 1:51 pm

Yes, read the Guardian. Global Warming now has nothing much to do with anything actually increasing in temperature….

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Neil
September 11, 2014 2:06 pm

From what post did this quote come?

Reply to  Neil
September 11, 2014 2:16 pm

“What’s firmly established is that the climate is warming, that the buildup of human-generated heat-trapping greenhouse gases is contributing substantially to the warming and that while the buildup of gases is steady, the rise in temperatures is not (steady).”
Does that make more sense?

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  SC-Slywolf
September 11, 2014 2:56 pm

No, it does not.
Since the science was settled thirty years ago and nobody said that — I conclude that warmists are just making stuff up as they go along. No rise in temperature as CO2 increases? NOT IMPORTANT!.
Now not even nature can falsify global warming.
You are like the nut cases who make demonstrative predictions about the coming end of the world. When it doesn’t happen such simply say they got the date wrong and move it forward in time.
Haven’t you notice how the disaster that global warming will bring keeps getting pushed off into the future? Wasn’t the disaster supposed to have happened twenty years ago?
At long last have you no shame?

Reply to  Neil
September 11, 2014 4:18 pm

What’s firmly established is that certain people are delusional and believe in magic. “…Heap big warmy…”

September 11, 2014 1:49 pm

There’s a worm at the bottom of the garden,
And his name is Wriggley Woo,
And he wriggles all night and he wiggles all day,
And the people next door they all do say,
“There’s a worm at the bottom of the garden” (etc. etc.)
The more they wriggle and squirm, the less plausible they appear.

Reply to  Admad
September 11, 2014 6:30 pm

Oh noes! It’s Global Worming!!!

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
September 22, 2014 1:20 am

That is a slogan used in ‘Worms’ the video game.

September 11, 2014 1:49 pm

I like the last one, ( #52, but we can expect more updates soon)
They finally admit it is “secular” ie a religious belief structure.

Russell Klier
September 11, 2014 1:50 pm

The models do not factor in any of these scientific papers that explain the pause. If only half of the excuses have some validity, no matter what goes into the model you get garbage out.

September 11, 2014 1:53 pm

“There in the back corner I have 52, any raise on 52? C’mon ladies and gentlemen this is a very fine example of a sure-fire income generator for all scruple challenged academics and journalists. One, if not THE most lucrative ever devised, surely I can see a bid of 53, Madam did you raise your hand?”

September 11, 2014 2:05 pm

The last two by Dressler? It really may literally be time for tar and feathers.
It is clearly the last grasp to salvage lost reputations. They deserve no more mercy than those who were degraded in the past for failure to toe the party line for the “cause”. Time for the trials to begin.

Reply to  eyesonu
September 11, 2014 2:13 pm

I should have written three rather than two in the post above. Lots of tar and feathers may be needed. Maybe a “shame” shirt to be worn until it warms for 15 years or more. Make that a tee shirt with no coat.

September 11, 2014 2:17 pm

I have heard of the ‘Pause that Refreshes’, but this global warming pause is getting ridiculous.
I think I will raise a bubbly to the pause.

September 11, 2014 2:22 pm

“In a few years, as we get to understand this [the ‘pause’] more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.” [Andrew Dessler]
What ever Andrew Dessler is on, I want some. Powerful stuff as it takes you to a different planet!

Alec aka Daffy Duck
September 11, 2014 2:24 pm

OT, but LOL!!
the folks at the White House are poking fun at conflicting climate science:
“In short, if you are someone who wants more or stronger ENSO events in the future, I have great news for you–research supports that. If you are someone who wants fewer or weaker ENSO events in the future, don’t worry–research supports that too.”

Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
September 11, 2014 2:51 pm

That was probably created by an unpaid intern. At least when he or she is let go, their standard of living will not be impacted. 🙂

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  Jeff-FL
September 11, 2014 6:20 pm

Oh no sir. That is what you call climate “disruption” in the ever changing vernacular. One disguise fits all.

September 11, 2014 2:35 pm

Dressler’s arguments are probably the most illogical and self-contradictory of the bunch.

Reply to  Col Mosby
September 11, 2014 3:40 pm

He is an Aggie, what do you expect?

Reply to  icecreamchuck
September 12, 2014 9:49 am

Careful…..lots of us are Aggies. We do allow a nutcase thru every so often however. An ‘equal opportunity ” thing.

September 11, 2014 2:42 pm

Just as well the science is settled, otherwise it might look like they’re all lost at sea.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 12, 2014 6:37 pm

or stuck in non-existent sea ice…..

Jim Clarke
September 11, 2014 2:45 pm

Several weeks ago in Parade Magazine, a little publication that comes in the Sunday paper in many US markets, the ‘Ask Marilyn’ column ran a question about calculators. (Mayilyn vos Savant is the magazines resident ‘genius’, boasting a very high I. Q. She uses her intelligence to answer everyday questions.) The question was this: “Do you think students should be allowed to use calculators when solving math problems?”
Her response: “Absolutely! Calculators don’t do your thinking for you. They just follow your instructions.”
I read that and realized that climate models are nothing more than elaborate calculators. They do not think for themselves, they just follow the instructions of the climate scientists who write them. They do not add any of their own understanding of climate while processing. They only do the calculations faster, allowing the writers to find out if their THOUGHTS are correct, sooner rather than later.
If the high school student in math class does not understand how to do the problem, the calculator will just get him to a wrong answer faster. The student won’t know that the answer is wrong until he checks it against the official answer list. Could you imagine a student arguing that his wrong answer must be right because he used the latest and greatest calculator to find it? Ridiculous. The results are wrong because the thinking that went into solving the problem was wrong, and the calculator had nothing to do with it.
In climate science, it does not matter how big and expensive the computer is. If the answer is wrong, the thinking that went into the model is wrong. No other explanation exists.
The main bit of ‘thinking’ in the climate models is the climate sensitivity to increasing CO2. This one function pretty much overrides every other function in the models. There is no amount of tweaking or rewriting of those minor functions that will make up for the current discrepancy between the models and reality. The error is obviously in the climate sensitivity function, and it is high time these climate modelers just admitted they were wrong.

Reply to  Jim Clarke
September 11, 2014 3:54 pm

I fear that Marilyn may be a warmist. Does anyone know for sure?

Reply to  Jim Clarke
September 11, 2014 4:29 pm

One of the first ‘Ask Marilyn’ columns asked, “Would finding a watch [e.g., on Mars] be proof of intelligent life?” She said it wouldn’t. So I really don’t care a whole lot about her opinions or her alleged IQ.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
September 12, 2014 9:50 am

she’s right. What provers/disproves is how it got there.

Reply to  Jim Clarke
September 20, 2014 11:08 am

Like I was told about computers back in the 80’s: C**p in = C**p out

September 11, 2014 2:46 pm

50-odd explanations for ‘settled science’? Laughable if it wasn’t so expensive.
cAGW is an evidence-free zone. Failed projections, failed predictions, failed everything.
Sack it off, and sack off the imbeciles who have promoted this utter scam.

September 11, 2014 2:50 pm

I actually don’t approve of the excuse tag line and as a scientific blog, I actually expect better from this website. They are hypothesis’s that have even been proven wrong or are still being validated or not…

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Mark
September 11, 2014 3:07 pm

Laughter is the best medicine to cure what ails these people. .

Mike Smith
Reply to  Mark
September 11, 2014 4:19 pm

I suppose a handful might be considered reasonable hypotheses or proposals. But the “excuse” monicker is appropriate to the majority.
#31 is perhaps closest to reality except that I’d view it as good luck rather than bad.
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”

Reply to  Mike Smith
September 12, 2014 4:59 am

I like #9, stadium waves.

Reply to  Mark
September 11, 2014 4:38 pm

Just because you haven’t smelled it yet, doesn’t mean it’s not fertilizer. But maybe alibi is a better word? Pretext is even better. Song-and-dance is hard to beat.

Reply to  Mark
September 11, 2014 4:48 pm

“Hypothesis’s”? Your displeasure at the tagline would count for more if you showed a little bit more competence at science speak. Otherwise I think your reaction proves the tagline well targeted. Cheers all.

Reply to  Mark
September 14, 2014 1:13 pm

Given that the AGW movement is some sort of mass hysteria, it’s impossible to cover it without getting into stuff like this.

September 11, 2014 2:54 pm

I notice the pause starts after 1998 and it is cooler than 1998. So, per that chart, there not only no pause but it is actually cooling. Why won’t anyone assert it is cooling?

richard verney
Reply to  Upbythebiglake
September 11, 2014 10:56 pm

Probably because it is not (yet) statistically significant. Within the margins of error, we do not know whether it is cooling, static or ever so slightly warming.
Perhaps in a few years time, the data instead of suggesting that there has been no warming for some 17 years 11 months, may show that it has been (slightly) cooling for say 20 years. Should that happen, then the warmists will be even more frantic.
Subject to adjustments, the data will show what the data will show.

Shawn from High River
September 11, 2014 3:05 pm

I personally think its important to show all the excuses for Global warming having stopped. I would also like to see a comprehensive list of every failed prediction ever put forth claiming CAGW gloom and doom. Then I would show every person I know how many times government funded scientists were WRONG. Ive yet to hear one climate scientist come out and admit he/she was wrong about anything ever. Only in this field of science can the person be wrong with every model they make,every prediction or projection and still have a job.

Kurt in Switzerland
September 11, 2014 3:09 pm

O/T NYT Dot Earth:
Mike Roddy reasserts his “class” by refusing to retract or apologise for his comments 4 y ago:
Scroll down to comment by Bob from Phila.
Should gain him some points with his tribe, I suppose.

September 11, 2014 3:11 pm

Global warming is in transition from a pseudo science to a religion. It has become a “spiritual” event that is independent of physical observations. It no longer matters if global temperatures are rising. It only matters that you believe in the proclamations of the holy climate models. To do otherwise is to commit blasphemy, which will get you excommunicated from most scientific organizations, universities, and newspaper forums.

Reply to  Louis
September 12, 2014 7:59 am

If you read the Niven and Barnes story “Descent Anansi”, you’ll see GW as a religion worked there, even as the glaciers bear down on LA…..Its a very funny book, but I hope not prescient.

September 11, 2014 3:19 pm

“skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.” [Andrew Dessler]”
No we’ve moved on to shooting down other bogus ideas that the CAGW scam is throwing up because thanks to M&M, Watts, et al we’ve won those arguments on solid technical grounds and you’ve given up and are in flail mode trying to keep the scam going.
If you wish to debate the hockey stick or the validity of the surface station record (and adjustments) there will be a long line to take you on.
Have a nice day Mr Dressler 🙂

September 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Well that’s a ’52 card pack’ without the Jokers.

Reply to  D.I.
September 11, 2014 4:07 pm

Oops,should read “Where are the Jokers”

Reply to  D.I.
September 11, 2014 4:31 pm

I thought it would stop at 26 excuses, since they are playing with half a deck.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  D.I.
September 11, 2014 4:39 pm

Wouldn’t that be the whole deck anyway?

Robert Grenville
September 11, 2014 3:52 pm

With pause excuses at 52 and rising, how many have to be right for the pause to be permanent? Glad we dumped our carbon tax!

Harry Newman
September 11, 2014 3:54 pm

While most of the focus is on “hiatus” the real explanation is in the base data. From many locations worldwide the unadulterated “un homogenized” temperature data can be seen to illustrate a reasonably steady or even declining temperature trend over the past 135 years or so. The process of homogenizing the temperature data to suit the climate models was always going to be exposed as a scam after 1998 when, with everyone watching, it became impossible to distort the daily temperature readings according to the normative requirements of the climate models. Thus, rather than hiatus, what is actually happening is the resumption of a long term temperature trend. The key to the scam was the scripture of “homogenization” where the same algorithms (gospels) were applied in innumerable weather/climate jurisdictions according to “worlds best practice” and the “faith” that the “science was settled” (the church of climate change). And to top it all off the specific applications of homogenization were peer reviewed around the club (church) of climate experts (clergy) to ensure that all the experts were reading from the same script. Thus, the homogenization scam/mistake took on a life of its own and reality was distorted. Bottom line; no hiatus, just good old unadulterated base data.

Reply to  Harry Newman
September 11, 2014 4:49 pm

You have it exactly right, especially when you add in the great die off and migration of the thermometers from the higher (drier altitudes). Also it is a regression to the mean.

Evan Jones
September 11, 2014 4:01 pm

skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick
I must have missed the memo.
and about the surface station record)
He thinks that, does he?

Reply to  Evan Jones
September 11, 2014 4:41 pm

Too bad, Evan. Your check from Big Oil was enclosed in that memo.

September 11, 2014 4:30 pm

I think that is really ingenious! With 52 reasons why the “pause” does not refute AGW how can we possibly suggest that it does?

September 11, 2014 4:32 pm

And “refute” means “prove wrong”. Politicians say they refute claims when they merely deny the claims, but that is because they cannot tell the difference their words and reality.

John Whitman
September 11, 2014 4:34 pm

It could be a revealing approach to put timestamps on when each of the 52 (and growing) excuses for the ‘pause’ was injected into the climate dialog. It might reveal an intellectual trend in excuses like: rational => semi-rational => irrational => random gibberish.
On another thought. We might see the evolution of the excuses toward the penultimate excuse for the ‘pause’. It would be the last excuse:

“ARGGGH . . . the pause is happening because GAIA hates all of us climate science activists / alarmists.”

: )

Mike Haseler
Reply to  John Whitman
September 12, 2014 1:17 am

The eco-fascists hate it when I say “Mother nature is on our side!”
Because they know its true!

Reply to  John Whitman
September 14, 2014 1:15 pm

No, it’s because the deity is testing the strength of our faith.

September 11, 2014 4:39 pm

The models are right; it is the inadequate data collection system that is wrong. Until we get a data collection system that properly reflects the Catastrophic nature of Anthropogenic Global Warming, we will just have to change the null hypothesis and operate solely on computer data generated by the models.

September 11, 2014 4:49 pm

Sooner than later the IPCC will write about the pause and ‘Act of God’ in the same sentence; then two sentences later, AGW becomes an Act of God Warming.
Ha ha.

john robertson
September 11, 2014 4:55 pm

I suspect it will exceed 101 by Christmas.
As will the sequel, 101 uses for an unemployable climatologist.

Reply to  john robertson
September 11, 2014 6:00 pm

Shouldn’t it top out at 97?

Reply to  john robertson
September 11, 2014 6:14 pm

Think of it this way John. Lots of physicists and numerical theorists are gainfully employed, and sought-after, by the High Frequency Traders (HFT or dark-pool traders). According to Andrew Cunigan, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, 5 Sep 14 (page C2):
“You can see the evidence of dark pool trading….you’ll see half the day’s trading volume occur in the last few seconds of trading.”
Imagine what a climatologist can do here with some hokey schtick AlGoreithms!
Sorry. Couldn’t resist…. 🙂

Bill Illis
September 11, 2014 4:57 pm

Let’s say the pause continues for another 5 years, do they give up?
I imagine someone asked the same question 5 years ago and nothing has happened.
I can’t imagine a day when they all get together and say we got this all wrong.
What is the “end game” in climate science?
Today, we see the WMO shouting that the southern Ozone hole is recovering finally as a result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But their own data shows that there is basically no change at all since the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 produced the latest downstep. Then they cite it was not expected to recover to 1980 levels until the mid-2100s. Programs and jobs protected, End game pushed out for decades.
The excuses are about pushing the end game out for decades. Forget about the excuses. They will never run out of them. Just call the assumptions in the science wrong. The end game has to come when temperatures are so far off the science’s assumptions that they are wrong. And that is already here now.

Reply to  Bill Illis
September 11, 2014 5:24 pm

Bill, I have a feeling it will always be hiding somewhere…the ‘science’ is so advanced we know it’s there, we just don’t know where

richard verney
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 11, 2014 11:08 pm

They may have to face this sooner than you think.
What about AR6?
What are they going to say when all models are outside the 95% confidence bands?
What are they going to say when the majority of recent papers on climate sensitivity suggest a sensitivity below 2, possibly even below 1.7?
AR5 sought to sweep these matters under the carpet, but atleast the models were still just within the 95% bounds although it was clear that they were tracking off. But since they still were within the 95% bounds, they thought that they did not need to address that. as regards climate sensitivity, there was no consensus. Some old timers could clong to hiigh sensitivity, but if the pause continues and if there are a plethora of papers betweeen 2014 and 2018 all suggesting that natural variability was under-assessed, that oceans played a larger role in the 1970s warming etc, and placing climate sensitivity in the 1.1 to 1.7 band, what then?
AR6 is looking difficult, at least without a super El Nino or a large volcanic eruption to cloud the issue. I bet that there are a lot of virgins being sacrificed towards one or other of those natural events, so as to allow the gravy train to continue for another decade..

September 11, 2014 5:22 pm

I’m sure someone has already said this….but what the heck
Since the pause is obviously extreme……..of course it was caused by global warming

September 11, 2014 5:26 pm

Paul Simon had 50 ways to leave your lover. Climate scientists have 52 ways to say they have no clue.

September 11, 2014 5:26 pm

So then, what we are seeing is a cooling trend since 2005, a statistical flat-lined global no warming 17yrs 11 month’s, and the excuses for the “pause” (soon to be “great pause” ) are becoming more obtuse and increasingly worded to be (in my opinion) deliberately difficult to comprehend. If we can’t be convinced with scare tactics , then we are bamboozled with pseudo science speak. The endless onslaught of climate porn has become ridiculous! The public knows at this point that vicious cold and snowy winters are not caused by hidden heat in the oceans, or CO2. The question becomes who is directing this whole fraud of science? Who benefits from the policies being foisted upon the average working human? Who funds or is responsible for allocating funding for all these climate science catastrophe peer review papers? I am watching for another hard winter coming and I am worried.

September 11, 2014 5:27 pm

Time to remind ourselves of the “Laws” of bad science as developed by the great Langmuir (as paraphrased by John Briggs):
1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.
Recognise anything?

Reply to  chriscafe
September 11, 2014 5:55 pm

You are right, “Climate Science’ is exactly like Homeopathy.

September 11, 2014 5:54 pm

…I don’t get #52. Secular warming? As opposed to, what, Islamic warming? Christian warming? Is this an actual term or just more nonsense?

James Strom
Reply to  LordCaledus
September 12, 2014 9:35 am

Definition 6: going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
As I recall, in this use it is contrasted with “cyclical”.

Reply to  James Strom
September 12, 2014 1:27 pm

Ah, alright. Thank you.

September 11, 2014 6:22 pm

36) The models really do explain the “pause”…
They do? Really? They really do??
Then they should just as easily be able to predict when the “pause” will end, and runaway global warming resumes.
Any takers? Just predict the month and year that global warming will ‘resume’.
Heck, just predict the year…

Reply to  dbstealey
September 11, 2014 6:29 pm


September 11, 2014 6:29 pm

Why isn’t this a reference page? Or is it and I haven’t found it??

September 11, 2014 7:02 pm

If you are a puppy, you don’t need an excuse for the paws. 🙂

Ken S
September 11, 2014 7:05 pm

I know of one that will most likely be added eventually.
“The heat is hiding somewhere back in 1998”

September 11, 2014 7:07 pm

Page 24,
” Near-zero
and even negative trends are com

mon for intervals of a decade or
less in the simulations, due to the
model’s internal climate variability.
The simulations rule out (at the
95% level) zero trends for intervals
of 15 yr or more, suggesting that
an observed absence of warming of
this duration is needed to create
a discrepancy with the expected
present-day warming rate. ”
Perhaps as the NOAA suggested back in 2008, the models are wrong.

September 11, 2014 7:07 pm

Well, if sanity returns, they have a pre-recorded response:

Tom in Florida
September 11, 2014 7:15 pm

Or obliquity is now less than 23.5 degrees and declining, albeit slowly. History shows rapid cooling from an interglacial once the conditions are right. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start moving to the tropics (but remember Florida is full so go somewhere else). Or it won’t really matter as Apophis will hit Earth in 2036 and do us all in anyway. Doomed if we do, doomed if we don’t.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 11, 2014 7:49 pm

I already did. My main goal now is not to be overrun by people moving south when it starts to get cold. I’d rather have an orderly process without war or chaos. Once there is war and chaos on a large scale, nobody is safe no matter how rich or clever. Something Al may have overlooked.
A push here and there could move that rock, pile or assortment of whatever to a more favorable place.

September 11, 2014 8:00 pm

I propose another one: My Dog Ate My Global Warming. The increased need for corn, the major component in cheap dog food I feed him, helps to keep that nasty and dangerous carbon out of the atmosphere. If I fed him eggplant, I’m sure the carbon imbalance would not point at him, but he would probably chew my face off while I am sleeping. His methane output might be less though, and that would be a really good thing. Not gonna chance it. So far he only stares at me while I am sleeping…….

Joel O'Bryan
September 11, 2014 9:19 pm

So I get the uneasy feeling that many clear-headed, honest climate scientists are secretly scared we are on the cusp of either a Dangaard-Oeschger Event or a Heinrich Event. Hopefully the former for mankind’s sake. But a Heinrich Event would clear out the riff-raff and only the hardy would survive.

September 11, 2014 9:28 pm

No. 51 is my favourite.
Could we please have a poll on this.

Mike Haseler
September 12, 2014 1:11 am

Just to address Andrew Dessler’s comment that skeptics are “moving on”.
Skeptics don’t “move on” – because real skeptics are never wrong – how can it be wrong to say “we must stick to what the evidence tells us”.
Instead, what actually happens is that the evidence amasses – almost invariably that shows the skeptics are right, sometimes, although sometimes we make an incremental change as we include the new evidence with the old.
So, skeptics almost never change their views, and if they do, they do so by small incremental changes.
What actually happens is that sooner or later the massing evidence forces the lunatic alarmists who’ve gone off on a tangent to the evidence, to change their views wholesale to fit in with that held by the skeptics.
So, when they finally agree with us that there is a pause, that climate has always varied, that the effect of CO2 is very small. They tell us “so you finally admit that it warmed before the pause, that the climate is changing and that CO2 has an effect”.
These people have one skill: to spin black as white, get caught lying, blame others who were right all along for their own follies and still come out with their jobs.

September 12, 2014 5:30 am

But it looks as though 2014 will be, by the surface stations, a record hot year. So we shouldn’t crow too unconditionally now. (It’ll probably cool sharply in following years.)

September 12, 2014 5:57 am

The fact that people would actually speak (or write) items 26, 35, and 45 actually gives me some hope that we’re dealing with something besides religious zealots on the warmist side. Unfortunately, it’ll still be the zealots preaching Doomsday the loudest, right up until their personal doomsday finally comes.

September 12, 2014 12:36 pm

Why isn’t “It’s Bush’s fault” on the list? He gets blamed for everything else anyway.

September 12, 2014 12:45 pm

I’m just disappointed that that old gem of “teleconnection” hasn’t shown up. Nothing like the instantaneous miraculous teleconnection of energy to the depths of the ocean all by drinking this fabulous wonderous tonniccccc!!!!
(Abe Simpson would be proud)

September 12, 2014 6:43 pm

This is hilarious! All of these excuses are desperate attempts by climate ahem, “scientists” to save their reputations.

Reply to  Flechette
September 12, 2014 10:35 pm

What reputations? They are now transforming into politicians. They are attempting to tell the lie long enough and loud enough, they think it may come true. Not much objectivity here, it’s certainly not like any other science man has ever known.

September 13, 2014 3:44 am
September 13, 2014 11:29 am

Dame Julia Slingo, (for twas she) in her lecture at the Institute of Physics (London UK – just) last week, vampishly ‘informed’ us that there was no real pause anyway because European summers had been getting warmer – so there!
Well, I know the EU pretends to be a ‘global power’ (has anyone noticed?), but claiming the only climate that matters is that over Europe is perhaps a tad rich?

September 15, 2014 1:15 am

Here is the 53rd reason, which should end this nonsense… nobody actually knows and the truth may not present itself for decades to come.

September 16, 2014 9:41 am

Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
Global warming scam artists like their excuses for the “pause” in warming…

September 20, 2014 6:48 am

I’m the Suspicious0bserver and I approve this article.

September 23, 2014 10:31 pm

This disorganized list is a lazy effort at misunderstanding, but misunderstanding is easy. Understanding is harder.

September 24, 2014 4:16 am
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights