BOO! Halloween climate scare: featuring @ClimateofGavin and @GretaThunberg

It’s no secret that climate alarmists have been trying to scare us for decades.

They seem to truly believe that the world is at risk from climate change, and make up “scary scenarios” to prod people into action, lifestyle changes, and idiotic self-taxation. Because as we all know taxes solve everything. /sarc

The late Dr. Steven Schneider said it best:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. – (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.)

This morning, Dr. Gavin Schmidt was true to form, even though a couple of weeks ago he called me “stupid” for suggesting climate scientists do this.

I replied, showing how the GISS temperature data looks when you put it in normal range. It’s hardly noticeable.

And then there’s Greta Thunberg, who “tries” to be scary, but comes off as laughable most of the time. I asked cartoonist Rick McKee if he would do a special for me for Halloween, and he obliged:

He was recently let go from his position at The Augusta Chronicle, because (this is my opinion only) his cartoons hit too close to home for some liberals and they complained.

So, help him out, buy him a beer (use link below), and please spread this cartoon far and wide on social media.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme2/rmckeeart

Advertisements

119 thoughts on “BOO! Halloween climate scare: featuring @ClimateofGavin and @GretaThunberg

  1. Good Halloween cartoon, Anthony. The late Dr. Steven Schneider said two totally different things, the “make little mention of the doubts we have.” disqualifying him from the status of scientist. If they can initiate an impeachment inquiry based on not liking election results, and trample the constitution, then there is no hope for any rational monitoring of the false global warming narrative. There are clear signals that a Dalton (or Maunder?) Minimum is about to arrive and that is the only hope for a reality check for the masses. Press On.

    • No that is what you are supposed to think. Think AfD in Germany where the have just inflicted a massive defeat on Merkel. The tax rises imposed as a result of climate policies are the root cause. That they definitely don’t want you to think about. Anyway The Un will not be hosting COP25 in Chile as they run out of money by 1st November, unless Donald bails them out again. I don’t understand why the US remains in the UN as they get from the UN is perpetual sledging.

    • It’s scary how right on your comment is, Robert W Turner. Look at Chile, which WAS the most advanced of all the Latin American countries, then they go after “economic equality” by burning buses and looting supermarkets. Wherever we see these socialists/marxist/equality/global warming/Antifa riots the law and order systems don’t seem to deal with them in any effective way. This will not end in a good place.

    • Our local newspaper keeps getting smaller. They regularly run half-page ads about themselves claiming they are an antidote for fake news. That fills in some of the unsold space in the advertising section.

      It’s gotten so bad for them that they are actually running some pretty conservative editorials in an effort to cut circulation losses. However they’re still pushing the climate change narrative.

  2. I disagree with the idea that Greta is trying to scare people. She believes what she says and is trying to get people’s attention so they make dramatic changes. She’s been scared by adults and now she wants to make people believe what she had been led to believe. That’s very different than adults intentionally spouting misleading information designed to scare people into action.

    I have to wonder if Greta has ever stopped to think about how the world would look if the changes she is demanding were actually implemented. I know the younger people I’ve talked to haven’t. They think it’s simple – we just replace fossil fuels with renewables. They say it as if it’s easy, as if we can just convert everything to green energy in a matter of 5, 10 or even 20 years. Never stopping to think about the costs or the impacts on daily life. Because they think it’s so simple they can’t understand why there isn’t immediate change.

    • She has not because she is a child and has a child’s mentality. Not her fault to be sure but the adults in her life should be shamed for doing that to her.

    • Billj, I’m not as forgiving of her as you. I believe that if her beliefs were ever implemented into law that literally hundreds of millions of people would die.

      https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/08/12/life-in-fossilfuelfree-utopia-n2367137

      For my house in Florida, I have solar hot water, solar assisted cooling, LED lighting, extra insulation in my attic crawl space, impact windows and doors which all have the top energy efficiency rating and finally PV on the roof. As for the PV, it is a joke. I track it and over time its efficiency has dropped since installed in 1/10/2015 to present at 90.1% of the first year.

      • Is that normal for PV panels “efficiency has dropped since installed in 1/10/2015 to present at 90.1% of the first year”? In 20 years you would see an approx. 50% drop in their efficiency.

        Mr. Watts had his panels installed in 2013 so I wonder if he has experienced a similar efficiency loss?

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/an-update-on-my-solar-power-project-results-show-why-i-got-solar-power-for-my-home-hint-climate-change-is-not-a-reason/

        It doesn’t sound too promising if other experience similar losses.

        • I wish I could say it was unusual but I do not suspect it is. I have a friend in Pa who became certified to install them and started with his own home, he told me his have dropped in production too. Now, one problem as I understand it is the type of inverter used on them. Mine are Enphase. He told me they put a somewhat cheap inverter on them when new and the efficiency for the inverter is about 94%. If the inverter goes bad you can get a new one that has about 99% efficiency. The better ones cost $150 each. I have 20 panels so that would be $3,000.

          If I knew how or had the permissions I would post my excel spreadsheet on here to let everyone see the calculations and graph. The max production day has dropped year over year, the total production for the year dropped year over year and all metrics have dropped from base year. If I had it to do again knowing what I know now, not sure I’d spend the money on them. PLUS, what do I do with them when they are worthless? Trash or landfill?

          • “MikeP October 31, 2019 at 3:11 pm

            Neither … used solar panels count as toxic waste … you can’t legally just dump them.”

            In the UK there is something called “fly tipping”, basically building waste that costs quite a bit to dispose of properly that “unscrupulous” builders (Is there any other kind?) drive around the countryside and dump, a lot of it toxic, in lanes. I can see solar panels appearing in country lanes in a few years.

            When I lived in the UK I used to use my landrover to drive around as a volunteer with others clearing up this waste so that ramblers (Walkers) and horse riders could use the lanes without the risk of running over some nasty waste.

          • Here in Australia, in the rush to suck the taxpwyer teat for rebates and feed in tariffs, many solar installation that came with a 15 – 20 year “warranty” are being replaced after 5 years because they were cheap Chinese made rubbish and badly installed. Many people also don’t consider the inverter. Many cheap inverters can damage sensitive appliances like TV’s etc because the output is not a genuine sinusoidal wave AC output. Newer ones are better, but not perfect.

            Sc@m it is!

    • BillJ: bingo.

      Greta is the first sincere climate celebrity. Ever. By rights, she should be the last one we mock.

      Her power as a speaker comes from being young and dumb enough to actually believe the farrago of nonsense she imbibed with her mother’s milk, which is the same formula most Scandinavians of her generation have been on ever since they could understand the spoken word.

      This power threatens us, because we instinctively feel her authenticity and project our own respect for authenticity onto the population as a whole. In other words, we dislike her for the same reason her wranglers chose her: her credulity is a talent.

      What we SHOULD have done, instead of deriding her, is let her do her thing unimpeded. Because it turns out she wasn’t such a Wunderwaffe for the climate movement after all. Unfortunately for them, the very sincerity of her belief put her in direct conflict with their own hypocrisy. Every HOW DARE YOU thundered by Ms Thunberg in New York a month ago was directed NOT at us, but at the classe climatique who’d filled her head with fears of a two-thirds-probable climatic clusterf*ck and then failed to lift a finger to stop it.

      Our response to her speech should have been either:

      1. climate silence
      2. or, if we were hungry, then the faint popping of popcorn kernels in a microwave
      3. or, if we really had to say something, then the adolescent shout of Fight! Fight!

      My momma taught me never to interrupt my enemy when he’s being cut to ribbons by his own genetically modified prize Frankenchicken come home to roost. That’s a quote. If your momma never told you this, I pity your abnormal childhood.

      Greta Thunberg is not our enemy—but the innocent, incandescent homicide she harbors in her heart for those who dared betray her generation may just make her the enemy of our enemy.

      • It’s Friday. Has anyone seen Jane Fonda? I wonder if she has been arrested for protesting human-caused climate change today, and was she dressed in a Halloween costume?

        • I have it on good authority that Michael Mann dressed up as a scientist today, which must have scared the bejeebus out of the Hide-The-Data unindicted co-conspirators he calls his workmates.

          Plus it’s just so funny. I mean, Michael Mann… a scientist? That’s like Richard Dawkins being elected Pope.

        • I saw this morning where Jane Fonda was arrested yesterday and taken to jail over her climate change protest. She was dressed really nice, with a nice hat. No halloween costume.

          She had one or two other celebrities there with her, and it looked like there might have been a couple of dozen people standing around. Most were probably reporters.

          Jane says she is going to continue this protest every Friday until January 2020. So I guess this is really a protest against Trump more than climate change. If Trump wins she is going to stop protesting when he takes office in January. Instead of stopping her protest in January, Jane should make it November 2020, because that’s when she will know her protests will be fruitless. That would be the time for her to give up.

      • well spoken – so so true – indoctrinating with religion is now out of fashion – it’s climate doomsday instead –

    • I disagree with the idea that Greta is trying to scare people. She believes what she says…

      Well, even if that’s right and she’s not a disturbed no-longer-a-child-being-manipulated-by-the-adults-around-her, she’s wrong.
      I don’t know if he was quoting someone else or not, but, a wise man I knew once said, “Sincerity is no guarantee of Truth.”

    • “I disagree with the idea that Greta is trying to scare people. She believes what she says and is trying to get people’s attention so they make dramatic changes.”

      Actually, I don’t think there’s a dichotomy there. She decidedly is trying to scare people (because she believes what she says).

      “Adults keep saying, we owe it to the young people to give them hope. But I don’t want your hope, I don’t want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic.”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b2e7ee32-ad28-4ec4-89aa-a8b8c98f95a5

    • I wonder when the tipping point between ’tis only a child’ and ‘yup, objectively evil’ happens.

      Personally I am not convinced that Nordic Thanos is ‘Only a Child’.

      Yes, she may only believe what she is told, but there is a difference between believing pigs can fly, and knocking down your neighbour’s houses to make landing strips.

      • “but there is a difference between believing pigs can fly, and knocking down your neighbour’s houses to make landing strips”

        The difference, as I see it, is that you can work with someone who’s been fooled into believing the narrative sincerely.

        You cannot, ever, even in principle, work with someone who’s only pretending to believe, because it’s literally pointless reasoning with them: they already know the narrative is a steaming crock of bolshevism.

        You’ve probably heard it said:

        “It’s impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.”

        This futilitarian aphorism is easily disproven—I’m only too grateful to be reasoned out of the many positions I’ve adopted on gut instinct in the absence of good information, aren’t you? But it has an inexplicable and enduring appeal to intelligent people. Even Christopher Hitchens disappointed me by failing to reason himself out of it in his lifetime. (I like to picture Hitch in his own heaven now, a handsome smoking-room where the great minds can reason each other into and out of things all day without pausing to sleep or sober up.)

        I see it, I see through it, and I raise you:

        It’s impossible to reason someone out of a position they don’t actually hold.

        That’s why the false alarmists will never be induced to admit skeptics are right: they already know that, and it’s beside the point. The point is to ennoble, empower and enrich themselves by convincing everyone otherwise.

        Give me an *actual* believer any day.

    • @saveenergy, interesting the clip is allowed in the UK. I guess it is only in Sweden they censor it. This does not surprise me, GT is Swedish and Sweden like her parents very much.
      On a side note: Six months ago i tried to option of nuclear and hydro at EON (the power company), but I could only option for renewable. Then yesterday I spoke to EON about another issue and was offered to option for nuclear and hydro. Is the tide turning? If so, that is not scary – maybe the Swedes can get to keep their nuclear and hydro, which compose nearly all the electricity in Sweden, and it ensures Denmark can continue to have constant power, despite all their wind turbines and virtually no on-demand power left.

  3. I’m old enough to have knowledge of a few “manias” that have beset various groups of people at certain times.

    Most of these manias (is this the correct plural of ‘mania’?) peter out after a while, with little harm done to humanity in general.

    This CAGW one, however, is far more sinister & destructive, mainly in that the policies it espouses are intended to deprive the poor of the world access to the modern, reliable, affordable energy that underpins health, nutrition and mobility standards for all.

    • Agreed on both counts.

      At some point a child comes home from school and says “Mum/dad, teacher said that the world is going to end in 5/10 years.” Parent then says “Yes, that’s what they said when I was your age. It’s dog shit.”

      It is happening now, but the alarmists can certainly do a lot of damage before most people realise this.

    • Mr. On a trip through the western US about 40 years ago with my dad, we were driving on a road where as far as you could see there were no people or buildings. He said when he was in grade school he was told by his teacher that there would be standing room only in this country in 40 years. He looked around and said “looks like plenty of standing room to me”. He was born in 1925. He was always talking about the predictions made that didn’t come true. Apparently most people don’t have a good memory.

  4. I have a contractor who has done a couple jobs for me and one day we got to discussing AGW and I was hitting him with statistics. His daughter is a big warmunist and he was trying to hit me with her arguments. I countered with fact after fact and I could see I was making a lot of headway. When I could see I had him on the ropes I asked him this simple question, If this is really true, ask yourself why every solution being offered up is more government control over your life, fewer choices for you and me and more taxes, how does losing your freedoms and money solve this non-issue?

    Then I pointed him to this site which he bookmarked.

    • When I discuss this with non-technical folks (to be kind), I simply ask them, “If it is such a threat as the billionaires and multi-millionaire elites say it is, do you see them changing their private jet and mega yacht lifestyles? Buying small home and ditching their energy hungry mansions? Have you seen Arnie Schwarzenegger give up his V-12 Bugatti Veyron or Hummer for Prius?
      Then why are they demanding you must submit to much higher electric and gas prices and give up your middle class lifestyle? Those higher prices that won’t affect them or their family one iota. Who’s getting played here?

      Then I follow with:
      – Do you see climate scientists no longer traveling to big meetings in exotic locales? What happens if to their funding if they say, “Hey, it’s no big deal, turn off the alarms, we were wrong.” ???

      – How’s that solar panel gonna work at night and cloudy days? or that wind farm on light wind/windless days? Where does the electricity still have to come from to power everything without blackouts? That just adds lots of cost, and who then pays for that redundancy to support unreliable renewable power?

      -Don’t you like electricity at night and when its cloudy? I know I do. That’s when I need it most – at night, when its either old and or a shot, till summer night, I need my HVAC.

      – If SLR is such a problem, why is Miami Beachfront property so expensive?

      – Why is it that every place that brings on lots of wind and solar power, the electricity prices go up dramatically for the consumers? Is that a bug or an intended feature? What happens to your lifestyle if gas is $8-$10/gal? or your future electric bill is 3x today?

      There are so many ways to demonstrate to average non-technical folks about why the Climate Change alarmism is a scam on their pocketbooks and future. No need to get into the snooze-inducing problems of climate models and tampered surface temp data sets. Just use the Left’s actions, not their words against them to show folks what really going on.

      • To play devil’s advocate, most of the contradictions you cite between their words and their behavior can be explained by *hypocrisy,* and therefore fail to cast doubt on their beliefs per se.

        It’s possible for to be absolutely sincere in decrying the eco-toxicity of the carbon-pollution molecule, yet continue spewing said compound into the atmosphere with utter abandon, not because you don’t *believe* you’re short-changing everyone else’s kids’ future thereby, but simply because you don’t CARE.

        What we need to focus on is examples like the beachfront-property phenomenon you mention—and the effect Charles highlighted in a recent Eurekalert wherein the most ostensibly alarmist people are acting against their OWN interests according to the logic of their publicly-voiced opinions.

        That can’t be explained away by assuming they’re selfish *ssholes—they’d need to be suicidal.

        Or insincere.

        • It really doesn’t matter why they are hypocrites. Either they don’t realize it, or they do and don’t care. Matters not.

          The rich buying politicians and demanding they impose energy policies that will gut the middle class whilst they live large is a good way to find themselves on the wrong end of a revolution – French style.

          • “It really doesn’t matter why they are hypocrites.”

            Yeah, it does. Not morally, of course—as I’m sure you’d agree, they’re going to the same place after they die no matter the reason for their hypocrisy—but strategically.

            If you can convince a climate-concerned friend that Al Gore (as a micronym for the Al Gore Type) doesn’t care about the “damage” he does to “the planet” with his “carbon” “footprint,” then you’ve convinced him that the climate leadership is not made up of particularly ethical people.

            But if you can convince him that Al Gore doesn’t even think carbon footprints matter, then you’ve convinced him that everyone—including the climate leadership—is secretly in agreement that the whole thing is a false alarm.

            The former won’t necessarily make your friend change his mind, but the latter will.

            People often continue to believe a leader after finding out he’s less than admirable—look at the history of the clergy—but not after finding out he’s lying to them.

          • What your example of a clergy or single leader misses/gets wrong is that this CC hypocrisy is wholesale systematic. It is demonstrably rampantly systemic across the entire spectrum of elitists and politicians who claim CC is crisis.

            Not just one Leader, say Barack Obama is a Climate Change hypocrite (like mansion near SeaLevel on Martha’s Vineyard and smoozing with celebrities for a month on billionaire Geffen’s megayacht in the South Pacific), but the entire lot of them. Everyone of them. You can’t find one billionaire who claims Climate Change is crisis-problem that has curtailed their living large lifestyle. Hollywood types haven’t curtailed their lifestyles for climate change fears. Even Bernie Sanders has his 3 large homes.

            I come from 24 years in the military. Real leaders set examples for the things they believe in. They resign if ordered to do things they know are wrong. They do not lie.
            And climate change alarmism is chock full of grossly large lies.

            With the totality of so many hypocrites, you can only conclude that they all (or most) know it is a scam. They want others (the middle class) to make the sacrifices to pay for their policy prescriptions while they continue to live large along with their progeny.

            You have to use that economic argument on most folks (why CC is scam targeting their pocketbooks), because trying to talk about climate models and tampered data sets is meaninglessly arcane to most people.

          • Thanks Joel. A different allegory:

            If the leaders of the anti-DDT movement were secretly filmed using DDT on their own properties, that would certainly make them hypocrites, but DDT might still be as cataclysmically toxic as they claimed (or so a Believer could argue).

            But if the leaders were filmed *eating tablespoons of DDT*, that would prove they didn’t even believe their own schtick about its hypertoxicity.

            That’s all I meant about the difference between liars and non-lying hypocrites.

            But you’re right, it’s systemic. It’s a behemoth. And that also makes it harder to convince someone that the climate leaders are ALL hypocrites (or liars), since no matter how many rotten apples you discard, there are always more apples that might NOT be rotten.

            Do you have any thoughts/strategies to get around that rationalization?

  5. The thing Gavin fears most: Being exposed as a fraud and liar.
    The thing Greta fears most: Actually using her brain.

    • It’s not that she fears using her brain, it’s that the adults in her life have so thoroughly brainwashed her that she does know how to.

      • Actually, people with autism use their brains probably more than most. That’s because the brain can become “mis-wired” in many, many different ways. The most common one seems to be excessive focus. The person focuses on one thing, commonly “dirt” and may wash their hands for an hour after cleaning up when the baby spits up breakfast.
        At some point Greta saw or read something about the dangers of “climate change”. She picked up on it and with the help of her politically leaning parents became enthralled by it. She can use her brain just fine- she’s quite a good speaker for a high school student, she uses pretty advanced techniques to try an focus her audience, excellent planning . But she doesn’t think about what she is talking about, doesn’t delve into how things were explained to her, doesn’t understand the very limited knowledge we have about how the climate actually behaves.

        I’d kind of compare her to Ben Shapiro(with apologies Ben). He obviously very smart and can speak cogently about a topic he’s thought about, and speaks so fast most people have a hard time following what he says. But when when you read the transcript he almost always has a fully connected, cogent position.

        • You hit on the bottom line right here:

          But she doesn’t think about what she is talking about, doesn’t delve into how things were explained to her, doesn’t understand….

          in short she *doesn’t* use (or seemingly no how to use) her brain to do those things.

    • The more I see of what Great Thunberg has been doing with her parents pushing her to do it, the more convinced I am that she is less to blame for what she says than they are. I think they just look at her as a cash cow, useful until people get tired of being scolded by her.

      So if you are going to blame anyone at all for what she has become, blame them, because some day, they’ll be gone and she will be completely without any guidance at all.

      • It’s it true that both her parents are organisers for ANTIFA?

        Are they paid staffers? Volunteers? Where does this inanity come from?

        GT is obviously a victim or circumstances beyond her control. Criticize her fairly when she turns 21.

    • She actually explained what terrifies her the most. It’s not a mystery.

      Greta is in denial. (Have you ever met a a believer who wasn’t?)

      As she said in her finest hour, addressing the world’s top 2,500 virtue-signatories:

      “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

      Can we blame her for shying from the truth at the final moment? It’s not exactly a convenient one.

      As woken-up grown-ups, I suspect all we can do is trust Greta to woman up in her own time, of her own volition, and hope she has the intellectual integrity to face a reality whose awful outlines she can probably make out even now, through closed eyelids.

      To wit: the reason they’ll never lift a sh*t-bemerded finger to “save the planet”—not for themselves, not for their kids and certainly not for kids like Greta—is that they understand The Science™ perfectly well, having used their own middle digits to disimpact it from The Scientists’™ coy bowels in spool upon lucrative spool, coil on golden coil.

      Greta Thunberg could stand before the entire international classe climatique tomorrow, doused in bio-diesel from head to toe, and strike a match. If she expects a single person in the room to break ranks and beg her to stop, blubbering about a decades-long prank that’s gone too far, then she’s in for third-degree, full-thickness disappointment.

      If that’s the only way the climatocracy can change her mind—by coming clean about the false alarm they’ve been ringing on the hour for the last thirty years—then they’re just going to sit there and watch her immolate herself, like they watched her starve herself a couple of years ago, with sealed lips and omertà intacta.

      And when Greta is just a charcoal stick-figure in the shape of a girl, they’ll let one child crusader after another follow her lead, setting him- or herself alight atop a pyre of martyred peers. They might look up from their Candy Crush games and real-estate apps to applaud the courage of today’s youth if the cameras are rolling, but that’s about it. As long as that pyramid of little black mummies never causes a high-ranking UN klimatchik’s flight to Monaco or St Moritz to be delayed, it could dwarf Everest as far as they’re concerned.

      Evil?

      These are the evilest believalists conceivable: the kind who know better than to get high on their own supply.

  6. Is it my imagination or did the socialist/marxists lurch farther left in the last10 years? They were emboldened by Obama and then went bonkers with Trump. They are laughable.

  7. There are 1676 monthly entries to Dr. Schmidt’s Land Ocean Temperature Index
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    and for the most recent month he changed 674 of them. Here are the number of changes he’s made so far this year:

    Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr    May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
    843  370  481  633  1359  566  281  400  674

    This is a steady drone that goes on every month. Most changes cool the past and warm the recent years.

    Here’s what that looks like:
    https://i.postimg.cc/3xFppC9t/GISSTEMP-Changes-2018-05.gif

  8. That temp chart of Gavin S. showing temps back to 1880 with such accuracy? I do not believe it. Temps might be rising slowly as I would expect after an ice age but I do not believe the accuracy portrayed, no way, as a mechanical engineer I know something about measuring things.

    • They all leave out systematic measurement error, John, and they don’t even know to take instrumental resolution into account.

      See Figure 12 here for a rendering of what an accurately compiled record might look like.

      The official global air temperature record is a crock produced by incompetents, peer-reviewed, published and all.

  9. Perfect! Best laugh I’ve had in quite a while! Equally glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I saw that reGretable cartoon!

  10. “I replied, showing how the GISS temperature data looks when you put it in normal range. It’s hardly noticeable.”

    Shouldn’y you render it in Kelvin…. That isa scale with an absolute starting point (theoretical cessation of all thermal molecular motion/ Point at which an ideal gas has zero volume) rather than Fahrenheit/Celsius which have arbitrary zero points ?

    • Michael, it really doesn’t matter if it’s in Kelvin, Fahrenheit, Celsius as the point is adequately illustrated by any one of those three -ie that the actual “change” is pretty much inpercetable in the normal temperature range.

      • Putting a bar chart (like the second chart above) in Kelvin does matter because it shows more accurately how tiny the fluctuations really are. A change of 1 degree on 288 is 0.35% 1 degree on 15 is 6.7%.

        Each one of their deceptions is small like using Celsius instead of Kelvin, or calling CO2 “Carbon” instead of Carbon Dioxide. The cumulative effect is what concerns skeptics.

        • For accuracy, yes Kelvin would be best, but you don’t need that level of accuracy to get the point Anthony was making across. the chart he posted works perfectly fine as is for getting the point he was making across, and in fact probably works even better because the lay person/man on the street is familiar with and understand what temperature denominated in degrees Fahrenheit is, whereas they are unfamiliar with the Kelvin scale. You show them a chart of temps all near the 60 degree Fahrenheit mark and they understand what 60 degrees F is, show them a chart of temps all near the 288 degree Kelvin mark and they have no clue what that is and you will succeed in doing is confusing them, how is that effective?

    • As most thing in the natural grow and decay at a logarithmic rates, surely the temperature should logarithmic scaled?

  11. Gavin A Schmidt.
    Gavin A.
    Did his parents have a love of anagrams, or just a wicked sense of humour?

  12. Umm, you can turn the fans off anytime you want !!
    We’ve already got 3-4 inches of snow in Chicago, the old record for the date (Halloween) was 0.1 inches.
    With no trick-or-treaters coming around, who’s gonna eat all the candy I bought ?

    • I’m north of Chicago, I measured the total (now that the snow has stopped for a while) at 5.225 inches. Got photos, shoveled that sloppy, wet stuff off the sidewalk and front steps and got some hot tea to reward myself.

    • The weather forecast in Chicago for tonight is twenty degrees F.

      I’ve lived here my whole life. In 70 years I don’t remember Halloween ever being this cold. And that’s after an unusually cool summer where we never even once got into the high nineties.

      I know where I live is just one small patch of a big world but as near as I can tell the world seems to be getting colder.

      • I think they depend on:
        1. The young haven’t lived through a “climate cycle” yet. All the young have experienced is the “up swing”.
        2. When things like what what you’ve pointed out, “they’ say that your little spot on the globe is not the whole globe. They dismiss that if “The Whole Globe” is warming due to Man’s CO2 or even just Ma’ Gaia having a hot flash, then the “little spots” on it should be effected.

        If they can’t convince people that Man is the cause of what is natural then they have no excuse for using the weather to convince people to surrender freedoms to them so they can achieve a political goal. (ie “The Green New Deal”.)

    • Hey I’m in Tucson AZ. My Trick or Treaters tonight were down at least to a 1/4 of what they were the last several years here – so hardly a dent in the big candy bowl I had at the door. Weather was pleasant, a little cooler than usual but not much. My hypothesis is: with the crescent Moon down, it was dark out on the sidewalks, and parents didn’t have their kids out so much with Friday a school day too.

      Now I still got a full Bowl of mini-candy bars after I dumped my spare/back-up bag into it. And I rarely eat chocolate. Sigh.

      #1stWorldProblems

  13. Gavin Schmidt: “There are some things we should be scared of every day… like debating global warming in person… WAAAAHHHH! MOMMY!”

    • From the Dark History of the Climate Debate

      2013: Stossel Event averted

      ◦ Gavin Schmidt is praised for running away from a critic on national television, preserving the dignity  of science.

      ◦ Early reports suggest the scientist whose scientific arguments Schmidt narrowly escaped hearing was a science denier. 

      ◦ Colleagues agree that if not for Schmidt’s quick fleeing there might have been a full-blown ‘climate debate’—the theoretical state in which, scientists fear, it might look as if there are two viable ‘sides.’ 

  14. Somebody like MiniAOC needs to put on a Greta mask and go door-to-door on Halloween reciting Greta’s lines. I wonder how many people would get it.

    Greta: [looks into bag after receiving candy] “How dare you! You have stolen my childhood!”

      • Yes. Just as they have no clue about the Medieval Warming Period, the Little Ice Age or most importantly, a Grand Solar Minimum. However, in the next few years, I believe they will learn about a GSM.

  15. Peter Sinks, Utah already got a scare on Oct. 28, with a temperature of -34.7 F, an unofficial low temp. for the lower 48.

  16. Anthony,

    “They seem to truly believe that the world is at risk from climate change,”

    with the maximum possible respect and gratitude for your advocacy of scientific integrity (for which you and Steve McIntyre are overdue a Nobel), NO THEY DO NOT.

    I suspect the same scotoma that has made you blind to the most baroque irony in the past now makes you blind to the most blatant disingenuity.

    They do NOT seem to do *anything* “truly,” up to and including believe their own schtick, with the notable and unprecedented exception of Greta Thunberg.

        • @ Brad Keyes,
          It is not one of the seven deadly sins, but abusing someone’s good nature should be the eighth.
          Shoulda quit while you were ahead.

          • ???
            @u.k.(us), in what sense do you feel I abused anyone’s good nature?

            I was disarmed by Anthony’s gracious reply (especially given how strong I’d come on initially with the capital letters), and made what I thought was a self-deprecating reference to the unnecessarily polemical nature of climate commentary, or at least my own, unused as I am to *friendly* disagreements in this context.

            I hope your [mis]interpretation isn’t shared by Anthony, and I apologize just in case it is. Does a smiling emoticon not convey friendliness on your side of the Atlantic, UK/US?

      • No, not a robot, a great actor. She has had a lot of coaching to get those on stage facial expressions and emotion laden quivering voice just right.

        How DARE you!

        • What evidence are you aware of that casts doubt on Greta Thunberg’s sincerity? What makes you suspect she’s even capable of seeing through the climate narrative? She doesn’t have a science degree. She’s missed high school most Fridays. If she didn’t really believe it, that would be an extraordinary tribute to her powers of skepticism, given the oppressively right-on social milieu she was raised in.

          Furthermore, it’s hard to think of a kid that age who can act [so] well.

          Let alone a kid with Asperger’s.

          Watch the attack phase of Greta’s UN speech (the first quarter or so) again. See how closely her affect tracks the contents of her words and their emotional valence.

          Is that acting? I’ve yet to see the prodigy who can do that on cue. No matter how good they are, there always seems to be an 800-year lag ’twixt the script and the poise of the lip, which, once noticed, makes the most promising proto-thespian about as compelling as an animatronic tribute to the craft of Nicholas Cage. To be sure, the technology is getting there. The calibre of underage actors is better every awards season. But they’re still on the wrong side of the uncanny valley (hand in hand with the better part of Hollywood’s A through C lists, in all age brackets) and I genuinely don’t expect them to be mistaken for humans in my lifetime—or if they are, it’s because they don’t attempt speeches like Greta’s.

          Occam’s razor may be a double-edged blade but in this case it just doesn’t want to shave against the grain. Not for me anyway. It strikes me as vastly more plausible (albeit unprecedented in the history of climate celebrity) that the emotion in Greta’s voice is unfeigned.

          Knowledge isn’t always power. Once you know what you’re selling is bullmilk, you’ve lost forever the power to sell it with feeling. You then have to fall back on charm, misdirection, humor, repetition, feigned indignation, and the numberless other technologies it takes just to approximate the effortless talent of the ignorant.

          Here’s my hypothesis:

          The climate Pharisees are hamstrung by familiarity with their own product. The cognitive dissonance that results is the enemy of oratory, and the reason they will never touch the hem of Greta’s robe in the field of ‘climate communication.’ The most gifted actor among them will still fall short—because he’s acting. Even at the best of milliseconds, only a fraction of his intracranial resources are available for the material itself, the piece. The rest of his brain is too busy:

          • trying to act like he’s not acting
          • trying not to act like he’s acting
          • ignoring the fact that he’s asking the rest of the world to act, but never acts himself
          • steering clear of the caveats and asterisks and inconvenient truths Steven Schneider said you should make no mention of
          • muting that little voice we’ve all heard reproaching us, in Richard Feynman’s Brooklyn accent, whenever we betray everything science stands for (the one primitive societies used to call “the conscience”)
          • trying not to dwell on the depressing fact that the climate crisis is make-believe
          • wondering: is this the year they finally notice we’re the only scientists who never seem to add anything to human knowledge, and demand a refund?
          • will I be forced to sell the paintings? Can a judge do that?

          To anyone who doubts the literal veracity of a single bullet point of the neuroscience I present—as is your right, I suppose 🙂 —I have one word to say: fMRI.

          Let me expand fourfold on the above remark. Functional magnetic resonance imaging.

          A neuroscientist is unlikely to confuse the brain scan of someone expressing their beliefs with that of someone dissimulating them. The latter is a relatively recent triumph of evolution, and requires a more elaborate and diffuse neurological dance than anything Thunberg does. Her power as a speaker comes from how little is going on mentally. In Emily Dickinson’s words,

          The brain within its groove
          Runs evenly and true;

          Climate spokesmouths will never volunteer for such an experiment, of course, but it would be the ideal modality to verify what our shared spider-senses have been telling us ever since these people first started pitching their wares: that Greta represents a quantum leap in sincerity, albeit from a low baseline.

          Anyway, your mileage may vary. (Mine may not; it’s currently on loan to the Systeme Internationale in France and stored in a vault labeled ‘The Standard Mile.’)

          • Do you have kids, teens? They are great actors, esp when the WiFi goes out. Any excuse to throw a tanty!

        • However, she has clearly been “coached” when you see her “on script” and then “off script”.

          • Yes, I agree she has been “coached,” because she doesn’t know the climate talking-points very well. What lay alarmist does? They’ve all got SkepSci on speed-dial and wouldn’t dream of debating a skeptic, or even answering questions from a non-docile press, without backup. But this isn’t the same thing as saying they don’t Believe.

        • Actors are robots, in that they execute scripts written by others, and so being a good actor, in no way, undermines my assertion about Gretabot.

          Although now I’m thinking Gretaborg, as she wishes to assimilate all others into the alarmist hive mind.

          And being a good actor does not mean that she understands the lies she is acting out. I think that she probably believes the lies, in addition to expressing her beliefs with good acting. Yes, children much younger than her are excellent actors, and often they know that what they act out is a lie, but, in Greta’s case, I suspect that she has no clue about the underlying “science” serving as the source material for her acting.

          • If she believes The Science™, and if she has Asperger’s (which is associated with an intolerance for contradictions and inconsistency), then her how-dare-you rage (which is directed against the frauds who don’t seem to believe their own hype) is entirely proportionate and “rational,” so to speak.

            There’s no need to posit that she’s ALSO being theatrical to add even more venom to her performance.

            How angry would you be if The Science™ were true but nobody ever did anything about it? I doubt I’d have been as calm and polite as Greta was at the UN, under the circumstances.

  17. I noticed recently that Greta Thunberg has had an insect named after her, Nelloptodes Gretae. It has no eyes or wings, so is unable to see CO2 and must travel everywhere on a yacht.

  18. Gavin’s graph differs greatly from the UAH satellite record. link

    Not only is he being selective about the scale of the graph, it looks like the data is being cooked.

  19. Why on earth would you show variation in temperature on a scale from -40 to +120°C – what is special about those temperatures

    If you are going to chose a real scale it should be on a scale that includes max and min temperatures :
    0K to plank temperature – 1.416833(85) x 10^32 K.

    On that scale the temperatures over the last billion or so years shows visually insignificant changes!!!!

    The hubble telescope mirror was supposed polished 10 nanometers over a 2.4 metre diameter. unfortunately it was 2.2 micrometres in error of shape that’s only 1ppm. but this wrecked the instrument. if you had plotted the required shape and the actual shape nothing would have been seen. if you had plotted the error with a 2.4metre scale nothing would have been seen. Change the scale and the error is obvious. Which scale should nasa have used?

    If ocean temperatures rose by a few tenths of K would you consider this insignificant. should you consider how much MORE energy is stored. Can you say that this energy will have no effect??

    Temperature scales are chosen to best show changes and are not done to scare ignorant sheep.

    • “Temperature scales are chosen to best show changes and are not done to scare ignorant sheep.”

      Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t.

    • Temperatures should be calculated in Kelvin because 2 degrees Celsius is not twice as hot as 1 degree Celsius.

    • Why on earth would you show variation in temperature on a scale from -40 to +120°C – what is special about those temperatures

      Perhaps because that’s the temperature range that humans on this planet live in.

      • John Endicott November 1, 2019 at 5:15 am
        Perhaps because that’s the temperature range that humans on this planet live in.
        ——————-
        You cannot be serious
        I wonder how many people live in temperatures of 120°C . Seems a trifle warm to me.!!!!

        Max temp on earth is in 50s Celsius

        • I’d say you can’t be this seriously ignorant, ghalfrunt, but based on your posting history it’s clear that you certainly work at looking like you are.

          First, the chart temp range is in °F not °C and even you must be aware of the range of temperature that humanity endures. For example, on June 1994 Lake Havasu City Arizona posted a record high temperature of 128°F (which is actually *ABOVE* the upper range of the posted chart by 8 degrees). at the other end, parts of Alaska have, on numerous occasions reached lows of -70°F (considerably below the charts -40°F). That you feign unawareness of the extremes of temperatures in places the human live only shows why you aren’t taken seriously by most who post here.

        • Which is why the upper range of that graph is 120°F
          Pretty close to your 50°C max temp on earth!

  20. Greta is now complaining about twitter and Facebook comments that are not what she expected. I guess if you choose to (Meaning if your parents force you to) be thrust upon the political stage you are going to get some unfavourable comments.

    Welcome to the real world Greta. I suspected you were not prepared for this public and political exposure. Get used to it, deal with it or go away.

  21. Why is everyone scared of a 16 year old that requires them to hit out at her looks, her views, her aspergers?

    Its weird and not very productive in my view

  22. “There are some thing that we should be scared of every day.”

    Yes, there are – such as what would happen if we acted on the findings of Gavin’s junk climate “science.”

  23. Gavin Schmidt wrote on twitter: “There are some things we should be scared of every day”. And then he posted a picture of his bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart below his text, insinuating that his bastarized chart represents reality and that should make us scared because his bogus Hockey Stick chart shows the temperatures to be getting “hotter and hotter and hotter” and he claims we are experiencing the hottest temperatures in human history today because of the CO2 humans have added to the Earth’s atmosphere.

    What we should really be scared of is Gavin Schmidt has fooled many people in the Western world with his bastardizations of the surface temperature chart, to the point that some of those people have decided it is necessary to turn society upside down and completely destroy our economy in an effort to reduce CO2.

    But the real world doesn’t look like Gavin Schmidt portrays it. In the real world it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today. In the real world, the Earth is *not* experiencing unprecedented warming. Unbastardized regional surface temperature charts from around the world all show the period of the 1930’s as being as warm as it is today. This means that CO2 is a minor factor in the Earth’s climate and there is no need to reduce CO2 output. Of course, this is completely contrary to the alarmist narrative, so Gavin Schmidt and many other alarmist data manipulators decided to bastardize the temperature records of the world and turn them into a global “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart.

    Below is an unmodified US surface temperature chart along with a Gavin Schmidt bastardized version where they try to turn the US surface temperature chart into a Hockey Stick. As you can see, the original chart shows that the 1930’s were just as warm as the temperatures today, but the modified chart shows it is hotter today than then. The Data Manipulators are bastardizing the US surface temperature chart!!! Right in front of our eyes!!! And they have done the very same thing to temperature charts all over the world. Their only problem is they have not been able to erase the unmodified temperature records, for the most part, so we can see the changes they made, and it is obvious why they made these changes: For political purposes.

    I think President Trump should order Gavin Schmidt to explain why he modified the US surface temperature chart in the way he did. These data manipulators have gone far too long without them being pinned down on these changes, which make the difference between whether we fear CO2 or not.

    Gavin needs to explain himself. What new information did you get Gavin, to cause you to change the look of the US surface temperture chart? Why wasn’t it good enough before you modified it? Concerned people want to know. You are a government employee. You should be giving us these answers.

    Here are the two charts, the unmodified one, and the bastardized one:

    Raw

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/USHCN-RAW-TMAX-Vs-Year-1895-2019-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-Red-Line-Is-5-Year-Mean-USHCN-RAW-TMAX-vs-Year.png

    Bastardized

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/USHCN-FINAL-TMAX-Vs-Year-1895-2019-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-Red-Line-Is-5-Year-Mean-USHCN-FINAL-TMAX-vs-Year.png

  24. Great point on the temperature graph perspective.

    You can greatly exaggerate the impression of small temperature changes to the user by plotting with coordinates on the vertical axis(temperatures) which cause the lines to start at the bottom and end at the top vs using an honest depiction.

    If a 1.5 deg. C change meant the difference between life and death for many creatures and life on the planet, then this would be justified.

    Since much of that warming is occurring in the coldest places during the coldest time of year(and at night) that is a ludicrous idea.

    Last night, while Trick or Treating with the grand kids we saw many hundreds of geese flying south.

    They know…………that cold kills.

    This is why, in the Winter, some creatures migrate south, some hibernate to survive and plants go dormant or die.
    Cold kills.

    Modest warming with more beneficial CO2 does the opposite.

Comments are closed.