Unscientific Americans


Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Our betters at the so-called “Scientific” American magazine have decided to lecture us unscientific Americans on what is real science. The occasion was a retweet by Representative Lamar Smith of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of a link to an article entitled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists” by my mad mate James Delingpole. The article opens by saying:

Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.

But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.

The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.

Now, for me that’s pretty weak tea. It’s made up of those ugly things called “facts”, not much to dispute. But boy, it got the members of the Committee into a royal snit. Fortunately, we have our betters at “Scientific” American to jump into the breach and save us from foolishness. They have published the “9 Best Reactions” to Delingpole’s article.

Now, in general “Scientific” American articles go unread and unnoticed  by me. They gave up on science years ago. But this one has a surprise in it. Among the “9 Best Reactions” is this one:

Peter Gleick 

This is fake news, bad science, and basically, crap, from the House Science committee.

gleickpic[1]

For those who have forgotten, Peter Gleick committed wire fraud and circulated forged documents in order to push his radical brand of climate alarmism, and was caught with his hand in the cookie jar up to his elbow. It was so bad he was forced to quit his job in disgrace. For more of the ugly story, see here.  And the best part? Among his other positions, at the time he was the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Scientific Integrity. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Needless to say, he had to quit that position as well) …

However, he never did say one word of contrition for his actions. And why should he? The rest of the craven see-no-evil section of the climate science establishment certainly did not do one thing to punish him for his shocking scientific malfeasance. He still gets invited to the conferences. And now, Scientific American is quoting him as though he were either an honest man or an honest scientist.

Peter Gleick is neither.

I do love that his wonderful scientific tweet, carefully selected by “Scientific” American, contains in it nothing scientific of any kind. No facts. No pointing out of errors. No claims of scientific inaccuracy. It is nothing but a rant about “fake news” … man, if there were ever someone you’d think could recognize fake news from across the street it would be the Prince of Scientific Forgers, Mister Peter “It’s real, honest it is” Gleick himself. But noooo … the news he thinks is fake is actually real, and vice versa. Shocking, I know …

What do we have to do to rid the climate science field of these crooks? Does it take an oak stake through the heart at the crossroads at midnight to keep people like Peter Gleick from springing to life again? In any other field, committing scientific forgery and mail fraud to advance your bogus scientific claims would get you laughed out of town, if not ridden out on a rail … but in climate “science” it gets you an honorable mention in “Scientific” American and an invite to chair an AGU session. Go figure.

Finally, if Peter Gleick’s meaningless rant is one of the 9 best responses to James Delingpole’s article, I’d say James won that battle hands down.

Anyhow, go Lamar! Their heads are exploding, keep up the tweeting!

And Peter Gleick … some of us haven’t forgotten what you did. You can run, but you can’t hide from your own past. Whenever you next choose to crawl out from under your rock, you can expect the spotlight of your past actions to shine on you once again.

Best to all,

w.

AS ALWAYS, I request that if you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH, so we can all be clear on the exact nature of your objection.

UPDATE by Anthony. Willis put this photo of Dr. Peter Gleick, posing as a windmill in his office, as “featured image” but it was cropped by the system. Here it is in full:

Advertisements

335 thoughts on “Unscientific Americans

    • He wasn’t prosecuted because of a combination of noble cause corruption, and the modern concept that feelings control, not the law. If he holds the right beliefs, then his actions do not matter.

      • As long as his actions agree with the objectives of the ‘aristocrats’ he has no fear of prosecution or other negative consequences. However, if those same aristocrats change their minds – LOOK OUT. Happened all the time in France in the 1500-1600s and is one of the reasons our constitution requires? equal treatment under the law.

      • Hillary wasn’t prosecuted because of a long list of others who also used their own mail systems. Since several were in the Bush “W” administration, the Republicans could not have that. Also, there is the fact that there were no laws clearly violated. There was policy, but the policy in a bureaucracy is set by the head of the department, who was whom? Oh, yes, Clinton. I got this directly from a DoS source, and since the source was responsible for computer security at locations over large chunks if the planet at various times and quite disgusted with the email mess, I believe them.

        The FBI told the truth – she may have been somewhat careless, but there was no demonstrable action or motive that could be shown to be criminal in nature or intent. Compared with Cheney outing Valerie Plame and placing every one she had contact with in potential mortal danger, a private mail server is pretty weak tea. Outing Plame really did violate law, yet Cheney was never prosecuted. The PTBs (read Left and Right) operate on a “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” or tit for tat principle. There is law in place now that would make the use of a private server illegal, but its use would be retroactive. Going after Clinton would lead to a vicious retaliation. There will be a reversal in public opinion and when will be dependent on just how draconian the new guys are. Ironically there are many more insecure Republicans in office now than there were before Trump won the election. So we might see a reaction in as few as two years.

        There is also the fact that any attempt to prosecute Clinton could lead to some embarrassing questions directed at the FBI. Their delayed release of the results of that “analysis” probably had a direct effect on the election. No competent computer geek would have needed a month to determine whether there was or wasn’t anything worth pursuing. Once the files were decrypted – and they weren’t at all strongly protected – it would have taken hours at the very most to run a key word search that flagged potentially incriminating emails. So the delay looks rather like the FBI was playing politics. As if it expects a freer rein under Trump. Think about that.

      • Duster, to access a government computer, you have to take a short course on computer security. That course in security does state that you can be prosecuted for not protecting “classified documents,” what do you think they prosecuted Petraeus on? Exactly the same thing. Clinton is said not to have taken the course, thus she isn’t prosecutable under that, but it is against the law to access federal computers without authorization, so she still broke the law. That is just basic federal statute applicable to all federal employees, and she took a salary, so she WAS a federal employee no matter what position she held. I’m tired of alibis for her.

      • @Duster: 18 US Code section 793, subsection F says:

        “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) _through gross negligence_ permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
        Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

        Comey said she was “extremely careless”, the legal term for which is “grossly negligent”.

        Thus, the whole “intent” argument is a straw man.

        It’s not the use of the sketchy server that’s the primary issue, it’s the extremely careless (i.e. grossly negligent) handling of classified information (which was unequivocally demonstrated to have happened) that is the crime.

        The reason it wasn’t prosecuted was that it would have implicated the president, who has been clearly demonstrated to have used a personal email account under a pseudonym to communicate with Clinton, thus himself violating this same law (anything written communication from the president is *automatically* considered classified).

  1. Gleick was subsequently rewarded for his crimes by National Geographic’s ScienceBlog subsidiary, where he’s now their resident “scientist, innovator, and communicator” on global water, environment, climate, identity theft, fraud, character assassination, and forgery.

      • Here’s my reply to Peter Gleick at ScienceBlogs.com (in moderation, probably bound for the bit bucket)

        —————–
        Wow, Peter Gleick, the infamous Heartland document thief, identity thief, and strategy memo forger, is still trying to lecture politicians, the public and the scientific community on scientific integrity. If I recall the facts of your Heartland theft, you felt comfortable lying and stealing, forging others words and pretty much any shameless deceit. Confirmation bias doesn’t even begin to cover what you did. You certainly succeeded in making a big media splash, but in a most embarrassing, ironic and Karmic way.

        If you didn’t know the meaning of integrity then, when consequences of your own actions were biting you on the ass, why should I assume you know anything more about it now? As far as I’m concerned, you are a big data point for my assertion that CAGW studies are mostly climate propaganda masquerading as science, intentionally designed to work backwards from your pre-determinded conclusion. You, Peter Gleick, have personally forfeited all your credibility by your own lies and wrongful, sometimes criminal actions. Your bona fides having anything to do with “integrity in science” are kaput. Until you show that you feel sincere remorse for your assaults on objectivity and truth, all your moral preening and planet saving will amount to nothing more than an insult to the thinking person’s intelligence.

        Hoping that scienceblogs has enough integrity to allow this through moderation.

    • Maybe SA is in need of some of Gleick’s skills in “identity theft, fraud, character assassination, and forgery.”?
      Has Petey boy been up to no good, again?
      This time at Scientific American’s request?

    • Dr Gleick,

      If you’re reading the comments of your haterz here (and I know it’s your job to do so, as a science communicator) please don’t let them get you down.

      Persecution forges character. Adversity is the forge of virtue. All you can do is forge on, forge on…

      … and never ever give into that voice telling you to reflect on your own words, deeds and artefacts. That’s the voice of remorse, and remorse is the midwife of regret, and regret is the obstetrician of weakness (who thinks the father is probably defeat, but wouldn’t swear on it).

      • Thanks DataTurk.

        Somewhere, deep in Science Hell, imps are being drilled on their anvil-pounding skills in anticipation of guest of honor Peter Gleick. Oh, the pounds I’d give to watch that California reamin’.

        Theologians are divided on the exact nature of the Forge du Diable , but perhaps the mortal mind can best visualize it as a sort of soundproof honeymoon suite where the only item of furniture is Michael Mann.

      • Brad, to quote the late Kenny Everett, or possibly Barry Humphreys (my memory is not what I seem to recall it used to be), “you are awful…. but I like you! ” :)

        Please keep on keeping on!

      • Hahaha! I’m going to have to remember that the next time I have to talk football (the rarely kicking kind) with Florida fans.

      • Brad, the khyber was a pass. So please “carry on up the khyber” as the wonderful film was named :)

      • > Brad, the khyber was a pass.

        Still is, last time I checked.

        Nowadays, of course, that whole region is too dangerous to risk the lives of infantry. So the imperialist superpowers are much more likely to Drone On Up The Khyber. Welcome to the age of khybernetic warfare.

      • Knowledge of British English and cockney rhyming slang may help with rhe above:
        Khyber pass = “arse”

      • Hey Brad! Ha! First good, deep, laugh of my morning! Thank you! And yes, that “forge on, forge on…” is brilliant!

      • Showing off one’s wit is one thing.

        Posting said wit in complex subterfuge confuses many persons; especially those who take people at their word.

        Since your comments are impenetrable wit, expect many of us to respond to word meanings actually written, not the meanings, you are keeping in your mind.

        Nor does deriding plain speaking and reading commenters help any discussion; posting links to other link comments is narcissistic thinking that people care to chase obscure links. It is so much easier just skipping past derailed discussion.

      • > Showing off one’s wit is one thing.

        Yes, it’s called Approval Seeking Syndrome.

        > Posting said wit in complex subterfuge …

        … is called modesty. Humility. Considerateness. Concern for those who might suffer permanent retinal damage if exposed to unfiltered brilliance.

        > your comments are impenetrable wit,

        Don’t sell your powers of penetration short. DataTurk, Jason Calley, JerOme, Nigel S, Jeff Alberts and many others in this thread alone have achieved full-thickness wit penetration. Are you lesser than them in some way, Ted? Who taught you to think so negatively?

        > Nor does deriding plain speaking and reading commenters help any discussion

        To any commenter whose as sfeels deridden (did you have anyone in mind?), I apologize.

    • Jer0me
      December 5, 2016 at 5:09 am

      Brad, to quote the late Kenny Everett, or possibly Barry Humphreys (my memory is not what I seem to recall it used to be), “you are awful…. but I like you! ” :)

      Jer0me it was Dick Emery (“Ooh Matron!”)

      • When I was a kid it was my inspiration, Martin Gardner, Forrest Mims, and the rest, … how the mighty have fallen.

        w.

      • W.E. – I used to live for each month’s “Amateur Scientist” section when I was a kid many years ago. Sad, the Germans ruined it, the Nat’l Geographic, and now the Economist when they bought them.

      • I mowed lawns to pay my subscription of SciAm when I was a kid, and I sawed plexi to make Martin Gardner’s non-transitive dice. When I was no longer a starving student it was always among my subscriptions, and was one of the monthly arrivals that was read on arrival day (or into the night).

        And then came CAGW — and the stories were all lectures, and the science just slid farther and farther from straight science towards Lamarkian drivel. I don’t even see how it could be repaired now. If I owned the magazine firing everybody but the IT guys (current version of the type setters) wold be a start, but I don’t know were to hire sane replacements.

        Science News (US weekly) still caries some stories that are NOT about the evils of CO2, but it has its slippage in progress.

      • Paul–it seems that all of the old tried and true science (popular) journals have slid down the same cagw slippery slope. Even the two archaeology magazines I take have to slip a climate change statement into articles–even those that don’t even relate.

      • Nick:
        You have a very odd notion of what very vague words mean; e.g. middle.

        Almost anyone understands that “middle” means between. If they meant explicitly “exact center”, They’d state so explicitly.

        Nick Stokes insistence that “Middle of the year” must mean some absurdity such as June 30, or June 21, or July 1, or whatever Nicks fevered mind decides.
        Why that is as absurd as when people state they’ll be home for Christmas, as believing that explicitly states they’ll arrive at home Dec. 25th at 12AM.

        Your argument about middle is obsessive Nick. Extremely obsessive.

        Hadcrut from Woodfortrees:
        2016.17 1.835 – March
        2016.25 1.514 – April
        2016.33 1.047 – May
        2016.42 1.065 – June
        2016.5 1.015 – July
        2016.58 1.165 – August
        2016.67 1.129 – September
        2016.75 0.808 – October

        Temperature drop from March through October: 1.027°C.
        (Which is technically an impossible accuracy or precision as surface station temperature inputs are subject to greater error ranges). Summing independent temperature sources and then averaging their total does not eliminate or reduce source input error rates.

        What is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person, according to current temperature representation during the “Middle of 2016”, i.e. between January 1st and December 31st, temperatures dropped by more than 1°C.

        When a person, such as Nick Stokes leaps into a conversation insisting:

        “Well, thank you, Brad. But I can’t see what your problem is. I queried Del’s claim that temperatures had dropped 1C from mid year. That claim was actually wrong. Quite wrong.
        And the issue isn’t trivial

        It becomes quickly apparent that Nick is focused on some personal concept that factually is trivial.

        Why Nick!?
        Such derailment of the topic is absolute subterfuge.
        Is it that you refuse to accept temperatures dropped this year over 1°C?
        Is it that Delingpole stated it his way?

        What exactly are you defending with this ‘dog chasing his tail’ circular argument?
        Are not the temperatures back into their normal ranges?

      • “Your argument about middle is obsessive Nick.”
        It’s not actually an argument about middle. It’s an argument about whether Delingpole is talking about descent from El Nino at all, or something else. He says that there is some dramatic event, over which “activists” are maintaining an “icy silence”. Well, there was no silence about the El Nino peak, nor about the expectation and fact of its transience.

        You might reflect that this story has been around for a while. If people really believed that it was true, there would be some clarity about when it actually happened, and what data set we are talking about. But there isn’t.

        In fact, the distraction is Willis trying to justify it by referring to Crutem 4. None of the promoters of the story, Rose, Delingpole, Smith, did that. Rose graphed (without stating) the deprecated RSS TLT V3.3, which showed a spectacular drop going from Sept to October (it later recovered somewhat). I don’t think Delingpole bothers about details of datasets at all, but that is what he was picking up. He really did mean mid-year. And it was the cherry picking of this dataset (which comes with a reliability warning) which caused the protests.

    • Nick Stokes December 4, 2016 at 11:46 pm Edit

      Willis,
      Do you actually think that
      “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year”

      Well, CRUTEM4 certainly says so … not sure what your problem is.

      w.

      • Willis,
        Well, Crutem 4 was 1.057°C in May, 1.07 in June, rose to 1.169 in Aug, and then 0.802 in October. No 1°C drop since mid-year. And 0.802 is not cold.

        Now yes, it did drop about 1°C from the peak in Feb to May. That was well remarked at the time. But Delingpole seems to think there is someone who should be hollering about it now.

      • Nick Stokes December 5, 2016 at 12:27 am

        Willis,
        Well, Crutem 4 was 1.057°C in May, 1.07 in June, rose to 1.169 in Aug, and then 0.802 in October. No 1°C drop since mid-year. And 0.802 is not cold.

        Now yes, it did drop about 1°C from the peak in Feb to May. That was well remarked at the time. But Delingpole seems to think there is someone who should be hollering about it now.

        That’s your complaint? That yes, it did drop, and yes, it was the biggest drop in the record … but it dropped from earlier in the year and not “midyear”?

        Nick, sometimes you totally crack me up. You are crackerjack smart, with a lethal flaw—you are so desperate to never, ever be proven wrong that you tie yourself in knots trying to avoid ever admitting even the tiniest error. It’s hilarious watching you do it.

        But heck, I’ll play your game. In fact, CRUTEM shows that in April (which you cleverly omitted) it was 1.514, and in October, 0.802. That’s 0.71 degrees. So if we’re only looking for a half degree drop, that would put it from about the start of May … and May, my friend, is certainly part of “midyear”.

        Don’t bother trying to defend your position about February or trying to convince us why it’s totally reasonable that you left the April data out of your “exposition”. Not interested. People see what you’re doing.

        w.

      • Willis, your impressions of Nick have occurred to me also:

        You are crackerjack smart, with a lethal flaw—you are so desperate to never, ever be proven wrong that you tie yourself in knots trying to avoid ever admitting even the tiniest error.

        Lethal indeed. Because it’s anti-scientific. Scientists want to be right; non-scientists want to have been right.

        Far be it from me to Godlose the argument by going all Nurembergy, but your analysis of Nick’s problem rings an obvious bell:

        His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy…

        And no, I’m not suggesting the mid-20C-historical parallels go any deeper than that. Nick’s not quite that bad!

      • “Nick’s not quite that bad!”
        Well, thank you, Brad. But I can’t see what your problem is. I queried Del’s claim that temperatures had dropped 1C from mid year. That claim was actually wrong. Quite wrong.

        And the issue isn’t trivial, as Willis has it. Journalists are actually supposed to get that kind of thing right. Willis claims that there is just a minor issue of timing. But it isn’t that. The drop actually occurred Feb-May. It was the expected drop following a similar rise, to the ENSO peak, and much discussed at the time.. But here is Delingpole claiming there was another drop, from mid-year, and activists are maintaining an “icy silence” about it. That is clearly claiming that something new has happened. It’s not just a slip in timing.

        And BTW, thinking one is right is not an unusual characteristic at this site.

      • Nick,

        “Thinking one is right” is logically inescapable. If I thought I was wrong to think your comeback was persuasive, I’d ipso facto think your comeback was unpersuasive, which I think I’d be right in thinking.

      • Willis,

        We should be okay with Nick, he’s straight. Sure, he points out when sceptical comments are over-the-top and I’ve a lot of sympathy for that. Delingpole is good, and entertaining, but he can’t be accused of presenting stuff in a measured way, even though he may be narrowly right.. We on the sceptical side have enough going for us to present our case in a measured, understated way, with due regard to confounding factors – as you yourself usually do. At least, that’s what I would like to see. The smallest exaggeration, or selectivity in evidence, is not the way to gain the respect of those who disagree with you, and gives ample excuse for them to ignore or marginalise you in the future.

        And we really have got to get away from this jumping on short-term events and parading them as evidence. I know both sides do it . It gets warm.. the warmists rejoice… it gets cold.. the sceptics say ‘so there!’ Right now, the arctic is warm .. flagged up by the establishment, largely unmentioned by the sceptics. And northern Europe is cold .. talked about on contrarian sites, ignored by the establishment. Actually, the cold centre is shifted down a bit from the pole, and none of it is in any way remarkable. Crazy stuff, and a turnoff for many..

      • Nick,

        > Journalists are actually supposed to get that kind of thing right.

        So they don’t get the Al Gore Free Pass (“It’s OK for him to mangle fact after fact in an astronomically-fortunate string of self-serving errors in a DVD my kids have to watch at school, because He’s Not A Scientist”) is your position here?

        Aren’t you making unreasonable demands on an Interpreter of Interpretations ;-) ?

        Does Al Gore get the Al Gore Free Pass with you, out of curiosity?

      • mothcatcher,

        > We should be okay with Nick, he’s straight.

        I’m OK with that. As long as he stays honest, defends his views with arguments, and keeps coming back (into hostile territory) for more, he deserves more props than 99% of folk.

      • “Nick Stokes December 5, 2016 at 2:55 am

        The drop actually occurred Feb-May. It was the expected drop following a similar rise, to the ENSO peak, and much discussed at the time. ”

        ‘Mid-year’ is not an exact month or date. There’s no reason February can’t be called ‘mid-year.’ But if you are going to pick nits here, I don’t remember a single mainstream media press release about it, so ‘much discussed’ by you is a worse misstatement than ‘mid-year.’

      • “Now yes, it did drop about 1°C from the peak in Feb to May.”

        So James Delingpole’s claim was correct. It seems like the “fake news” is being put out by Scientific American and every other alarmist who has challenged this article. They are wrong and James Delingpole is right.

      • Nick wrote,
        “Now yes, it did drop about 1°C from the peak in Feb to May.”

        Sooo, southern hemisphere (mostly water so presumably less variation) summer-to-fall cooling overwhelmed northern hemisphere (more land, greater temp swings surely?) winter-to-spring warming? By a whole C degree? Holy crap!

        And if this dataset only represents the northern hemisphere, then I’m even more impressed.

    • Nick,

      What makes you think they haven’t?

      Most of the land is in the NH, which was hot in the middle of this year and is now frigid where I live.

      Land in the SH, by contrast, is either cold all the time in Antarctica, or about the same temperature all the time, in the tropics, or, in the small temperate zone portion of that hemisphere, far more temperate than in the NH, where there is much more land in those latitudes.

      • Chimp:
        While Nick flails and flounders over his, apparently intentional misrepresentations; one think Nick is not, and that is GIGO.

        Nick’s numbers are usually flawless.

        It is Nick’s representations that are questionable.
        e.g. “Middle of the year” is not June 30th; it is anywhere between January 1st and December 31st.
        Nick is trying to persuade us, along with deriding WUWT and our commenters, that his obsessional view of ‘middle’ is some absolute meaning; unfortunately, that only Nick knows.

        Place faith in Nick’s numbers, take Nick’s words with a large dose of salt.

      • My bad typing: “one think Nick is not” should be “one thing Nick is not”

        Catching Nick with numerical errors is as unusual as catching Leif, Bob Tisdale, Steve McIntyre or Willis with errors in their numerical numbers. Unlike the others, Nick’s meanings lack clarity, and perhaps honesty.

    • RSS land only, says -1.17C since the peak of the El Nino.

      And UAH Australia has a drop of 1.21C since May.. you live in Australia don’t you.

      Live with it, Nick.

    • *Global land temperatures plummeted by one degree Celsius in the midst of the year” or the like, would have been a bit less . . crunchy, it seems to me.

      • Yes, but it wasn’t what they meant. The El Nino spike was over by May. Why try to make an issue of the decline part of it now?

        What David Rose was really on about was a drop in RSS V3.3 (warning attached) land only going from Sept to Oct. He confused it by not declaring the dataset. That is why Del is talking about mid-year. That is what “activists” are supposed to be maintaining an “icy silence” about.

      • Nick,

        Would it be fair to say you are hoping temps continue to fall, for a while, such that the worst case AGW scenarios can be conscientiously “shelved” by you?

      • John K,
        My view is simply that scientists since Arrhenius are right. Putting CO2 in the air will retain heat. I don’t have a strong view on whether some degree of warming is good or bad, but it’s clear that unless something is done, a huge amount of C will be burnt, and the warming will not be small. Rather, in fact, unsustainable.

        I actually don’t think the local variation matters much. The long term trend is clear. But I’m happy to try to get right what the short term variations actually are, for those who think it is important.

      • Nick Stokes: “it’s clear that unless something is done, a huge amount of C will be burnt, and the warming will not be small”

        No, that is not clear at all.

        You are clearly unaware (or not acknowledging) further work on absorption of IR by Knut Ångström (or rather, his assistant Koch) demonstrating the saturation at much lower levels than Arrhenius’ experiment.

        It is highly probable that even at the current concentration of CO2 further doubling will be unlikely to cause an increase in excess of one degree centigrade.

        I suggest you look up the meaning of ‘logarithmic’, as you seem to have forgotten it.

        And while you’re at it, look up ‘asymptotic’ too.

      • Cat,
        “You are clearly unaware”
        I am aware of Ångström, early work, which held sway for many years, but was disproved by work by Plass and others in the 1950s, when better spectral properties became available.

        I am also well aware of the logarithmic behaviour, which is why sensitivity is expressed in terms of change per doubling. But there may be more than one or even two doublings.

        I should add that I think there is another, rarely stated argument against saturation. It isn’t simply a matter of blocking. The GHE happens because the atmosphere radiates in the absorbed bands, but at higher altitude with more GHG. Higher means colder, which means less upward IR in those bands. That means that Other bands which radiate from surface (window) have to radiate more – ie from a warmer surface. This isn’t affected by saturation. The CO2 bands are currently emitting as if 230K BB. That will be reduced.

    • Why?

      Document authenticity expert and water scientist Peter Gleick—famous for his instrumental role in the so-called WaterGate scandal that exposed Heartland’s little-known doubts about the whole CAGW thing—is probably more qualified than anyone (who’s not on the Onion payroll) to know fakeness when he sees it, and to fake seeing it when he doesn’t.

      • steveta_uk,

        The Heartland documents were authentic, as Gleick repeatedly explained! I even asked him on twitter, a number of times: Dr Gleick, that wasn’t just a weasel-worded way of saying the documents you got from HI were from HI, though you also circulated some documents that weren’t from HI, was it? And not ONCE has he dignified my question with an answer. Which, to me, just goes to show how far beneath his contempt such an alleged misdeed would be, and why I should probably stop asking him at some point.

        In my coverage of this tragic figure’s downfall in the Homeric history of the Climate Wars, I pay tribute to Gleick thusly:

        2012
        Knowing the HI “Strategy Document” could define his legacy, Peter Gleick wrestles for days with questions of legality, morality and font size.

        Gleick, a McArthur Genius, sacrifices his career to publicise Heartland’s climate agenda, saving the think-tank $34,000 in communication costs.

    • The statute of limitations already applies and it would be pointless. All the ancillary digital forensic evidence has long since been spoliated.

  2. Adam Sobel of Columbia University states that :
    “The articles “grossly misinterpret” a few accurate details, for instance that El Niño and La Niña systems play a large role in single-year fluctuations. “The temperature goes up for a couple of years and we have the largest year on record, then it goes down and it reaches a level that’s still well above 20th-century historical averages,” he said. “That in no way disproves anything about the causes of the long-term temperature trends.”

    So if the temperature remains substantially above normal, it is honest and accurate to say that temperatures have plummeted? Ir is it more accurate to say the rate of warming has reduced? I would never accept anything as true without having checked if it originated with the Daily Mail of Breibart news. Both have an appalling reputation for their propagation of false news stories.

    In addition, I must admit I find it hard to believe that anyone can really claim that :
    “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year”

      • Gareth, the global land temperature indices really have come down that much, as the very strong El Niño ended.

        If climate alarmists hadn’t harped incessantly on how terrifyingly hot it was becoming due to global warming, when the actual cause of the temperature spike was just a transient El Niño, then they could reasonably complain about Delingpole’s article. But that’s hypothetical, of course.

        The truth is that the El Niño is the only reason anyone can even claim that The Pause has ended, and it is just about guaranteed that 2017 and 2018 will be cooler than 2015 and 2016.

      • Garett, I think maybe you are on your last legs? Your lack of any cohesive logic has been evident for years. Give it up and crawl back into your cave.

      • Sounds Brad is still labouring away with his limited cognition. Unable to make a constructive comment so he hurls insults. medication may help, but developmental problems are notoriously difficult to address.

      • Gareth: Actually, I’m using an Microsoft keyboard on my Mac. It’s a little trickier to adjust to, but it works. It’s a USB keyboard and the Mac recognized it right away.

      • Gareth, for you to complain about someone else not presenting data and not being coherent is rich beyond measure.

    • Gareth Phillips December 5, 2016 at 12:05 am

      Adam Sobel of Columbia University states that :

      “The articles “grossly misinterpret” a few accurate details, for instance that El Niño and La Niña systems play a large role in single-year fluctuations. “The temperature goes up for a couple of years and we have the largest year on record, then it goes down and it reaches a level that’s still well above 20th-century historical averages,” he said. “That in no way disproves anything about the causes of the long-term temperature trends.”

      Yes, and the article states:

      The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.

      So it is unclear what Dr. Sobel is complaining about. In particular, he seems to think that the article said something wildly incorrect about the “causes of the long-term temperature trends” … but since he didn’t quote whatever he’s objecting to, and since the article says nothing at all about “temperature trends”, neither long-term or short-term, I have to conclude that Dr. Sobel is making things up out of the whole cloth. Bad scientist, no cookies.

      So if the temperature remains substantially above normal, it is honest and accurate to say that temperatures have plummeted?

      Well, yes, if they’ve plummeted it is honest and accurate to say “temperatures have plummeted”. If you fall from the top of a mountain you’ve still fallen, even you might not have ended up in the Grand Canyon …

      Ir is it more accurate to say the rate of warming has reduced?

      Why? It’s the largest drop in the satellite record. Why is “plummeted” not accurate?

      I would never accept anything as true without having checked if it originated with the Daily Mail of Breibart news. Both have an appalling reputation for their propagation of false news stories.

      And despite that, it appears you haven’t checked anything … you won’t believe Breitbart, so instead, you’ve believed RUMORS about Breitbart without checking the rumors out.

      In addition, I must admit I find it hard to believe that anyone can really claim that :
      “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year”

      So without checking as you said you’d do, you now claim that Brietbart is wrong about the temperature. Why? Because you find it “hard to believe” … that’s what passes for science on your planet?

      Bad news for you, my friend. CRUTEM, the Hadley Center measure of global land temperatures, looks like this:

      My suggestion, which you are free to ignore, is that next time, don’t just CLAIM that you would check some article—actually check it before you uncap your electronic pen …

      w.

      • Land temperatures from the NCDC under GHCN-M are down 1.6C since the peak in March 2016. It was down 0.5C in October alone.

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/all/10/1880-2016

        Now how it got to 2.36C in March is probably a story of its own involving much adjustment but yeah, there was an El Niño which peaked in November 2015 and global land temperatures normally lag behind the ENSO by 3 months so this was completely expected. There was no way it was really 2.36C in March with real temperatures.

        It was down to 0.76C in October 2016.

      • Willis, quote what I say, not what you believe i said.

        As for Breibart news being a reliable source of information, do you really believe that? Have ever checked how reliable this far right muck raking propaganda site is? This is the site which promoted the hoax of a pedophilia ring based in Pizza store which almost got innocent people killed. Even Marco Rubio thought it was an unreliable source of information. So please don’t claim I am wrong without checking what I said, and don’t use CAPITALS , it make you seem as if you are shouting and sound like a plonker.

        So lets try a few examples of how your ‘plummeting would looking in alternate contexts.

        If a company was losing 100 million pounds a month, which reduced to 20 million, you would see it as a great opportunity to invest, especially if the Daily Mail and Breibart news advised you to do so? Would you say they have done amazingly well this year, despite continuing to haemorrhage money?

        You decline to describe this fall in the rate of warming as such, and cling to the idea that global temperatures have plummeted, despite still being above normal. If it were a patient with a pyrexia of 40c which reduced to 38c, would you say the patients temperature had plummeted, or would you say there was still cause for concern ?

        You even state:
        “Why? It’s the largest drop in the satellite record. Why is “plummeted” not accurate?”
        Because temperatures have remained high. If you fell into the grand canyon and hit a safety net after 25 feet, you have not plummeted into the canyon.

        When you avoid acknowledging that global temperatures remain above average with a trend that shows no sign of changing you undermine yourself and bring the site into disrepute.
        I reiterate, I find it hard to believe that anyone can honestly claim that temperatures have “plummeted ‘ since the beginning of the year” If you are still convinced they have, maybe you will join with me in pointing out that Arctic temperatures have ‘Rocketed” in the last few months.

        You can do better Willis, I’ve occasionally seen it.

      • Gareth Phillips December 5, 2016 at 3:13 am

        … cling to the idea that global temperatures have plummeted, despite still being above normal.

        Googling ‘plummet’ gives:

        plum·met/ˈpləmət/
        verb

        fall or drop straight down at high speed.

        Some definitions say that the plummet starts from a high place.

        No definition that I have seen describes the end point of a plummet. There’s no requirement that a plummet ends up crashing into the ground. Demanding that this particular plummet ends up below normal is just plain illiterate.

      • who cares about Breitbart ? TANSTA reliable source of information, you’d better not trust anything but crosschecked and acknowledged by most. Breitbard or any other (including WUWT) will just let you know something happened, worthy of interested … or not: you have to check yourself.

        The point you miss, Gareth Phillips, is :
        Somehow, a “hottest year ever” and “steepest rise in years” would be relevant, but “steepest declined ever” would be irrelevant? Come on …

        Back to basic

        begin
        repeat
        if any_bad_event() or any_sign_of_warming ()
        then blame_CAGW()
        else discard()
        until end of time
        end

        discard()
        begin
        if true then return irrelevant
        if arguable then false
        if false then return false
        end

      • Gareth: As for your investment question, if the company is now is losing only 20 million per month due to restructuring and better business practices, it might be a good investment. You’d need to look at the whole picture. Cutting 80 million pounds a month in losses is a quite remarkable feat. (People think Tesla is a good investment, even though they rarely make a profit.)

        I would agree that “plummeted” is probably not correct, but then again, as paqyfelyc pointed out “hottest year ever” for a tenth of a degree difference in the average is really pretty much a deliberate misrepresentation.

        Reading only one or two news sources always is biased. There are no ‘fair and balanced” news sources. Human beings with agendas decide what news gets included. Start with one source, then research several more before you decide. I’m assuming you read at least five or six sources and you are careful to research before believing anything, not just going with the Left-wing media sources.

      • “No definition that I have seen describes the end point of a plummet. There’s no requirement that a plummet ends up crashing into the ground. Demanding that this particular plummet ends up below normal is just plain illiterate.”

        Well done, golf clap!

      • Gareth Phillips December 5, 2016 at 3:13 am

        Willis, quote what I say, not what you believe i said.

        As far as I know I have quoted every word of yours I’ve disagreed with. It’s hilarious that you attack that without a quote of wherever it is you think I’m wrong …

        As for Breibart news being a reliable source of information, do you really believe that?

        What I believe is that until you quote whatever I actually said about Breitbart and until you stop whining about what you THINK I said about Breitbart, I’m not interested in the slightest. Is there some part of QUOTE THE WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH that is beyond your comprehension?

        Sheesh … get with the picture or go back to lurking, Gareth. I NEVER said that Breitbart was a “reliable source of information”, that’s your sick fantasy.

        w.

      • I thought the la Nina wasn’t officially declared yet. Also, if the el Nino gets us to a record high where do they get off disparaging a LA Nina as a temporary phenomenon? Fantastic hipocrasy is hard to get used to. You have to hope these cretins aren’t raising kids!

      • Excellent response, Willis! However, unfortunately, Breitbart is not what it used to be.

        When Andrew Breitbart was in charge, Breitbart.com was a trustworthy source of information, but that is no longer so.

        Some of their material is still good, but you can no longer count on it. Steve Bannon has pretty much destroyed the proud legacy of Andrew Breitbart.

        I miss Andrew Breitbart. He was a man of integrity. Unfortunately, the people who inherited his site are not people of integrity. They lie, a lot.

        They aren’t as dishonest as Peter Gleick, of course, but they’re still untrustworthy. Here are two examples.

        The first example was their story about the changed high school graduation requirements in California. Breitbart reported that, “California… Students Won’t Have to Pass High School to Receive Diploma.”

        That is not true. California students still have to pass their classes to receive diplomas. All the bill does is abolish the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).

        Here’s some more info:
        http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/cahseesuspendfaq.asp

        Here’s the actual bill:
        https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB172

        Unfortunately, such misinformation has become a pattern at Breitbart, these days. Another example was their false story saying that California’s AB-1461 is a law “allowing illegal immigrants to vote.”

        Their original headline was, “Jerry Brown Signs Bill Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Vote.” (They later changed it to, “Jerry Brown Signs Bill That Could Let Illegal Aliens Vote,” but they never ran a Correction notice.)

        The first version of the story reported that, “California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the New Motor Voter Act, which permits anyone with a driver’s license, even illegal immigrants, to vote.” (They later changed it to “…the New Motor Voter Act, which will automatically register people to vote through the DMV, and could result in illegal aliens voting.”)

        The first version was blatant lies. The revised version was merely very misleading. Neither version would have run if Andrew Breitbart were still alive.

        The truth is that. although AB-1461 might make voter fraud detection and enforcement more difficult, it does not change Section 2101 of the California Election Code, which reads:

        “2101. A person entitled to register to vote shall be a United States citizen, a resident of California, not in prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18 years of age at the time of the next election.”

        That section, limiting voter eligibility to U.S. citizens, is explicitly referenced in AB-1461, where it says:

        “…unless any of the following conditions is satisfied: …
        (2) The person’s records, as described in Section 2263, do not reflect that he or she has attested to meeting all voter eligibility requirements specified in Section 2101.”

        Since 2013, California has been issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, as the LA Times has reported. However, those drivers licenses are different from regular drivers licenses, and people who obtain those special drivers licenses are not offered the opportunity to register to vote.

      • daveburton December 5, 2016 at 10:17 am Edit

        Excellent response, Willis! However, unfortunately, Breitbart is not what it used to be.

        When Andrew Breitbart was in charge, Breitbart.com was a trustworthy source of information, but that is no longer so.

        Some of their material is still good, but you can no longer count on it. Steve Bannon has pretty much destroyed the proud legacy of Andrew Breitbart.

        I miss Andrew Breitbart. He was a man of integrity. Unfortunately, the people who inherited his site are not people of integrity. They lie, a lot.

        They aren’t as dishonest as Peter Gleick, of course, but they’re still untrustworthy. Here are two examples.

        The first example was their story about the changed high school graduation requirements in California. Breitbart reported that, “California… Students Won’t Have to Pass High School to Receive Diploma.”

        That is not true. California students still have to pass their classes to receive diplomas. All the bill does is abolish the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).

        You are busting them on account of their HEADLINES? Dear heavens, Dave, read the story. Here’s the sum total of everything it said:

        SB 172: High school seniors will receive their diploma whether or not they pass or even take an exit exam; the law also applies retroactively to students who have graduated since 2004;

        As near as I can tell, that statement is absolutely true and factual, and it is the only thing they said about the bill. Not only that, but unlike many media sources, they put in a link to the actual bill itself so if people had questions they could read the actual document.

        This is somehow “fake news” to you? POINT ME TO ONE UNTRUE THING IN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL!!!

        Dave, I’m sorry, but that is the most pathetic excuse for a claim of fake news I’ve ever seen. If that is a part of your evidence for calling them liars, my opinion of your opinion just “plunged” …

        w.

      • Gareth–you say “When you avoid acknowledging that global temperatures remain above average with a trend that shows no sign of changing you undermine yourself and bring the site into disrepute.” I’m curious as to just how that average is determined??? Is it the average for the entire 4+ billion years the planet has been flying through space, or just the average of a much shorter, selected time frame???

      • Why is it acceptable & rarely disputed when MSM claim ‘temperatures soar’ on their way to a peak, yet apparently indefensible to claim they plummet off that peak?

      • Willis asked, “You are busting them on account of their HEADLINES? Dear heavens, Dave, read the story.”

        Yes. I hold them responsible for their headlines as well as their stories.

        A lie is a lie, whether shouted or whispered.

        Lies in the headlines are at least as bad as lies in the stories — maybe even worse, since headlines are read more than the stories. For instance, if you browse this page, all you’ll see is the headline: “California Laws: On January 1st, Students Won’t Have to Pass High School to Receive Diploma”

        Willis also wrote, “Here’s the sum total of everything it said…”

        They tricked you, Willis. That is actually not everything they wrote. It is what’s on the site now, but they’ve had at least two (maybe more) versions of that story.

        One of the versions had a headline and subheading, both of which were plain lies:

        California Laws: On January 1st, Students Won’t Have to Pass High School to Receive Diploma
        New Laws in California Include No Passing Necessary to Receive High School Diploma

        Unfortunately, I can’t find that version, anymore, though I found a site that quoted the headline and subheading, and linked to the story.

        The other example I gave, “California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the New Motor Voter Act, which permits anyone with a driver’s license, even illegal immigrants, to vote,” was obviously also a plain lie.

        Q: What do you call someone who only lies occasionally, or only in headlines, or only with deceptive photos?

        A: A liar.

        Now, I understand that every news source makes mistakes. An honest mistake is not a lie. But what distinguishes the trustworthy ones from the untrustworthy ones are:

        1. They really do try to not mislead.

        2. When they make a mistake, they forthrightly acknowledge it and issue a formal Correction.

        Breitbart (post-Andrew) fails both tests. They frequently exaggerate, they occasionally fabricate, and, as far as I can tell, they never issue corrections acknowledging their own errors (even though they hypocritically delight in highlighting the errors and corrections of other publications).

        “If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”
        – unknown (related by WUWT reader Andre Bijkerk)

        “Falsehood is never so false as when it is very nearly true.”
        – Gilbert K. Chesterton

        “The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted”
        – Greg Christoph Lichtenberg

        I just visited Breitbart’s site, to see what’s on there now. As usual, it’s a mix. Here is one of today’s stories:

        Man with Bionic Penis Reportedly Flooded with Sex Offers.

        That story might be true (who knows?), but it’s obviously puerile, salacious click-bait. How is it different from the drek that runs in supermarket tabloids? Does it sound like a story that Andrew Breitbart would have run?

        The decline of Breitbart is very sad. They used to be much, much better… kinda like Scientific American.

      • Correction to the comment I just posted which is “awaiting moderation” — sorry, I botched the formatting again: the last two paragraphs should have been outside the block-quote.

      • Gareth–you say “When you avoid acknowledging that global temperatures remain above average”

        Global average temperature is a statistical fantasy. It has no physical meaning (look up intensive properties).

    • Very telling that you only give two “right wing” media sources as unreliable and propagating false news stories…

      Are you sure you cannot name one or two “lefft wing” publications?

      • Because it was the two right wing sources who promoted the story, I did not find unbiased news sources that gave it any credence. Maybe the Daily Torygraph was also involved? It’s a right wing biased news source, but rather more reliable that the Mail or Breibart news. Apparently Willis’s mate writes for them.

      • Gareth; Breitbart is news AND opinion. Delingpole falls more into the opinion section. His language and writing style should certainly make that clear.

        A trend line is not a psychic prediction of the future. It’s not any prediction at all. It’s a statistic. Trend lines can dive down or shoot up (remember that hockey stick thing? Very sudden increase beyond where the trend line was originally going? Was that a problem too?) at any time. They do not define reality.

        I have multiple cherry pie recipes for people who love that term. Any choosing of data is “cherry-picking”. Someone decides the criteria, based on their own prejudices and beliefs. Unless every single piece of data is included, it was “cherry-picked”. Some data groups are adjusted and picked more than others.

    • I thought you may all like to see what your er…….. plummeting temperatures’ look like in terms of the record and longer term trend. Huge drop eh! Well be fleeing glaciers before we know it !
      I know that no-one likes to be mistaken ( including me) , however sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming you cannot ignore it. When I first joined this site over ten years ago I was a sceptic. But the evidence just grew and grew, and after reading some of Moncktons daft statements I changed my mind. I was wrong in my sceptism. Remember ‘the pause’ which many excitedly thought was the end of warming? the rebound of sea ice? and a host of other wishful thinking that was just that, wishful thinking.
      If you want to see plunging temperatures, Siberia has had a rough time lately, but don’t kid yourself that temperatures have plummeted on a global basis because they have not, they have just dropped back a degree or so which has slowed the rate of warming. Of you drive at 70 mph, and slow down to 60 mph, your speed has slowed, but you are still speeding along, and to say your speed has plummeted is a misuse of English

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/dec/05/fake-news-tries-to-blame-human-caused-global-warming-on-el-nino#img-2

      • Just a footnote which is also very revealing about ‘The Plummet” Taken from an article in the Grauniad.

        “First, the “plummet” they cite is not in global temperatures on the surface where we live, and where temperatures are easiest to measure accurately, but rather in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower atmosphere above the portions of Earth’s surface covered by land masses. Second, although the satellite data extend as far back as 1979, and the global surface temperature data to 1880, they cherry pick the data by only showing the portion since 1997. Third, the argument is based entirely upon one relatively cool month (October 2016) that was only cool in that particularly cherry-picked data set.”

      • ok, so let’s sum up this quite long quote from Grauniad :

        1) i never took your kettle
        2) when i took it, it already was broken
        3) someone else, not I, broke the kettle
        4) I gave the kettle back to you in perfect state

        Does James Delingpole “cherry pick the data ” ? yes he does … he does, because he CAN, because there is no contradicting data before 1979 /1997. Which is exactly the the deeds of ALL so-called “climate scientists”.
        Does James Delingpole misleads people ? no he doesn’t. He correctly attributes the plunge in T to “La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.” Needless to say to intelligent people: since it is the effect of a short term event, it should not be taken as representative of long term evolution. Grauniad seems to believe that it has to dot the I and cross the T for whoever reads it…

        The point of James Delingpole is to reveal the bad trick of climate illusionists that point at “hottest year ever [recorded in our very short records]” and “steepest rise ever [recorded in our very short records]”.

        Bottom line : Grauniad is even less reliable than Breitbart and THAT means something …

      • “but don’t kid yourself that temperatures have plummeted on a global basis because they have not, they have just dropped back a degree or so which has slowed the rate of warming. ”

        You could say the same thing about the fall of temperatures after the 1998 El Nino. After the 1998 El Nino the temperatures went on a decades-long pause. What makes you think something similar is not going to happen after this 2016 El Nino?

      • Gareth Phillips December 5, 2016 at 5:27 am

        Just a footnote which is also very revealing about ‘The Plummet” Taken from an article in the Grauniad.

        “First, the “plummet” they cite is not in global temperatures on the surface where we live, and where temperatures are easiest to measure accurately, but rather in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower atmosphere above the portions of Earth’s surface covered by land masses. Second, although the satellite data extend as far back as 1979, and the global surface temperature data to 1880, they cherry pick the data by only showing the portion since 1997. Third, the argument is based entirely upon one relatively cool month (October 2016) that was only cool in that particularly cherry-picked data set.”

        Since I posted a graph of the CRUTEM surface temperature set which agrees with Delingpole’s claims, and since you saw that post, either you are as dumb as a bag of ball bearings, or you refuse to read what you don’t believe in, or at this point you’re off the reservation and simply making things up.

        Your choice … I have no clue which one it is.

        w.

      • For almost 19 years, there was no warming. Then an during a strong El Nino there was a spike in temperature, just as there has been in all past El Nino’s.
        As the El Nino fades, so does the temp spike.

        Only those who are more wedded to a theory than they are to reality would declare that it is eligitimate to tie the current temp spike to the current El Nino.

      • I love your comments about right wing biased news sources, promptly followed by links to sites with as far left bias as you can possibly achieve – pretty much exposing your own position, as you seem to be completely unaware of the near-total bias.

        There’s a reason the mainstream press invented the phrase ‘fake news’ – it’s just what progressives ALWAYS do – they accuse the opposition of what they are actually doing as a form of camouflage.

        They also have to use simple terms since (contrary to their own popular spin) their target audience is generally the least informed, least educated sheep among us.

      • Gareth, do you recognize the irony of citing a Grauniad URL which includes “climate-consensus-97-per-cent” in the middle, in a thread about the [lack of] integrity in climate reporting?

        Let’s review.

        You probably recall Dr. Peter Doran’s article claiming a “97%” consensus, and you might know that it was really only 75 scientists. But what you might not know is:

        1. Doran & his graduate student did not poll just 77 scientists. They polled 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions, of whom 3,146 responded. But 97.5% of the scientists who responded were excluded by Doran after their responses were received.

        Of 3146 responses received, only 79 responses were considered by Doran for his “97%” calculation: the 2.5% most specialized specialists in “climate science.” (That’s a fundamental blunder, like polling medical professionals about the efficacy of homeopathy, but excluding everyone who responds except practicing homeopaths.)

        2. Two of the 79 remaining specialized climate scientists were climate skeptics who answered “remained relatively constant” to the question, “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

        Doran excluded them, too!

        3. That left just 77, and Doran found that 75 of them of them answered “yes” to the question, “”Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

        Of course, that’s the wrong question. The best evidence is that anthropogenic warming is modest and benign. Combating global warming would only be worthwhile if global warming were, in President Obama’s words, “real, man-made and dangerous.” Doran’s survey didn’t ask that question, nor anything remotely resembling it.

        Oh, and BTW, 75/79 is 94.9%, not 97%.

        In striking contrast to Doran’s “consensus” of 75 alarmist scientists, 31,487 American scientists (including engineers in relevant specialties) have signed the Global Warming Petition, signifying our agreement with this statement:

        “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

        Refs: tinyurl.com/clim97pct

      • I’d like to ask those 75 “actively publishing climate scientists” how many of them think that man-made climate change poses a risk of catastrophic consequences.

        But of course the media totally misrepresented the results of this survey and ran with their false interpretation of them, such that now the public is led falsely to believe that 97% of all scientists imagine that man-made climate change poses the certain threat of catastrophic consequences unless we immediately dismantle industrial society, overthrow capitalism and trust in the wisdom of our globalist betters.

    • “That in no way disproves anything about the causes of the long-term temperature trends.”
      ========================================
      the double negative is misleading. typically academia. much better to write:

      “That in no way PROVES anything about the causes of the long-term temperature trends.”

      And since a rapid decrease doesn’t prove anything, neither does a rapid increase. which is of course why academia resorts to double negatives to try and hide the obvious.

  3. Why not add the latest RSS land temperature anomaly plot, as well as the ocean plus land? Both of them have dropped, and will probably continue to drop. I’ve noticed the tropical pacific water temperature is showing a very cool temperature anomaly over the last week. As a matter of fact, if you take the Niño sectors anomalies for December 4 2015 in map view and compare them to December 4 2016 you will see there’s a huge difference.

  4. Gareth Phillips your quote from Adam Sobel, confuse me. Do you agree with the useful idiot Adam Sobel or not. One would expect temperature to steadily increase from the Little ice age we still have not matched the medieval warming period ot the ware Roman times, quite frankly anyone with a half of a brain knows that temperatures have been decline in the last eight thousand years and we should will welcome any warm period. To believe man might have something to do with is on a global level that hubris or just stupidity. We do affect climate locally and to the most part that where the recent warming is coming from with a healthy dose of adjustments. The real question remains it it warming ot not and if it is how long will it last after all the only known certainly is the world will once again slip into a ice age. the only question is when.

  5. “Fake news” is the latest concern-trolling mantra by our “betters” on the Left. I’m not sure who establishes them – they seem to pop up periodically and suddenly everyonne uses them – everyone advancing the Leftist front, that is.

    Some years ago – during the 2000 election, I believe – it was “gravitas.” Isn’t it what the office of Preaident needed (apparently Bill Clinton was full of it, according to this school). Did GWB have it. Isn’t it what Al Gore brought to,the table. Etc.

    In the mid-90s thereabouts it was “militia.” The true homegrown terrorists; militia members were right next door to you (target-practicing, obviously).

    Back in the 00’s when blogging was becoming huge, it was “pajamas media.” You REALLY want to get your news sourced from some guy still wearing his pajamas at 10 AM? Obviously professional “journ-o-lists” were far more reliable!

    Didn’t stop bloggers; I doubt the “fake news” sliming is going to work either. The MSM has way more problems with credibility and loss of public confidence than crying “the other guys are worse!” is gonna fix.

  6. Sorry for the typos, this got posted before I got to proof read it as second time thank my touchpad for that, Also since conventional reading training did not work for me I had to learn how to read on my own. It don’t normally look at letter just words and in my case reading close is good enough, in proof reading that light years from acceptable,

  7. It all boils down to the fact there are natural climate cycles and events; this self-evident fact is the greatest heresy in the Klimate bible.

    The few people I know who subscribe to CAGW theory absolutely do no not want to talk about El Niño and La Niña, except when the temperature is spiralling up at the start of an El Niño, when “it is definitive proof of man made global warming.”

    • What a lot of people don’t know is that a La Nina event is actually just an enhanced version of the normal tropical Pacific pattern. El Nino is the abnormal event. So whether the ENSO meter points to just below zero or lots below zero…in most cases it makes no difference because it means that tropical convection is NOT focused over the Pacific like in an El Nino…but rather focused further west over Maritime continent.

  8. This is an example of cherry picking data and then misrepresenting it. Global land temperatures have dropped by a degree but that gets misrepresented as global temperatures dropping by a degree. The first is true the second isn’t. And since the land only covers 30% of the earth’s surface
    talking about land temperatures is misleading. Furthermore since the land occurs mostly in the northern hemisphere much of that drop could be seasonal. Finally this is I think mostly due to short term weather. Siberia was much colder than normal and the artic was 15 degrees higher than normal. Neither is expected to last.

    • Geronimo, QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO!!!

      Quick example. You say that “this” is an example of cherry picking, but just what is “this” that you are referring to?

      Folks, I’m not asking for my health. If you don’t quote what you object to, your comments are useless twaddle, uninterpretable and meaningless. QUOTE WHAT YOU OBJECT TO!!

      w.

    • IIRC, in La Niña events, the land cools first, not having the thermal inertia of t ocean. So getting excited about this land-temperature decline is justified if it is likely to be a portent of an ocean temperature decline in the next six months.

      Of course, it may not mean much if it’s just a temporary swap of polar and Siberian temperatures.

    • The fact is however a legitimate news story, breaking all records. I don’t suppose you felt that way when the temperature was going up with the El Nino, though did you? The gross dishonesty you display is not okay just because you are one of the “progressives” and they think it is okay. Shame on you Geronimo. The tide has turned, and I guess it will take history, now in the making, to shame you sorry bunch.

  9. “Willis,
    Do you actually think that
    “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year”

    I would ask the same question Nick.
    Lead posters on here should be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that this is “fake news” unambiguously.
    There has been much said on here about exactly why it was fake, but in the minds of some it will always be “true”.
    Because the facts are outweighed by the confirmation bias that inflicts many *sceptics* on here and elsewhere, cheering on the (fake) news.
    At some point the confirmation bias should be able to be suspended when one sees, FI, the graphs I post below.
    But no, to compound it, Willis comes back and, on reading, I find no acceptance of it being fake, just outrage that people find it so.
    In fact we have from him ….
    “Now, for me that’s pretty weak tea. It’s made up of those ugly things called “facts”, not much to dispute”

    No it is not fact that ….
    “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.”

    What is (partly) fact (as you say) is that …”The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Niño”
    (Well not that unusual and not as strong as the 97/98 one).

    But that is not the unscientific and absurdly wrong part.
    It is the ….
    “”Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.” part.

    That may be true in regard to the RSS v3.3 TLT date series – but ….
    That is a product that RSS no longer support, due to satellite drift issues.
    They say right there on their website that it should be used with caution.

    This is the product that RSS does support – V4.0 TTT….

    Does that look like land temps have “plunged”?

    This is UAH V6 (beta5) who report that Nov was the second warmest in it’s record …..

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6-land/from:1978/to:2017

    Again no plunge there for the Globe.

    • Straight across the El Nino steps yet again

      Its all you have.. so keep doing it.

      And we will keep laughing.

    • Toneb December 5, 2016 at 1:03 am Edit

      “Willis,

      Do you actually think that
      “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year”

      I would ask the same question Nick.
      Lead posters on here should be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that this is “fake news” unambiguously.

      Y’know, Tone, I was gonna answer that until I got to the part where you accused me of not being honest. At that point I said, OK, FOAD, I don’t deal with scumballs who question my honesty with abosolutely no evidence, I’m outta here ..

      If you want an actual answer next time, try it without the accusations of dishonesty.

      w.

      PS—LOOK AT THE CHART I POSTED FOR NICK. The temperature fell half a degree from early May to October. Your accusations of dishonesty are not only nasty, they are in direct contradiction to the facts presented already. “Fake news”, my okole. Even Nick said it happened, he’s just whining about half a month timing difference.

      • Willis, you call me a scumball so I’ll call you one back for being absusive
        That fair?
        I think so.
        I said …
        “Lead posters on here should be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that this is “fake news” unambiguously..
        I think that is a fair statement.

        So answer the question.
        Have global land temps plunged?
        And if not why do you come on here and attack those that have said what you agree with.
        You cannot reasonably agree of course. That is my point.
        Refute the observations I and Nick Stokes have made on 2 previous threads on here.

        And If you do think that – why did you not say so on this post and instead attack those that point it it is wrong and “fake news”.
        I actually just pointed out the obvious – that it IS fake news. You did not say it was, and you attack those that have.
        It’s just basic statement of fact my friend.
        That you find an echo-chamber of cheering fans on here does make you any the more correct.
        If it wasn’t for the few such as Nick Stokes, Leif Svalsgaard, me and a few others who could be bothered to put up with the likes of your response and the fan-boys – the continuous stream of “post truth” and Dragon-slaying physics would go uncountered.
        You could have that if you want. Just continue in the same way.
        Comes a point when such should be denied however.
        This social media driven “post-truth”.
        As I said, tough if you don’t like what I posted … it is after all real news, and tough again if I return your “scumbag” back to you.
        I would never have said that first and it says a lot about you that you did.

        Post your answer.
        Have global land temps “plunged?

      • “So answer the question.
        Have global land temps plunged?”

        i assume the so-call “global land temps” (sic) means “global average of temp anomalies”, but, still, your question do not mention a critical reference : “when” ?
        On a daily basis, I guess they frequently do.
        From may to october, they did.
        From 1980 to now, they didn’t.
        From AD 0 to AD 2000 they did, again.

      • Toneb December 5, 2016 at 3:04 am

        I said …

        “Lead posters on here should be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that this is “fake news” unambiguously.

        I think that is a fair statement.

        A “fair statement”??? Are you truly that unknowing about the effect of your words? That is a clear and unambiguous accusation that I (the lead poster) am NOT honest, and I should be.

        I don’t have any truck with people that call me dishonest. You may not like that, but I don’t care what a man who says I am not honest likes. What is the point in discussing ANYTHING with some charming fellow who thinks I’m lying?

        Sorry, Tone, but you are “Tone-deaf” to your words, and despite my strong objection to your nasty accusation of dishonesty, you’ve now doubled down on it. Did I mention FOAD? Double it, for doubling down.

        w.

      • “That is a clear and unambiguous accusation that I (the lead poster) am NOT honest, and I should be.”
        Willis:
        No.
        The statement “Lead posters on here should be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that this is “fake news” unambiguously..”

        Does does not imply that you, Willis, are dishonest.
        It does not mention you explicitly, not is “should be honest enough” a synonym for “dishonest”.

        So sceptics here and elsewhere, take an epic fail (Roses’s post-truth piece) and proceed to take advantage by protesting against the entirely reasonable stance from the science side of objecting to the piece.
        May I suggest that if it were in the Guardian and the boot were on the other foot, then the science side went back to press with *Sceptics* complain of ….
        Exactly.
        There’s a name for it and the first letter is “h”.
        It is not “small beer” at all.
        Most people do not understand the science, and perhaps more important, considering where I am posting this, where best to access it.
        Just Google something climate related and the page is dominated by WUWT, CE, RoySpencer, Notricks, Hockeystick, realclimate, climateaudit etc etc stuff.
        Some people do think that if you shout loudest you must be correct.

        So we have the likes of Rose posting disingenuous rubbish in a U.K. national daily.
        How many *discerning* readers neither know it’s rubbish nor have the mind to investigate the truth if it.
        Yet you call it “small beer”.
        It’s very much “big beer” my friend and along with your response on here it goes very much to the heart of the “post-truth” social media lead world we increasingly inhabit.

        Oh, and another thing.
        Do try not to throw your dummy (comforter) out of the pram (stroller) when someone has the temerity to criticise you.
        It’s not big and it’s not clever.
        Just the usual tactic of *experts* on here when they get something other than the longed for hugs and kisses.
        Monckton is worst (as befits a Lord) but Tisdale, and Ball do the same.
        You do tend to notice this when you are on the science side.
        Perhaps that’s why you don’t do peer-review.

        So DO YOU BELIVE THAT Global temps have plunged?
        Yes or no?

        Oh, incidentally I “Have no truck” with people calling me a “scumbag”.
        Is that OK with you?

      • Toneb December 5, 2016 at 10:09 am

        “That is a clear and unambiguous accusation that I (the lead poster) am NOT honest, and I should be.”

        Willis:
        No.
        The statement “Lead posters on here should be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that this is “fake news” unambiguously..”

        Does does not imply that you, Willis, are dishonest.
        It does not mention you explicitly, not is “should be honest enough” a synonym for “dishonest”.

        Dude, you are a piece of work. I’m a lead poster discussing what you call “fake news”. You seem unaware that “fake news” is merely an emotion-laden pejorative trigger-description with no definition used by people to diss their opponents.

        To me you say that lead posters SHOULD be honest enough to call it “fake news” … which means I’m not honest, because I didn’t do that and I have no intention of doing that.

        Are you with me so far? Do you understand what your own words mean? Is your specific gravity too high to follow your own tongue and see what trouble it’s gotten you into?

        Now, having insulted me with your false claims about my honesty, you are seriously trying to explain to me how I should not have been insulted …

        Really? That’s your first response when someone says you’re insulted them? Denial that they know what they are talking about combined with a claim that they are not insulted? Dawg, you can piss on my boots, but you can’t convince me it’s raining.

        And no, I’m still not interested in any further discussion about science. You burned your bridges on that one.

        w.

    • the temperature has plundged,( as it always does !!! ), “the global trend” has not changed much… i am sorry but you re just wrong… you should simply say that month to month variations of temperature are not meaningful.. but don’t say people are wrong with the facts when they are not!!! is it that hard?

      You are distorting facts…sorry.

      • I imagine that if you are flying at 30,000 feet in a passenger jet which reduces down to 29,000 feet, you will state that the jet plummeted out of the sky. I would not fly if i were you, sounds like a dangerous business.

      • What is it about alarmists and their inability to create valid allusions?
        If this was the first time an airliner had dropped 1000 feet in such a precipitous fashion, yes it would be cause for concern.

      • Gareth: I assure you the news media would say the jet plummented. They would leave out the actual number, lest people realize just how insignificant the drop was.

      • Everest is 29,029 ft high, so you wish this [dropping from 30k to 29 k] doesn’t happen when flying over it.
        Bottom line: context DO matter.

      • if you are flying at 30,000 feet in a passenger jet which reduces down to 29,000 feet,
        =================
        makes a huge difference, depending on where you are flying.

        Mount Everest, also known in Nepal as Sagarmāthā and in China as Chomolungma/珠穆朗玛峰, is Earth’s highest mountain. Its peak is 8,848 metres (29,029 ft) above sea level.

    • Umm yes, it does look like land temperatures have plunged, just like they did in 1998. And both times after temperatures spiked. What’s your point?

      And then you present a graph of satellite temperatures. Next?

      Oh, and BTW what was wrong with RSS v3.3?

    • “Fake news” for a climate change extremist is anything that does not support their apocalyptic clap trap.

    • The article was absolutely factual other than the tit-for-tat click bait header used by all media that I can see. Willis did not say that global land temperatures dropped by 1 degree. He said; In this particular factual data set global temperatures dropped degree and that Delingpole did not misrepresent that or the reason why in the actual body of the article. Nothing more, nothing less. You are not looking at this in the true context. You are adding meaning beyond that conveyed.

  10. Massive cold water event in the “North” Pacific is threatening to turn Winter 2016/17 into
    an unusually severe one for the U.S. Conus. This goes all the way back to the work of such “pioneers” as Namias etc in the 1970’s.

    • Massive warm anomaly in the arctic and record low level of arctic sea ice…

      why does no one ever mention that?

      • Why? Because it enables those afflicted with climate change obsession to continue their apocalyptic delusion. A warm Arctic ocean is radiating a lot of heat out of the planet. Low ice increases that process. Your obsession has blinded you. And the cold air mass heading to the North American continent is a wee bit inconvenient for you as well.

      • Griff,
        The warm anomaly in the Arctic has recently been discussed numerous times in these threads. This fact has been pointed out to you several times before, yet here you are, again.

        Can I encourage you to continue such behavior? Your reputation grows with each of your posts. Surely, you would agree.

      • “why does no one ever mention that?” Griff wonders.

        Maybe because you do CONSTANTLY without pause. What is the significance?
        Why do you never mention the Antarctic?!

        So many questions! GK

      • Because it’s a normal WX event, and has been discussed at great length on this site.

        The NH land masses are so cold now because the air which would typically be over the Arctic has slipped southward, letting warmer air move in to its north. It happens often but won’t last long. Thank God!

        It’s still very cold at the North Pole, despite the warm anomaly.

      • Griff,

        PS: Here it’s called an Arctic outbreak. Dunno where you live, but in the North America, it happens most winters. In Asia, probably even more often.

    • Eyal,

      I hate to be the voice of pessimism, but I don’t think that would hurt Gleick. When you’re a carbon chiliast the rules are different.

      A climate bigwig called Rajendra Pachauri* made a whole male-chauvinistic speech in front of a room of women scientists and the “feminists” conveniently discovered they had a sense of humor that day.

      *It might be said that Pachauri is the Michael Mann of climate change, except instead of massaging and mannhandling data, he manually and textually harassed young women.

      • It is not when you are a “carbon chiliast” that the rules are different; it is when you are a leftist that the rules are different. Donald Trump make a classless, off-the-cuff remark about grabbing a part of a woman. That was seen as proof he hated women. Hillary Clinton worked overtime to discredit the women who accused her husband of rape. Nothing to see there. When you are a leftist, only when you really really screw up do you get held to the fire.

  11. Dang, Willis, did you have to dredge up that bottom-feeder again? I had almost undergone a millennial’s history cycle!!! Crap! Now I have to overcome the same cluster of quackery as when it happened the first time!!!

    But, it ain’t about me. Stir it up!!!!!

  12. 1. Ignore vast majority of instances and trends that falsify your position – like how the overwhelming direction of all measurements is hotter or that the arctic ice is f****ed; choose your inconvenient fact.
    2. Cherry pick a statistically irrelevant factoid – eg. short-term cooling after a record spike.
    3. Get your your PR to tweet it, use the word “plummet”, fingers crossed it goes viral.
    4. Dog-whistle the scientific illiterate who the reinforce their bias and indignantly repeat the biased message until it becomes true – “temperatures are plummeting so much for global .warming.”

    The modus operandi is transparent and pretty crude. It’s effectiveness lies in the nature of the target audience who will make zero effort to check the facts.

    Clever, but pretty deceitful.

    • Is it as deceitful as claiming oceans are rising more rapidly? Or Arctic sea ice was going to be gone years ago? Or that hurricane Matthew was due to “climate change’? Or that a hot summer is *proof* of “climate change”? Or that storms are increasing? lol at the climate change true believers.

    • Hilarious. For 2 years the MSM has been pushing the hottest month ever meme while never bothering to mention satellite data and El Nino. Now you get your panties in bunch because someone uses the same type of approach to the data which is now starting to cool. You fools don’t have clue how silly you look.

      I even warming a lot of the AGW cultists that this would eventually happen and not a one of them believed me. They actually fell for all the silly propaganda that the warming was caused by our emissions. What was it Mann said? Only .1 C was due to El Nino. I’m sure you were front and center there telling them they were wrong, right? Right?

      Face-palm.

    • Tony: Present the raw data with no graphs or other interpretation. Use NO statistics in your presentation. Once statistics and data changes occur, ALL data is cherry-picked. And everytime I read this stuff, I remember one of the text books from my college stat class, “How to lie with statistics”.

      Again, you mistake trends for reality.

    • 1) Ignore the vast majority of instances and trends that falsify your position.
      Like ignoring the Pause for nearly 20 years?
      2) Cherry pick a statistically irrelevatnt factoid
      Like a short term drop in arctic ice levels?
      3) Get your PR to tweet it, use the words record, unprecedented etc.
      4) Dog-whistle the sceintific illiterate who reingorce their baisa and etc

      You are correct, the methods used by the global warming gliterrati and transparent, crude, and quite effective.

    • “2. Cherry pick a statistically irrelevant factoid – eg. short-term cooling after a record spike.”

      And your evidence for it being “short-term” is? Was the cooling after the 1998 El Nino “short-term”? I guess I should add “using the UAH satellite record”.

  13. “Fake News”; the Left’s favorite slur, since it’s epic fail in November. Yes, the script has gone out far and wide – call everything you don’t like “fake news”.

    • Yes, the Left can call everything they don’t like “fake news”, and we get to return the favor by pointing out that it is *they* who propagate the fake news.

      The entire MSM (with a few exceptions) is fake news. The difference now, is that this has become obvious to a lot more people.

      I saw a clip of Dick Cheney this morning giving a speech to some group and he was laughing about how Trump was using Twitter to completely go around the MSM and speak directly to the People, and he chuckled and said of the MSM: “We don’t need you anymore.” I think that is one very serious concern for the MSM, and it should be. Their credibility is in the tank.

      • i really wish people would stop referring to these clowns as the left. they are pseudo left/liberal virtue signalling morons. nothing more, nothing less.

      • It’s like the Protestant Reformation. No need for priests to work magic any more, to mumble in Latin and to keep the people from reading scripture for themselves and make up their own minds about what to believe or not to.

  14. Delingpole wrote in Breitbart:

    “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.”

    This seems to be true – but only for land only temp graphs. This seems to me a bit cherry picked. Even I was not aware to which graph David Rose and Delingpole were referring to, until Antony pointed out which. Okay, it was the satellite graph RSS land only.

    – It somehow suggests a temperature drop down to a deep LA Nina, which is not yet the case.
    – As global temperature are commonly discussed by using combined land and ocean graphs, at least some of them should be used for comparison.
    – It also suggests that land temperatures are dropping first and then ocean temperatures are following. This is not the case; on a monthly base, land temperatures are just reacting more nervous than ocean temperatures.
    – Similar temperature drops on land only curves have been happened quite regularly.

    Here the RSS global and land only temps for the last 10 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/last:120/plot/rss/last:120

    Many skeptics were singing hallelujah without checking the facts which are:

    The temperatures from the EL Nino spike went down by 0.4°C (UAH6 global) or 0.6°C (RSS global), having not yet reached the 2014 level before El Nino. Here is the UAH comparision:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/last:120/plot/uah6-land/last:120

    Interestingly, the same appears to HADCRUT4 and GISSTEMP:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/last:120/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:120/plot/gistemp/last:120

    Not much difference here. So it seems that Rose and Delingpole made a not so objective and possibly misleading statement, and the alarmist side didn’t check their own record, showing that the temperature went already down considerably, not far away from the before El Nino times. In fact, all their comments were totally fact-free, insulting and name-calling.

    Even I believe that in thr long run temperatures will drop further, prolonging the pause. But for a “told you so!” it is just too premature.

    • “This is not the case; on a monthly base, land temperatures are just reacting more nervous than ocean temperatures.”

      What?

      You DO realize that of all data sets, GISS happens to be the one most tampered with? Did you ever see Gavin Schmidt’s tampering at all?

      Land temps can be affected by UHEs, and in other cases they are cooked up because there aren’t thermometers on most parts of the Earth’s surface. Let the satellites decide – or have YOU cherry picked? GISS is Gavin’s realm. He cools the past and warms the present. Therefore, without all the data sets, it’s essentially useless.

  15. The article states global land temperatures dropped. They showed which dataset they were referring to. So what’s wrong with that How is it factually incorrect or misleading?

  16. We do after all live on land rather than the ocean and a fall of that magnitude if it extended to the ocean as well would be sensational. Provided this was made clear in the text that would be ok in the context of a MSM story.

    Tonyb

    • This is a point I also use when I’ve seen complaints about using the land data. Never mind that when I point to satellite data the very same people say “No one lives there, we live on the surface” to allow themselves to cherry pick surface data. Now, it is time to hoist them …

  17. I simply must agree with Scientific American…
    Those people who rely on a troposphere over land index (RSS TLT 3.3 land) which…
    -should be used with caution due to unchecked drifts, according to RSS
    -has an incomplete coverage compared to other satellite products, missing Antarctica and Tibetan plateau, that were unusually warm in October
    …yes, those people that use this cherrypicked flawed data to make extraordinary claims, they are certainly not among the sharpest knives in the drawer…

    If a man who tweets such nonsense can become chairman of “the Science, Space, and Technology Committee” in the Congress, it certainly demontrates that the US is the land of opportunity.

    • The last ice age was mostly over NH land as well. The climate extremist response to the application of their tactics of claiming every weather event is actually climate is quite entertaining

      • Depends on your definition.

        During glacial phases, ice sheets spread over the NH and wane during the briefer interglacials. The SH grows more extensive mountain glaciers, but doesn’t form new ice sheets. However the SH is permanently (ie, for tens of millions of years) covered with ice sheets on Antarctica, which grow during the glacial epochs.

        This situation leads to nomenclature problems. It’s common to say that the Pleistocene glaciations, ie the current “ice age”, began about 2.6 million years ago, with the advent of NH ice sheets. However the world entered an “ice house” era some 34 Ma, when continental ice sheets began to grow on Antarctica.

        Both events are associated with plate tectonics. Over 30 Ma, deep oceanic channels formed between Antarctica and South America and Australia, creating the Southern Ocean and isolating the polar landmass. After three Ma, the Isthmus of Panama formed, blocking tropical oceanic circulation and directing warm water into the North Atlantic, bringing moisture to now colder continents, leading to ice sheets on Greenland, Eurasia and North America.

    • O R December 5, 2016 at 3:08 am

      I simply must agree with Scientific American…
      Those people who rely on a troposphere over land index (RSS TLT 3.3 land)

      I have shown TWICE that the CRUTEM land station surface temperatures show the same drop, and now you claim it is just RSS. After making such a foolish mistake, you proceed to lecture us on who should sit on a House Committee … man, sometimes you guys’ arrogance is absolutely, breathtakingly hilarious.

      w.

  18. Willis, why do you not discuss the most comparable record, UAH TLT over land, which shows no drop since mid-year? Particularly when RSS authors note there are diurnal cycle adjustment problems with RSS TLT V3.3, and that UAH covers Antarctica while RSS does not? Looking at UAH since mid-year, would you still support the claims:
    “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists”
    or
    “Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year”

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
    http://www.remss.com/node/5166

    • Mat, there are thousands of things which Willis does not do. I suspect that he has only two hands. Maybe you have them, too. If you see an important work to be done, and you sound like you know how to do it, please don’t wait for Willis to do it.

  19. If someone states that the temperatures have dropped by 1.2°C, he should state explicit:
    -This is from a selected graph, a bit differently than the rest, and state which graph it is
    -This is a land only graph, having a much higher swing than the normally used global graphs
    -It’s just one point in time and not for a longer period

    One can state something corrrectly, but in the context it may be still not correct.

    To make it more objektive one should compare it to normal graphs or use an average of some known graphs, as

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/last:120

    This is an average of RSS, UAH, Hadcrut and Gisstemp. It shows the fact that cannot be denied:

    After a big spike in 2015/16 the global temperatures went down considerably, but have not yet reached the 2014 level.

    As Judith Curry at Climate et. al. pointet out, it my take two up to five years to get a real “pause trend” again.

      • Sort of like whinning over and over again that since arctic sea ice has been a bit lower than the previous record for the last 2 months, this proves that global warming is real?

      • I’m sure Griff was also very vocal complaining on alarmist sites when they were using the El Nino warming to claim “warmest on record” while simultaneously ignoring satellite data which, more often than not, showed no record.

      • Your comparison is right on, MarkW.

        Griff is complaining that Delingpole is trying to advance an unjustified point: That recent months have cooled, so therefore, it will continue cooling. While at the same time, Griff is trying to advance an unjustified point: That it got real hot in 2016, and it will continue to be real hot going forward.

      • “As do the warmists. You’re angry that Delingpole is doing what warmists do?”

        No, any “spin” that may be put on things by the science side comes directly from peer-reviewed papers.
        Whether you consider them legitimate or not I give not a jot.
        That’s the way the world works.
        Experts study stuff and if reasonable, judged by other people able to assess that, they get published.
        If they turn out to be wrong then others will find the flaw later.
        How science progresses.
        What Delingpole, Rose, Monckton and Booker just to mention the U.K. ones is to take data gathered by others and put their own (as non-experts) interpretation on it.
        In this case from a product that the producers of specifically say not to use, and that will eventually be discontinued.
        That there is a product that RSS do support but that shows nothing of the kind is rather the give away.
        “Delingpole doing what alarmists do.

        And Since when has Delingpole been a climate scientist pray?
        His bio ….
        “He is executive editor for the London branch of the Breitbart News Network.[1][2] He has published several novels and four political books. He describes himself as being a libertarian conservative,[3] and has been described as a “prominent voice of the right”.[4]”

        Breitbart eh.
        That you don’t get these points is really the whole point my friend.

      • Says the biggest cherry-picker of them all, who must have posted at least ten references to an unimportant weather event in the Arctic…

      • Toneb: “And Since when has Delingpole been a climate scientist pray?”

        Since when has he ever claimed to be?

        Do you insist that every political correspondent has to be a politician? Or that every restaurant reviewer has to be a restauranteur?

        You’ve been called out for making a tit of yourself (not an uncommon occurrence IMO), now your nose out of joint, is it?

  20. The response of the climatocracy to Delingpole is informative. They can’t dismiss the data, but instead of pointing out that 6 months, a year, even several years of temperature, rain, drought, storm is just weather, they have to pretend that an unworthy person made heretical claims about the data. The trap the climatocracy has set for itself is rather interesting.

    • They have pointed out in detail why the claims are wrong and misleading… i.e. that Delingpole deliberately picked a set of data to point to an incorrect conclusion.

      And Delingpole has repeatedly been caught making errors, mistakes and misleading claims…

      • His error is that the climate kooks don’t like it. His data is correct. It offends your religion. Too bad.

      • This from the guy who keeps touting two months or Arctic Ice data as showing something it doesn’t show.

      • “His error is that the climate kooks don’t like it. His data is correct. It offends your religion. Too bad.”

        It’s not b****y correct.
        RSS say so themselves……

        “The lower tropospheric (TLT) temperatures have not yet been updated at this time and remain V3.3. The V3.3 TLT data suffer from the same problems with the adjustment for drifting measurement times that led us to update the TMT dataset. V3.3 TLT data should be used with caution.””

        That’s why they no longer support it and instead now have V4.0 TTT.
        (see my posted graph upthread).

        Look, saying it’s correct, I know, is the MO of the post-truth age.
        After all I read it on a Blog.
        But saying it is and it actually being so are NOT the same.
        Sorry about that.

      • Toneb says: …the MO of the post-truth age…

        Projection.

        The “fake news” narrative is Left’s new talking point. But as usual, it’s based on psychological ‘projection’: imputing their own faults onto those they disagree with.

        So maybe Toneb can answer a few questions for us plebes:

        • Who, specifically, will be designated to judge what news is fake? Peter Gleick?

        • ‘News’ implies current information (‘fast breaking’, ‘this just in…’, etc). Since that info is often found to be inaccurate later, as new information comes in, should news sources now have to wait until they are certain of every fact?

        • News is broadcast through the lens of the writer, the producer, the editor, the corporation, etc. Who draws the line between ‘fake’ vs ‘real’ news? Who gets the enormous power to censor what the public sees? Post the name(s) here, please… unless they’re censored, too.

        The ‘fake news’ narrative is nothing more than camoflage for what the Left always craves: being the exclusive CENSORS of what the public will, and will not, be allowed to see.

        Free speech is the only answer. When all points of view are on the table for discussion, the wheat is quickly sifted from the chaff.

        So… how about posting those names, Tone? Who, specifically, will be the final arbiter of what is ‘fake’ vs real news? And who will select your ‘news censors’? Griff?

        Your complaints here are actually with Planet Earth. She’s just not doing what you’ve endlessly predicted, and what you’ve based your credibility on. Yet you keep digging…

        The only way to rescue any remaining credibility is to stop prevaricating, and admit that the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare turned out to be a complete false alarm.

        That’s the real world’s verdict. Deal with it… if you can.

    • I don’t doubt that Delingpole purposely touted a factual short term weather phenomenon that he knew was sure to set off the greens for the express purpose of further exposing the green’s true colors about trying to link weather to CAGW. Mark W has pointed that out nicely in reply.

      • “I don’t doubt that Delingpole purposely touted a factual short term weather phenomenon that he knew was sure to set off the greens”

        Didn’t he just!

        And here they all are, scuttling out from under their slimy, noisome bridges, screeching, gibbering and hooting, impotently waving their little arms and stamping their tiny feet!

        Observing them is a Christmas present come early!

  21. Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.
    Actually it was global land temperature anomaly which has dropped which is not the same thing, also the ‘global land’ doesn’t include antarctica in this case. In any case the temperature metric quoted ‘plummeted’ to a rather warm value for November. In the case of the comparable UAH product which, unlike the RSS one quoted has had its orbital drift problems corrected, shows a much less steep drop. Looks like a classic case of ‘cherry picking’ and alarmist reporting.

  22. Why is everyone getting so excited about one month? It’s not the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning; it’s not anything… yet.

    • “Why is everyone getting so excited ”
      Because of the last sentence: “The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.”
      Which is the climate equivalent of the child saying that the emperor has no cloth. Delingpole doesn’t say that temp are down, which would be so easy to disprove. He shows that it is quite easy to use a short term event (in this case, ENSO ; could be anything, though, provided it goes in the desired way) and make believe it to be the distinct signature of a far-reaching, global, scary event.
      Debunking Delingpole means debunking CAGW at the same time. Delingpole wants the debunking done, he even debunked himself. Warmunists are quite uncomfortable and get excited because they have to find a way to debunk Delingpole without debunking themself, which simply cannot be done. the other side is quite excited to tease them into trying

    • Did you notice the first sentence of this article that claims to discuss fake news?

      “Human carbon pollution is heating the Earth incredibly fast.”

      I think what they mean is “Anthropogenic sources of CO2 are thought to be warming the planet but there is much dispute about how much warming is happening and if it is of concern”… though I must admit, their fake news rolls much better.

    • Griff,

      The guardian makes the same mistake that they are claiming skepcics have made: Selecting a certain special graph which is supporting their opinion. They used one that adds 0.5°C to normal temperatures – the glorious satistically corrected NASA Gisstemp. Just compare it with “normal graphs like RSS or Hadcrut.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1979

      They made some points in the article, but in overall a much worse than the one from David Rose.

    • Human carbon pollution is heating the Earth incredibly fast.
      =====================
      FALSE.

      1. carbon is not carbon dioxide any more than chlorine gas is table salt.
      2. Human carbon dioxide pollution MAY BE heating the Earth.
      3. current warming is not statistically different than pre-industrial warming
      4. cause of pre-industrial warming is unknown
      5. if you cannot explain the past you cannot forecast the future.

  23. Mt St Helens. Does that ring a bell? Of course it’s just local. It is the site of the youngest glacier in the world. Formed in 1988 and is now 650 feet thick and 1 1/4 miles long. Does this sound like global warming. Read the book by john Kehr (an inconvenient skeptic) and be enlightened.

  24. The amusing thing about this whole kerfluffle is that Sci-Am and all the outlets like them have become totally irrelevant since Nov 9. For the last 8 years, they have had only one purpose – to try and provide cultural cover for an expansionary EPA regulatory agenda. They have not published anything with any actual scientific value for years now, because that is not their point – they have become 100% political in their goals and efforts.

    And with a new administration in power – what is the point of their existence? To sit around in left coast faculty lounges and commiserate with the old fogies who still control them?

    The war is over, they’ve lost, and they haven’t even come to grips with it yet.

  25. The core is another one: The claim was: The warming due to ElNino was unprecendet and sign of steady warming. In all Land-records ( take the NH where them most of ocean-uninfluenced land is located) we saw big jumps and after it big declines which points to the naturally behavior of this uptick. See GISS land NH: between March and June a decline of more than one degrees. It dosen’t matter much IOM if this dip was in September or in June… The main point is: the dip happend!

  26. When the Alarmists/Climate Liars get clubbed by their own weapons, their howls of pain and cries of “NO FAIR”! are indeed amusing to we skeptics/climate realists. Their hypocrisy is plain for anyone to see.

  27. An even better refutation of Rose:
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/how-stupid-does-david-rose-think-you-are/

    Statistics expert Grant Foster has explained Rose selected only the satellite data taken over land, and only satellite data that inferred temperatures for the lower part of the troposphere (where nobody lives).

    Also, a chart displayed on the Rose story focused only on temperatures since the late 90s, despite data being available since the late 70s.

    The chart did not show any trends for the data which, if it did, Foster explained would show continued warming – even in the narrow dataset Rose chose to focus on.

    This is what’s called cherry picking and Rose had to pick several juicy ones just to make his argument appear vaguely plausible.

    The so-called “record drop” claimed by Rose also takes temperatures plummeting down to… well above the long term average.

    Remembering too, that Rose wants people to consider a drop in temperatures over the course of a couple of months, during a year that will likely be declared the hottest on record.

  28. I also posted this in the Stephen Hawking thread, but it applies equally well here. In his farewell speech, President Eisenhower gave his famous warning against the “military-industrial complex”. What many people forget, is that he also warned against the “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”. This starts approximately 10m 30s into the video. I’ve tried to set the Youtube URL to start at that point.

    • Everyone is entitled to their opinion on climate change, although renowned theoretical physicists may be especially persuasive. The linked post compares quotes from 3 of the most distinguished: Stephen Hawking (much in the news lately since Trump’s election), Freeman Dyson and Richard Feynman. Hawking is an alarmist, Dyson a skeptic and Feynman concerned about scientific integrity.

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/three-wise-men-talking-climate/

    • “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”
      Freeman Dyson

  29. Okay, that bit of news just sealed the deal for me. Un-Scientific American is now fully on my radar screen as an item and source to avoid and warn others about.

  30. Scientific American lost it back in the 1980’s with their very over the top anti-Strategic Defence Initiative series. Apart from the anti-Star Wars hysteria, they also ran an article on how bad it would be if the Soviets targeted nuclear power plants with ground fused hydrogen bombs. Nastily political then and now.

    • They also lost their credibility back then with National Enquirer type scare articles about pollution and fisheries. Actually, that is an insult to NE as I first learned about the discovery of Megamouth (shark) there. These type of articles obscure real problems so even if they were correct crying wolf gets a different result as the old adage says. There are wolves out there.

      • I believe it was the National Enquirer that broke both the Monica Lewinsky and John Edwards love child stories. Back when the so called MSM refused to touch either.
        The NE was lambasted by the MSM for both, right up to the time when both stories were proven to be true.

    • Some 30 years ago, Scientific American had a brief editorial that native tribes were not violent until Europeans arrived.
      The next edition condemned it and apologized. Why was it published in the first place?
      At the time, there were interviews with recent graduates in journalism about why they took the course.
      “To change the world.”
      Not to report.
      Explains a lot–particularly as with today’s combination of big government, MSM and the Democrat Party. The movement was out to establish a one-party system. The big promotion involves two examples of supreme audacity.
      That there is a national economy and it can be managed.
      That a committee can manage the Earth’s climate.
      Over the next few years both can be seen to fail.

      • The reality is that as long as university professors pontificate their political viewpoints ( often entirely outside their field of expertise) to classrooms full of mediocre minds without regard for teaching or demanding any rigour in thought, this type of intellectual corruption will keep popping up. It mostly is created and sustained in the social “sciences”, where the same lack of rigour leads to garbage papers that can’t be replicated and yet pass peer review and affect their relevant field of study. The same lack of intellectual depth prevents these very useful idiot pseudo-intellectuals from imagining that they only possess an opinion and have no right to indoctrinate their defenseless young students just to inflate their own sad egos. The world would be better off if 90% of these social poseurs were kicked out to try to survive in the real world.

  31. The sudden concern for accurate reporting of temperature at SciAm is touching. Unfortunately, there have been far too many media articles over the past couple of years hyping new records, ‘tipping points’, ‘1.5C to be breached soon’, all without mention of ENSO. Not apparently deemed fake news by the media’s self-styled elite. The gentlemanly approach to this sort of Lie Machine approach was tried in 2012 (Mitt Romney) without success. As they say, “you reap what you sow.”

  32. The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.

    No news of La Niña as of yet. The cooling is not related to a La Niña, but to the passing of El Niño.

    Usually people get El Niño/La Niña backwards. El Niño is a planetary discharge of heat that makes it from the ocean through the atmosphere. La Niña is a planetary recharge of heat from solar energy to the ocean. The first is accompanied of increased cloud cover and convection over the ITCZ, while the other is accompanied of decreased cloud cover.

    No La Niña means that the Earth is absorbing less heat over the tropical band and it might anticipate less global warming over the coming years.

  33. What do we have to do to rid the climate science field of these crooks?

    Endless unrepentant mockery. Warm and fuzzy emotional satisfaction is what alarmists and boosters seek through their moral peacockery. They need to be provided with a different emotional outcome; embarrassment, shame, intellectual inadequacy, hypocrisy, etc. Humour is an excellent arbiter of truth.

  34. This is all just too hilarious. I’ve also been noticing how the left has become very interested in the Constitution now and also with the Trump/ Carrier deal they seem to be so interested in govt not interfering with the free market. The problem they have is that real, actual science uses debate and data to come to a conclusion. Most of my idiot lefty friends have never even done basic science or engineering, yet they constantly appeal to authority with their web links and quotes. They are incapable of understanding basic science principles thanks to the education system in the US. There is hope now. To quote a favorite movie of mine “Condolences, Mr. Lebowski. The bums lost.”

    • Central Chile, as you must know, is having a chilly spring, so it’s participating in the global cooling of the land. The Southern Cone of South America is one of the few large temperate zone areas of the SH, along with southernmost Africa and the southern roughly 60% of Australia.

      Over two-thirds of earth’s land is in the NH, with over 90% of its people. As above, NH temperate zone area dwarfs that of the SH. I haven’t computed or looked up the exact figures, but just a glance at a globe shows this striking fact.

  35. I sometimes wonder what it means that so many CAGW believers act like they want it to be true. That they would be personally devastated if the world weren’t coming to an end. How does an otherwise mentally healthy individual get emotionally invested in their own destruction?

    • “How does an otherwise mentally healthy individual get emotionally invested in their own destruction?”

      Read “Seductive Poison”, by Deborah Layton: A Jonestown Survivor’s Story of Life and Death in the Peoples Temple.

      I read it recently, and saw a lot of similarities to CAGWarming people…

  36. If the apparent warming was indeed as catastrophic as claimed, wouldn’t these activists be happy that temps have dropped so fast?

    The fact that Nick Stokes, Gleick, et al react with dnial of observable facts rather than relief tells me this argument has NOTHING to do with the earth’s temperature. Fo whatever personal reasons, these people have attached their egos to a side of an argument and they will twist their brains into what ever shape is necessary to protect themselves.

    The fact that none of these alarmists react to what to them OUGHT to be positive news, reveals much about what motivates their arguments. I find myself reacting to them less with anger, and more with pity as this saga plays out. Watching Nick’s truly convoluted “wonder if Willis actually believes this” genuinely leaves me feeling slightly ashamed to watch someone embarrass themselves in public with such ernest conviction.

    • You might be on to something there. Personally, I feel torn or that we are in a lose-lose situation. I hope it really does continue to warm a little, as the IPCC says up to 1.8C increase is beneficial. But if it does, these fools will upend the whole world economy and substitute some eco-Socialist dog’s breakfast of failure and misery.

  37. Griff December 5, 2016 at 4:42 am

    Yes.

    In other words Delinpole et al seized on a cherry pick to advance their unjustified point

    Are people really that dense? Delingpole pointed out the lack of media comment on the short-term drop to highlight the CHERRY PICKING THAT NORMALLY OCCURS! He was saying, hey, you cherry pick any warm year and blow it up to Thermageddon™, but when a cool year occurs you say nothing!

    There is one of those things that we call a “clue” in the title of the Delingpole piece, Griff. See if you can figure out what it is. Because if you think James is cherry picking, you definitely need to work on your reading comprehension …

    w.

    • ” . . .but when a cool year occurs you say nothing!”

      Seems speculative since we haven’t had a record cold year (per the NOAA data set) during Delingpole’s lifetime.

      • Seems speculative to call any year a record of any kind, from the limited collective experience of Homo Sapiens.

  38. Let’s see, Gleick, Gleick, sounds vaguely familiar, oh yes, here he is: Gleick, Peter. Definitely on the list of not-to-be-forgotten global warming wolfcriers:

    Gelbspan, Ross
    Gleick, Peter
    Gore, Albert Jr.
    Guardian, The
    Hannah, Darryl
    Hansen, James
    Harrelson, Woody
    Hawking, Stephen
    Hayhoe, Katherine
    Henn, Jamie
    Huffington, Arianna
    Jones, Phil
    Jones, Van
    Jones, Xiuhtezcatl

    • All on that list are thermofobes.

      H/T to Ferdberple in an earlier comment. I just couldn’t help myself ferd! lol

  39. I find it interesting how many people who are old enough to remember what Scientific American used to be like are disappointed with the ‘newer and better’ SciAm. The sentiment about the decline in quality and reputation has been around a couple of decades, yet the editors are either oblivious or choose to ignore the criticism. I guess as long as they can keep making payroll, it serves their purpose. However, I know a great many people who used to subscribe and dropped their subscriptions years ago. It is a shame what has happened to the magazine. The country is relatively scientifically illiterate and it formerly did a great service to provide scientific knowledge to both laymen and scientists interested in what was happening outside their area of specialty. RIP SciAM!

    • I stopped subscribing to Scientific American and Science News about the same time, and for the same reason.

      This was many years ago and climate change was a brand new subject, and I kept noticing that these publications kept printing stories that *assumed* AGW was occuring at the time of publication. Since I’m a science oriented personality, who requires proof in order to believe in something, I realize there was something missing from all these articles and stories: PROOF. I looked for proof in every article written and never saw it, and have not seen it to this day. But these publications acted like it was already here, and I would get disgusted every time I would run across one of these articles, to the point that I finally got so disgusted I stopped reading them all together. I got to feeling if I couldn’t trust their word on the climate, then what else couldn’t I trust them on. The scientific method was completely blown up by these publications. And they are not alone by any means, sad to say.

      Assuming is not scientific proof. That’s all they were doing was assuming. That’s all they are doing now.

      • But all the authorities in the media assured us it was “safe to assume” and “err on the side of caution”.

    • If you know the answer according to your research, why not just say it. I did my research and I think I found that he said $20,000 contribution instead of $12,000 for climate change…
      Is that it? – there are many links, but none spell it out…

  40. UPDATE by Anthony. Willis put this photo of Dr. Peter Gleick, posing as a windmill in his office, as “featured image” but it was cropped by the system.

    I think I get the propeller-head, but the balloons? Hot air?

  41. Even funnier than Nick’s knickers in a semantic knot is Katherine Hayhoe complaining (in the 9 best reactions) about “false news” or “the truth”. Given she’s made a career out of false news, its not surprising she can’t recognise the truth when she sees it.

    • Oh look – here comes dbstealey with his meaningless graph.
      How about this one then….

      Oh, and good luck with it if the heart monitor in A&E has the y-axis set at the same resolution as your graph.
      There is a reason why we need to zoom in, especially when you consider that the difference in global temp into/out of an interglacial is only of ~10F.

      • ToneB,
        Are you arguing that there is no correlation between rapidly increasing CO2 and temperatures? That appears to be the case. An exponential growth in CO2, leading almost to a doubling, doesn’t appear to correlate with anything other than the long-term internal variability of temperature. That is, any recent temperature changes are really indistinguishable from noise. One can’t argue that the recent temperature increases are unique because paleo-temperature data of similar temporal and temperature resolution are not available. Your claimed 10F temperature coming out of a glacial maximum hasn’t resulted in any catastrophic changes (except for the poor ice worms). At what temperature does improved biological conditions cease and start to be detrimental? What objective evidence do you have for a critical change-over temperature?

        You complain about an inappropriate vertical resolution, and then come back with an inappropriate horizontal resolution graph (If you are trying to establish that the Industrial Revolution is responsible for warming.). Has it crossed your mind that gaseous diffusion through the ice along crystal boundaries can invalidate any assumptions about apparent constancy of CO2 prior to the Industrial Revolution? As to temporal resolution, approximately 10″ (or more of dry snow) will compact down to about 1″ of ice. As snow compacts, it is quite porous, allowing exchange of gases with both the atmosphere and snow/firn at lower levels. I’m sure that any CO2 peaks are smoothed out, giving rise to smoothed values.

      • stevekeohane and Clyde,

        Thanks for pointing out the unacknowledged splice in Toneb’s chart, which is almost as misleading as this bogosity:

        Here’s another chart, corroborating the one I posted yesterday. It was also produced using NASA/GISS data:

        The alarmist crowd is still trying to keep the public frightened. But people are getting fed up with their ‘climate’ scare, for the same reason that the villagers stopped believing The Little Shepard Boy Who Cried “WOLF!!”

        After being lied to for decades, the general public is fast losing interest in the ‘carbon‘ false alarm. And once the public turns, it will never again buy into their self-serving ‘climate’ carp.

  42. Statute of limitations for wire fraud is five years.(đá nhân tạo)

    That gives the new Administration time to initiate a criminal investigation. One would think a criminal, like Gleick, with a possible federal prosecution hanging over his head, would stay quiet; hoping people will forget him, for one more year…đau lưng dưới

    Not now! It’s time to take the genuine climate criminals off of the streets!!

  43. wooden stakes don’t work … you have to draw and quarter them, then burn and bury the separate parts in different States during a full moon to be sure :)

  44. Thank you, Willis, for reminding us of the past actions taken by that fraudster Gleick. I do believe the pendulum is swinging… just hope it doesn’t stall.

Comments are closed.