Were IPCC’s 1990 medium-term warming predictions accurate? No.

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

In the increasingly vain hope of success in flogging the dead horse Global Warming, revisionists are increasingly trying to pretend that climatologists’ original predictions of doom were accurate.

Here, I shall take a further look at the single most important prediction of them all: IPCC’s prediction of medium-term warming from 1990-2025 in its First Assessment Report.

When I recently pointed out that a revisionist paper praising models’ original predictions in fact proved they greatly exaggerate, faithful adherents of the New Religion piled in to try to say the original predictions were correct after all.

Here, for instance, is one comment, in a manner all too typical of the New Faithful:

Lord Monkfish, earl of obfuscation, refuses to share the data he used and the code he used to generate his charts. Maybe he will share 1) the ACTUAL DATA used in making the charts; 2) the actual code used in making the charts. Pretty simple. He won’t.

In the posting, I had published several graphs, only three of which were my own compilation. Contrary to the false allegation that I had “refused to share the data … and code”, I can now publicly confirm that I had previously received no request from or on behalf of Mr Mosher, or of anyone else, for any data or code connected with my posting.

Since Mr Mosher knew perfectly well that he had made no such request, and had caused no such request to be made on his behalf, and has not been in touch with me since my posting appeared, we may legitimately infer that his allegation that I “refuse” to share my material was a deliberate falsehood.

Such dishonest conduct is, alas, all too characteristic of the Thermageddonites as they panic in response to mother nature’s refusal to respond in accordance with their absurd over-predictions, and their creed collapses in festering ruins around them.

The first of my three graphs showed the simple mean of three monthly global mean temperature anomaly datasets from 1990-2018. The chart is plainly labeled showing that the three datasets were HadCRUT4, NCEI and GISS. The data are shown as a spline-curve. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data was also plotted, showing that the period observed warming trend was equivalent to 1.85 C°/century.

Contrast this with IPCC’s midrange prediction of medium-term warming equivalent to about 3 C°/century, which is nearly twice as much. Give that prediction a Fail.

The second chart showed the UAH monthly global lower-troposphere temperature anomalies and 1.3 C°/century equivalent least-squares linear-regression trend over the same period, again compared with IPCC’s “confident” but failed 3 C°/century-equivalent prediction from 1990. Not only did the heading on the graph state explicitly that the data were from UAH: the unique resource locator for the data was given, in full, on the graph itself. Had Mr Mosher wished to verify the data, he had merely to follow the published link.

What then, was my secret, esoteric, hidden, undivulged, concealed, buried source for the warming predicted by IPCC (1990)? Well, it was – wait for it – IPCC (1990):


The facsimile above is from page xxii. A more precise medium-term prediction than “about 0.3 C° per decade” is given on page xxiv:


Here Mr Mosher will need the assistance of his kindergarten mistress, for some elementary arithmetic is necessary. We begin with the assumption that temperature in 1850, when the HadCRUT4 record began, was about the same as it had been in the IPCC (1990) preindustrial reference year 1750, as the data from the only regional dataset available for that period (Central England) tend to confirm.

Warming from 1850-1990, according to HadCRUT4, the only global data going back that far, was 0.46 C°. Deduct this from the 1.8 C° prediction to leave 1.34 C° predicted to occur over four decades from 1991-2030. The mean predicted rate is thus 1.34 / 4, or 0.34 C°/decade.

This more precise IPCC prediction is almost double the terrestrially-observed warming since 1990, and well over two and a half times the UAH observed warming over the same period. IPCC’s more precise prediction, then, must be marked down as a Fail a fortiori.

In case Mr Mosher wonders whether emissions have indeed followed a business-as-usual pattern, or whether all the chanting and moaning of his fellow-Thermageddonites has Saved The Planet, the truth is that ever since 1990 CO2 emissions have comfortably exceeded IPCC (1990)’s predicted business-as-usual trajectory from then till now.

My third graph, reproduced below, was captioned as it is here.


Projected midrange Charney sensitivities (CMIP5 3.35 K, orange; CMIP6 4.05 K, red) are 2.5-3 times the 1.4 K (green) to be expected given 0.75 K observed global warming from 1850-2011 and 1.87 W m–2 realized anthropogenic forcing to 2011. The 2.5 W m–2 total anthropogenic forcing to 2011 is scaled to the 3.45 W m–2 estimated forcing in response to doubled CO2. Thus, the 4.05 K CMIP6 Charney sensitivity would imply almost 3 K warming from 1850-2011, thrice the 1 K to be expected and four times the 0.75 K observed warming.

The 3.35 K CMIP5 midrange Charney-sensitivity prediction is the mean of the midrange estimates in 15 models of the fifth generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, given in Andrews et al. (2012). The 4.05 K midrange CMIP6 prediction is the mean of 21 models of the CMIP sixth generation, dated September 2019. Each of these 21 models was listed by name and quantity in my posting.

The 0.75 K global warming from 1850-2011, the year to which IPCC updated all its forcing data in time for its 2013 Fifth and most recent Assessment Report, is of course taken from HadCRUT4, the only dataset that goes back that far.

Though it is not generally realized, it is possible to use observational data such as these to derive directly the holy grail of climate-sensitivity studies, Charney sensitivity, which is the warming in response to doubled CO2, after all short-acting feedbacks have operated and the climate has returned to equilibrium. We don’t really need the models any more, because we have enough data. The method is set out (though defectively proved) in Lewis & Curry 2015.

All one needs to know is the warming from 1850-2011 (0.75 C°), the total period forcing (2.49 W m–2: IPCC, 2013, fig. SPM.5) the period radiative imbalance or unrealized forcing (0.62 W m–2: Smith et al. 2015), and the forcing in response to doubled CO2 (3.45 W m–2: mean of 15 CMIP5 models: Andrews et al. 2012).

The realized forcing, the difference between the total and unrealized forcings, was about 1.87 W m–2. Since the official midrange realized forcing and resultant warming are known (subject to the usual uncertainties), the equilibrium-sensitivity parameter is instantly derivable: it is simply 0.75 / 1.87, or 0.4 C° W–1 m2. The product of this value and the 3.45 W m–2 CO2 forcing (the mean of 15 CMIP5 models’ midrange estimates: Andrews 2012) is 1.4 C°. There or thereby, and not the currently-predicted 4.1[3.0, 5.2] C°, is the true Charney sensitivity. And, since the midrange anthropogenic forcing predicted for the 21st century is about the same as the CO2 forcing, 1.4 C° and not 4.1 C° is the warming we can expect this century, and only that on the generous assumption that all warming since 1850 was anthropogenic. Not exactly a crisis.

The 3 C° midrange Charney sensitivity predicted in IPCC (1990) was thus double the 1.4 C° that real-world evidence since then shows it should be, and the CMIP6 models’ currently-predicted 4.1 K is thrice what it should be.

At this point Zeke Hausfather, a longtime champion of the Party Line on climate and lead author of the paper purporting to demonstrate that the models had not exaggerated, weighed in, saying that his paper was showing how good the simple energy-balance model was, and not how good the general-circulation models were. In effect, he is saying that the predictions I have cited above from IPCC (1990) were based only on a simple energy-balance model and not on the general-circulation models.

That energy-balance model (green), as Hausfather’s own supplementary material shows, predicted 0.26 C°/decade, not 0.34 C°/decade, in the medium term:


A question arises. If the energy-balance model (EBM: green in the above reproduction from Hausfather’s supplementary matter) on which IPCC (1990) based its headline predictions itself predicted only 0.26 C°/decade global warming over the decades from then until now, why on Earth did IPCC (1990: purple line, omitted from Hausfather’s original diagram), on the basis of the EBM, say that the warming from then until now would amount to 0.34 C°/decade, precisely in line with the general-circulation models (GCMs: red) that Hausfather says it did not use?

Now you will see why I have taken the trouble to produce facsimiles of what IPCC actually predicted in 1990. For Hausfather’s revealing supplementary material shows that in 1990 it was the general-circulation models, not the energy-balance model, that predicted the 0.34 C°/decade medium-term warming that IPCC chose as its midrange prediction.

Yet his comment in response to my refutation of his paper maintains that IPCC’s headline medium-term prediction, which, as I have shown, was 0.34 C°/decade, was based on the energy-balance model:

“The Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC First Assessment Report only featured the simple energy-balance model. … The main text of our paper focuses on the primary projection featured in each IPCC report, at least before the Fourth Assessment Report.

In fact, however, IPCC’s 0.34 C°/decade headline prediction in 1990 was in line not with Hausfather’s report of the energy-balance model’s 0.26 C°/decade prediction but with Hausfather’s report of the 0.34 C°/decade predictions made by the general-circulation models then prevailing.

Even the energy-balance model exaggerates the rate of warming. However, public policy is based on the significantly higher predictions of the GCMs and of the IPCC. The large difference between IPCC’s original prediction and the true rate of observed global warming can be seen in the diagram: it is the difference between the purple and pale blue lines on the diagram.

This episode nicely illustrates the problem we are dealing with. It is very easy for the New Faithful to recite their key mantras in the most naïve terms, whereupon their echo-chamber in the Marxstream media dutifully and unquestioningly regurgitates whatever nonsense they preach.

Here, for instance, is an extract from a posting entitled Beaten Down By Science, Deniers Turning To Science Fiction To Scare Their Followers, published at a notorious Communist website:

“… a post by Christopher Monckton … takes a swipe at a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that shows … that climate models from before the year 2000 have done a fine job simulating actual temperatures.”

The models, whether EBM or GCM or CMIP or IPCC, haven’t done a fine job. They’ve grossly over-predicted, particularly if, as I do, you reckon that the UAH temperature record (pale blue in the diagram) is the only one that remains honest. Now you have the facts.

To refute nonsense such as that which has been exposed here takes time and effort, and it is just sufficiently complicated to bore most people rigid. Then the New Faithful come back with childish, drive-by comments such as that of Mr Mosher and of the Communist website. Refuting these, too, requires time and effort so that the objective truth is eventually re-established.

Much of what passes for “climate science” is just like what I have exposed here: disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. If Mr Trump wins this year’s election, he will set up the red team/blue team enquiry, under a retired Federal Appeal Judge, of which the liars and fraudsters are so visibly terrified, and with which they have hitherto leaned very heavily upon him not to proceed.

Rules of evidence will be followed. Each side will be able to present its own case and cross-examine its opponents. A proper hearing of both sides using the courts’ formal rules of procedure is perhaps the only way to prevent the serial disingenuousness and dishonesty that I have highlighted here, and to fix in place the goalposts of objective truth.

The sooner the better. Australia has lost much of its flora and fauna because for decades environmental extremists had let out the water from the dams, prevented new dams from being built, and savagely punished – with fines up to AUS$400,000 a time – those who had cleared the scrub from their land precisely to prevent the bushfires that have now done such damage.

Meanwhile, one in six of the world’s population dies 15-20 years before his or her time because there is no electrical power, and because nearly all of the world’s intergovernmental, central and merchant banks, citing global warming as their pretext for inaction, refuse to lend for urgently-needed coal-fired power stations.

The Thermageddon cult is thus a cult of death. Thanks to the vicious policy of refusing to lend for coal-fired power where it is desperately, urgently needed, there are perhaps one or two Holocausts of the powerless every year. By now, all or nearly all of those premature deaths could have been prevented by the universal availability of affordable, continuous, reliable, easily-maintainable, base-load, coal-fired electricity.

Nothing so rapidly, so securely and so permanently lifts a suffering third-world population from poverty, disease and premature death as universal access to electrical power. This is the first generation in which the outright eradication of primary poverty has become possible. The chief obstacle to the realization of that noble ambition is not climate change. It is wicked policies ostensibly intended to prevent it, based on exaggeration piled upon equivocation.

Given the brutal consequences for life, health and well-being driven by this cruel, hate-filled cult’s dishonest promotion of the central falsehood that small warming will do large damage, the truth being that even large warming would do much good, perhaps it is time to begin considering whether every dishonesty and fraud calculated to increase public support for, or to profiteer from, climate extremism should be prosecuted as an indictable criminal offense akin to conspiracy to commit murder, or perhaps even genocide. Enough is enough.

203 thoughts on “Were IPCC’s 1990 medium-term warming predictions accurate? No.

      • To be scientific, a hypothesis must be framed properly so that it can be falsified, and Lord Monckton is correct – the very-scary Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis has been falsified – because actual observed global warming is much less than predicted by the climate models of the IPCC and acolytes and is NOT dangerous.

        The concept of falsifiability is important, because the very-scary humanmade “Climate Change“ hypothesis can mean anything and everything to climate alarmists – warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier, calmer and thus cannot be falsified – it is Karl Popper’s “non-falsifiable hypothesis”, or in layman’s terms, it is non-scientific nonsense.

        “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper

        When it is scientifically framed as a falsifiable hypothesis, the Catastrophic Humanmade “Climate Change” hypothesis can also be falsified, as it has been in the following treatises:

        “Alarmist Claim Rebuttals”

        “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions”
        By Myron Ebell and Steven J. Milloy, September 18, 2019

        The ability to correctly predict significant climate events is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence in the field of climate. It is important to note that every scary prediction made by the Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists has failed to materialize – they have a perfect negative predictive track record and thus perfect negative credibility.

        In conclusion:

        The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is falsified. There no CAGW crisis.
        The Catastrophic Humanmade “Climate Change” hypothesis is also falsified.

        • “The ability to correctly predict significant climate events is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence in the field of climate.”

          Some people, quite reasonably, go further. During a period of general warming, any charlatan or mountebank can predict further warming. And plenty do.

          The genuinely honest and skillful will predict the inflection points, the unexpected events. An example might be predicting a temperature decline, or even a pause, during a generally rising trend.

          Climate science is still awaiting the onset of honesty, never mind competence

          • Good comment , thank you Michael.

            Following is our predictive track record. Points 1 and 2 are clearly correct-to-date. It’s a bit early to claim success on Point 3, but it is looking increasingly probable.

            Regards, Allan


            The ability to predict is probably the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence. Note that every scary global warming prediction made by the climate alarmists has failed to materialize. Nobody should believe them.

            To heck with 10-day forecasts or even seasonal forecasts – here is a successful 17-YEAR forecast.

            The last of my three climate-and-energy predictions made in 2002 has now come true. There it is – the perfect Trifecta – my work here is done.

            Best regards, Allan MacRae

            In 2002 co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae wrote:

            1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

            2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

            Allan MacRae published on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:

            3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

            Allan MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013:

            3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

            By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 26, 2019

            October 31, 2019 by Michael Snyder


          • As far as I can determine, no one has ever articulated any rational and logical reason for supposing, let alone believing with certainty, the truth of the notion that a warming planet is a dangerous thing for human beings, for human endeavors, or for life in general.

            For all of human history, everyone who has written or studied on the issue of temperature variations over time, has shared a unanimity of opinion on the issue: Warmer is better in every discernable way.

            The notion put forth by alarmists at the outset of the CAGW doomsday campaign, that a warming planet is in fact and necessarily deadly for people and for life, has nothing to support it, and in fact never was supported.
            The notion was simply asserted, and then backed up by speculations and fearmongering dressed up and packaged as the predictions of science, and given credence merely by the assurances of so-called “experts’.

            The entire idea is meritless and very close to if not precisely the exact opposite of what the actual case is.
            The predictions have uniformly failed to be confirmed by the test of time (as would be expected of predictions based on an inversion of reality), the experts have proven themselves to be duplicitous and dishonest purveyors of junk science and outright propaganda, and there remains at present no reason to believe that anything unusual or unprecedented is occurring with respect to the weather or the climate, anywhere on the Earth.
            There is no crisis being caused by global warming.
            CO2 is the essential raw material for the entire biosphere, and does not and never has controlled the temperature of the planet, and more of it is most certainly better for life.
            Warmer is better for life as well, as is wetter.
            And for all of geological history, a warmer world was a wetter world and life under such conditions prospered.
            The Ice Age our planet is currently experiencing is an ongoing planetary catastrophe, so how can warming be bad?
            The essential raw ingredient for all of life has been in a dwindling supply for tens of millions of years and is even now in precariously low concentration in our atmosphere.
            1200 ppm is probably close to the basement level for a perfectly healthy and robust biosphere.

            Global warming alarmism is not merely based on erroneous ideas and fearmongering…it is, as close as can be objectively determined, exactly the opposite of correct in every aspect and assumption.
            The people who lead a substantial proportion of the people on Earth have committed to making policy decisions based on an inversion of reality.
            Everyone who is aware of this fact ought not be uncertain about what is at stake and how tragic and pointless these policies are.

          • All true, thank you Nicholas.

            by Joseph d’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

            by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
            Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

  1. Come on Mr Mosher, your slipping, I expected one of your sarcastic, juvenile comments long before now.

  2. The Mosher, like Nick Stokes and the now-vanished Griff is a typical Thermageddonite and uses exaggeration, invention and misrepresentation in defence of the otherwise indefensible claims of catastrophic human caused climate change. Because Thermageddonites never share their fraudulent data with any critic, they all love to claim that honest brokers do exactly the same to shift suspicion of fraud from themselves. Their principle is that the tenets of belief in and Holy Writ of CAGW are so valuable that they must be defended at all costs from analysis by science.

    • You can’t look under their skirts nicholas. There is probably a he under there but then he probably thinks he is a she which explains the skirt. Damn, i miss the simple days when science wasn’t so sure of everything because it had been turned over to a vote and consensus dictates what is or isn’t dangling down under Sheila.

    • A comprehensive response from Mosher would be greatly appreciated . . . Charles right now science thanks you to use every ounce of your influence to secure his response.

  3. “…the Marxstream media…”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

    First Chuckle of the day (-:

    One good soundbite deserves another:

    “Climate change policies aren’t meant to control the climate, they’re meant to control you” – Paul Joseph Watson

  4. Hmmm…. What the urban dictionary has to say about Kossacks…..

    Taxpayer#1 : Did you hear what those asshat Kossacks are up to again? They are so self-deluded with the idea that they are ‘making a difference.'”

    Tax Payer #2 “Like I always say, ‘don’t drink the bong water.'”
    Lol, good post, Sir.

  5. Links to your data files and code
    dont make me ask you another time monkfish

    That would be links to the ACTUAL DATA, as used

    and links to the ACTUAL CODE, as used.

    You can say you got data from such and such a source. Meh.

    But i am asking again for the actual data, the actual file, you used
    and the actual code you used to make the charts.

    Pretty simple.

    • “Links to your data files and code dont(sic) make me ask you another time monkfish– Steven Mosher

      Steven, “monkfish” is about as low as you can go, without attacking the argument. You’ve well and truly slandered the man though!

      • Steven Mosher did not used to be like this. I detect a lot of angst from the entire lot of doomsters (and doomsters lite one might say). They were put under enormous stress by the blade of the hockey stick being bent back flat for two decades and its even money whether the 2 o3 yrs of hopeful respite, assisted by the Karlization of the dreaded pause, slumps cooler again.

        This is why we hear almost solely from sociologists, social psychologists, “global climate change” bureaucracies, the Pope, and climate scientists, not so much. They are happy to have activist loons and press preach hysteria and they play a nerve wracking, nail biting game mixed with hope and prayers.

        January and Feb in the NH is a particular hell for them (no place in Canada is presently above zero). I fear the Climate Blues, that took out a host of those clisci with weaker constitutions about half a dozen years ago is coming back to take down tranche of perhaps more stalwart types if things dont heat up soon.

        • As they saying goes: “They’re loud because they’re angry, and they’re angry because they’re losing”.

          Although, many of them well actually go the other way as the years and decades between the apocalyptic predictions and the reality of “meh” get longer.

          We shan’t hear from them, unless, like the political (or sports, or economic) commentators who don’t have “skin in the game” and can make a living being wrong, they get MSM gigs.

    • What is it about thermaggedonites and their desperate need to dig the hole deeper.

      Every thing you demand has been provided. Twice now.

    • Wonderful article Lord Monckton!

      “The Thermageddon cult is thus a cult of death.”

      An accurate summation that points to actual results and where they lead; in spite of alarmists pontificated sophistry.

      “Upton Sinclair: “I used to say to our audiences: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

      Below are additional selected citations in chronological order.
      In 1893 a newspaper in Lincoln, Nebraska printed a thematically related statement written by populist politician William Jennings Bryan:

      “It is useless to argue with a man whose opinion is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest; the only way to deal with him is to outvote him.”

      In 1949 the industrious quotation collector Evan Esar included the statement with an ascription to Sinclair in “The Dictionary of Humorous Quotations”:

      “SINCLAIR, Upton, born 1878, American novelist and social reformer.
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

      Another common attribute of the alarmists is their absolute inability to admit error. Which leads to endless circular argument rebuttal continuum that get nonsensical.

      Have a wonderful 2020 New Year Lord Monckton!

    • But i am asking again for the actual data, the actual file, you used
      and the actual code you used to make the charts.

      The link to the actual data file was provided. What more do you want?????
      You can get the actual data from the original source. What more do you need????

      Side note:
      I get UAH data from the link at Roy Spencer’s web site. I use the file exactly as is.
      No editing, modification, or clean-up needed. The R programming language routines read that file without issue. If someone were to make the demand that I provide my copy of the file, as if the original source was not good enough, I would:
      A) think the person was incapable of downloading the file on their own.
      B) think the person was passive-aggressive insinuating that the data i presented was not the same as the downloaded data. Even though presented as a passive-aggressive insinuation, it is still a serious charge of misconduct. I would call out that person and demand evidence for making the charge.
      C) understand that the person is throwing dust up into the air and is intent on just causing trouble.

      But that is just me.

    • Steven Mosher
      “dont make me ask you another time monkfish”

      Dang Steve, how young are you? That was a very childish statement.

      • “Has the author offended you in some way?”

        I think the author is slowly turning Steven’s world upside down. Different people handle that kind of situation differently. Some flail about and lash out in all directions as they resist the truth that is dawning.

    • I guess Mosh is trying to compliment Lord Monckton

      Monkfish is mild but firm with good taste and behaves rather well when grilled.

      • Monkfish is my preferred fish dish, when I can get it.

        It is hard to come by in the US heartland restaurants and on the Southern, warmer water coast restaurants.

        I know it wasn’t meant as a compliment, but in my opinion, monkfish is one of the best of the best.

    • “But i am asking again for the actual data, the actual file, you used
      and the actual code you used to make the charts.”

      Sounds like the judge at M. Mann’s court case.

  6. “The first of my three graphs showed the simple mean of three monthly global mean temperature anomaly datasets from 1990-2018. The chart is plainly labeled showing that the three datasets were HadCRUT4, NCEI and GISS. The data are shown as a spline-curve. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data was also plotted, showing that the period observed warming trend was equivalent to 1.85 C°/century.’


    The label on the chart does not prove anything
    We need to see the file. the actual file you used.
    So like when Mcintyre would request data from mann, or i would request data from Jones.
    We want copies of the actual file you actual used

    Not a description of the data
    not a link to the source where you claimed to get it,
    But the actual file.

    This will be fun.
    you will refuse. as you have on other occasions.

    pretty please with sugar on it.

    • Mosh, you have previously described how BoM, with discrepancy of 8C would need to homogonenise for statistical purposes. I have to ask “what would be the minimum that would require BoM to so homogenise”?

      • What would be interesting is if the BOM ran the same code over their electronic thermometer record and if it yielded similar data being flagged as needing “homogenisation” it would show their method is overly sensitive and wanting to correct daily values that represent natural site daily variance.

    • You are an a$$hat indeed. He called you out for trolling about not providing data that you never asked for and then you troll again with this stupid post. You are a special person.

    • Learn how to write English . Clear, concise, correct. [SNIP] Carry on. Gives the real scientists a little comic relief.

        • I don’t think that Chris has been himself knighted. He inherited a viscountcy. So, his title is Lord, not Sir.

          • Ah, thank you sir, Mr. Sherrington, I’m mistaken again.
            Is Mr Josh a Dr.? I mean Moshei, damn a\c. Not that necessarily means authority….

    • What a total jerk. He gave you everything you asked for, yet you continue to demand more.
      What is it about English majors and their inability to be civil or understand basic science?

    • McIntyre would have been delighted to get a link to the data.

      So instead of throwing sticks and twigs in the air, state your objections of what Lord Monckton got wrong. What’s your argument? “LOOK: SQUIRREL” is not an argument.

    • When warmistas shills come a’trolling, the best thing to do is ignore them.
      They deserve no response to their rudeness, for one thing.
      And they should be ignored for the same reason they ignore that absolutely zero of their predictions have ever, EVER, come to pass.
      They ignore that they have never been correct because this has never been about being correct, or anything connected to reality.
      It is about creating fear in the minds of those who have no way of knowing that their doomsday catastrophist fear mongering is entirely baseless.
      So, in spite of the fact that nothing bad is happening, nothing unusual or historically unprecedented has occurred, they simply declare that a climate crisis is ongoing,
      Their entire spiel is based on ignorance, and their willingness to be shameless liars disqualifies them from being included in serious dialogue.

    • Mother’s request is “right down mainstreet” in science.

      The actual files should be provided…else a simple statement that says “the referenced data will produce the results shown here”. Did not Moncton clearly make that statement?

    • Now that you have established the standard, please ask your buddies (Mann, CRU, etc.) to follow them. After all, what you ask for and demand of us is precisely what we have been asking for from you guys for about 20 years now.

      • Here is how Mosher feels about the subject when the shoe is on the other foot, and taxpaying citizens want some questions answered by the fake scientists feeding from the public teat for their entire life:

        “wrong again.
        gavin doesnt work for any of you. Even when you are paid by the public your superiors still get to prioritize how your time is spent.
        EVERY question that roger asks, he can answer for himself.
        We all may pay gavin but he doesnt work for us. You dont get to ask him anything. and he is not responsible to answer any one of your questions.
        pretty frickin simple.”

        Or this typical Mosher comment on the same thread:
        Newsflash- as a public servant he owes every US citizen an answer. I understand that some federal bureaucrats never quite catch on to that simple principle in our democracy. It appears to have gone over your head as well.”
        Ah no he doesnt.
        My postman is a public servant. He has a boss. That boss is not me or you. He has a job description.
        he is paid to perform that job. I dont get to demand answers from him on how the postal system works.
        Answering questions from the public is not part of his job description.
        Roger and you and me dont get to decide what Gavins job description is. You dont get to demand answers
        Sorry, life is not burger king and you dont get things your way.”

        (sic for all quoted comments)


        Got that?
        In his own words, Mosher declares loudly that no one “gets to demand answers” to questions they may have…even when the person being asked is a public employee whose job is compiling and disseminating information on the topic at hand!
        Steven Mosher is in the business of being unpleasant to climate skeptics and disruptive to their attempts at dialogue and explication.
        His only standard is that he has none.
        His every utterance fails the “shoe on the other foot” test.
        No one owes him an answer, by his own rudely stated standards.

  7. All one needs to know is the warming from 1850-2011 (0.75 C°), the total period forcing (2.49 W m–2

    SPM.5 says 2.29 w/m2. Furthermore, not all of this is due to CO2. Acccording to the SPM Emissions of CO2 alone have caused an RF of 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5)


    Models do exaggerate warming but not by as much as is commonly claimed. A climate sensitivity of 2 deg per 2xCO2 looks a nailed on certainty.

    FWIW, the models have much better predictive skill than the many (ALL) of the solar or PDO- related projections. Then again tossing a coin probably has better predictive skill that Easterbrook, Archibald, TL et al.

    • A climate sensitivity of 2C? Based on what faked data?

      The climate has only warmed 0.6C, (the vast majority of which is natural) while CO2 has gone from 280 to 405ppm.

      • Warmed 0.6 deg – since when?

        UAH is up more than 0.5 deg since 1979. CO2 levels were 337 in 1979.

        And what natural factor caused “the vast majority ” of warming.

          • Which bit is “not even wrong”?

            UAH trend is 0.13 deg per decade for 40 years (4 decades).

            4 x 0.13 = 0.52 deg

            CO2 levels were 337 ppm in 1979

            Try to make a sensible argument rather than regurgitating silly soundbites.

          • John, if you’ve been keeping up you already know 40% of the UAH trend is directly due to volcanoes. That brings your .52 C down to .3 C, maybe less. And, some part of it is likely due to the AMO and PDO.

            Why is it true believers continually try to use natural climate factors to support their views? Try a little honesty.

  8. Here we go again,

    The facsimile above is from page xxii. A more precise medium-term prediction than “about 0.3 C° per decade” is given on page xxiv:

    Page xxiv does not give a “more precise” prediction for a trend. It makes no mention of a trend, it states that warming by 2030 will be 1.8°C above pre-industrial temperatures. This figure is slightly lower than the rounded figure given on page xxii, of 2°C by 2025. Logically the “more precise” figure would result in a lower rate of warming – but Monckton logic allows us to fabricate a faster rate of warming by making assumptions that clearly make no sense in the context of the previous page.

    We begin with the assumption that temperature in 1850, when the HadCRUT4 record began, was about the same as it had been in the IPCC (1990) preindustrial reference year 1750…

    Which is not an assumption made by the IPCC.

    Warming from 1850-1990, according to HadCRUT4, the only global data going back that far, was 0.46 C°. Deduct this from the 1.8 C° prediction to leave 1.34 C° predicted to occur over four decades from 1991-2030.

    In which case you would think the IPCC would have stated explicitly that they predicted 2030 to be 1.34°C above 1990 values. You would then wonder why two pages earlier they where only predicting 1°C of warming by 2025.

    You might also wonder why if the IPCC believed there would be short term warming at the rate of 0.34°C / decade, and that warming rates would accelerate after that, they only predicted 3°C warming from 1990 to the end of the 21st century, rather than the more than 4°C warming such a rate would have implied.

    • Bellman, ” Logically the “more precise” figure would result in a lower rate of warming “- logically nothing of the sort.

    • Sorry about the repeat. This comment was a rough draft that I thought had been deleted. In particular ignore the last sentence – it’s wrong. 0.34°C / decade would have implied 3.74°C by the end of the century.

    • Logically the “more precise” figure would result in a lower rate of warming

      Nonsense. precision has nothing to do with rate. 2.2% and 1.8% are both “more precise” than 2%. Do you honestly think 2.2% and 1.8% are *both* lower rates of warming than 2%? By your own “logic” of “more precise results in lower rate”, they both are.

      • Do you honestly think 2.2% and 1.8% are *both* lower rates of warming than 2%?

        No, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I wasn’t saying any “more precise” figure, I was saying the specific more precise figure of 1.8°C given on page xxiv.

    • In what way? There are only 15 years of USCRN so impossible to derive a significant trend, and in any event it’s only showing trends for the US not the globe. But if you do insist on using USCRN and ignore the uncertainty it is showing a warming rate of 0.28°C / decade.

      • “…a warming rate of 0.28C/decade.””

        Hmm. The USCRN started in January, 2005 shown with a temperature anomaly of 0.78F (about 0.4C) for that year. (ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series) I suppose this was done so the CRN temperature blends with the Historic Climate Network values up to that time.

        The average CRN anomaly over the next 15 years is 0.74F, showing that the US climate is cooling slightly over the 15-year period. If your rate of 0.28C/decade is correct, it would half to show an average anomaly of about 3.6F over the 15-year period. It doesn’t. Perhaps I did something wrong?

        • DHR: The Annual Average Anomaly data for 2005-2019 do show some warming but I only see 0.137C per decade, more in line with UAH. And the trend has flip-flopped over the years because of the limited data. But, time marches on and we will see what the future holds.

          • Another hmm. Just summing the annual CRN anomalies (only the CRN anomalies) from 2005 through 2019 gives an average of 0.747, slightly below the starting point of 0.78. I.e., it is cooling slightly over the 15-year period based on just the CRN numbers. I can’t get +0.137/decade, much less +0.28. Would you please show your method?

          • Hi, DHR: I did a quick calculation by running a simple regression line, using EXCEL, through the Annual Average Anomaly (F) for the years 2015-2019. That gives a slightly positive slope (0.0496). You are correct that the Average Anomaly for 2019 is lower than that for 2005 but the regressed trend is upward at 0.137C per decade (converting F to C). I see Bellman has changed his warming trend to 0.5C per decade instead of 0.28C per decade but says “not statistically significant” (that part is true). Don’t know where the 0.5C originates.

            Let’s remember that the USCRN is a state of the art system, triple redundant, perfect siting, not subject to infilling and not needing adjustments; but, it does have just 15 years of data. As I recall, during the “Pause”, debate ensued on how much data were required to establish a trend and I believe the IPCC settled on 17 years (someone may have more up to date info on that). I think more than that is needed but we will have 17 in two more years. And, note that the slope of the regressed line has been declining over the past few years. Will that continue? We will see.

          • JRF,

            I see Bellman has changed his warming trend to 0.5C per decade instead of 0.28C per decade … Don’t know where the 0.5C originates.

            That 0.5 should have been degrees Fahrenheit, not Celsius. I switched because DHR was using Fahrenheit and I didn’t want to cause confusion. Unfortunately, I made a mistake and put a C rather than an F, so ended up causing more confusion. I think that the context should have made it clear though.

            That gives a slightly positive slope (0.0496)

            I make it slightly more, possibly difference in using annual or monthly figures, but 0.0496°F per year, is about 0.5°F per decade, as I said.

            “Not statistically significant”. Well, on that we can agree!

            I said it was not statistically significant right at the start. That’s why I don’t see how you can claim that it seems to support CMoB over IPCC. But, lets be clear, “not statistically significant” means we cannot be sure that the US has definitely been warming over the last 15 years, it’s still far more likely that it’s been warming than it hasn’t.

            As I recall, during the “Pause”, debate ensued on how much data were required to establish a trend and I believe the IPCC settled on 17 years (someone may have more up to date info on that).

            That’s nonsense, to use another unscientific word. Significance doesn’t depend on any fixed number of years. What matters more in this case, is you cannot compare global and US figures for how long it will take to see significance. US figures are much more variable than for the globe so it will certainly require a lot more than 17 years to establish a trend.

          • Bellman:
            The “17 years” was an IPCC period as I recall, so direct any criticism to them.

            As for why I said that the USCRN “tends too support CMoB more than the IPCC” is because the lack of statistical difference should be correctly stated as not statistically different from zero. And zero warming would certainly support CMoB’s contention more than the IPCC’s.

            But, as we all agree, more USCRN data (and probably more than a total of 17 years) will provide clarity on any trend. At least we won’t be arguing over the influence of UHIE and data adjustments.

          • JRF,

            I keep being told that such and such a person or organization said 17 years, or 15 years or whatever guarantees a significant trend, but the quotes always turn out to be saying something else. Even if there is an IPCC quote to that effect, it’s irrelevant when talking about a regional trend, which inevitably much grater variance than global temperatures.

            As I said the 15 years of USCRN is not significant enough to prove the trend isn’t zero or negative, but that doesn’t tell us anything about Monckton’s predictions. By the same token the trend is not statistically different from a trend of 5°C / century or more.

            I’m skeptical that USCRN will be seen by some people as providing any clarity. Maybe I’m cynical, but I’ve heard the same thing about different data sets only to see them be renounced as soon as they establish a trend the “skeptics” don’t like. In any event, by definition USCRN can only show the trend in the USA, and only since 2005. However much it warms people will still be claiming it was warmer in the 30s.

          • “However much it warms people will still be claiming it was warmer in the 30s.”

            Well, if future temperatures exceed those reached in the 1930’s, then any reasonable person would have to say that those future temperatures were warmer than the 1930’s.

            Our current temperature is about 0.7C cooler than the heighth of the warmth in the 1930’s Hansen said 1934 was the hottest year in the United States with a temperature that was 0.5C warmer than the El Nino year of 1998, which would make 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016 (according to UAH), the year the alarmists call the “hottest year evah!”.

            So we have a ways to go before we hit the level of the warmth of the 1930’s. If we exceed that warmth in the future, I personally, will say it is warmer than the 1930’s. But not before that happens! 🙂

            It took 20 years after we reached the high temperatures of 1998, before the temperatures again rose to that level in 2016. My assumption is the temperatures will behave in the future similarly to how they behaved after the 1998 highpoint.

            UAH satellite chart:


        • DHR,

          If your rate of 0.28C/decade is correct, it would half to show an average anomaly of about 3.6F over the 15-year period. It doesn’t. Perhaps I did something wrong?

          Yes, you made a few wrong assumptions. First a trend doesn’t have to start at the first month’s temperature.

          Second, I think you’ve got a decimal point in the wrong place. The rate of warming is about 0.5°C per decade. Over 15 years that should average about 0.37°F warmer than the starting value – which I repeat is not the same as the first month.

      • Bellman, you are correct that the data are limited at 15 years worth but the current trend is minimally positive and since 2016 the average annual anomaly has declined steadily from 2.25F to 0.01F. At the least, I’m curious if the USCRN may point to “Global” Warming not being “Global” at all.

        • As I said the warming rate is not at all significant given the huge confidence intervals, which is why I don’t see how it can be used to support Monckton’s argument.

          It’s difficult to know what the trend is over 15 years, it’s absurd to look at 3 years to argue for a steady decline.

          • Sorry, it’s not “absurd”, just a statement of fact. The annual average anomaly did decline over a three year period, 2016-2019. And, “Absurd” is not a scientific term.

          • I wasn’t being scientific when I said it was absurd, just stating my opinion. If you want a more scientific term, try “not statistically significance”.

  9. Well written, Nicholas.
    Let’s hope that President Trump is re-elected and then sets up a red team/blue team inquiry that will expose the vacuity of the Holy Writ of CAGW.

  10. And again:

    The facsimile above is from page xxii. A more precise medium-term prediction than “about 0.3 C° per decade” is given on page xxiv:

    The repeated claim is that you can deduce a faster rate of warming from page xxiv, with a little creative accounting. The IPCC say on page xxii that they expect about 2°C warming by 2025 from pre-industrial levels, which means 1°C warming from 1990, and by the end of the century 4°C warming from pre-industrial equivalent to 3°C warming from 1990.

    On page xxiv they suggest a more precise figure of 1.8°C from pre-industrial to 2030. Clearly this more precise figure is suggesting less warming than the rounded figure. 1.8°C to 2030 compared to 2°C to 2025.

    Lord Monckton, however, assumes that on page xxiv they had a specific value of 0.45C warming from pre-industrial to 1990 in mind, and therefore concludes that they where predicting 1.35C between 1990 and 2030, and then deduces this means a short term linear trend of 3.4C / century. This warming rate is never stated anywhere in the 1990 IPCC report, and contradicts both what is stated two pages earlier and their graph of projected warming.

  11. I hope you are right about the red team/blue team enquiry, and it would be nice for it to happen before the waste of money in Glasgow later this year.

    • Can’t you? Well it does. Without CO2 in the atmosphere (and all other factors remaining the same), the earth would be about 10 degrees cooler.

        • Quite a bit colder but WV responds to warming. It’s a feedback. Without CO2 it’s quite likely that there would be a decline in atmospheric WV.

          • That is the assume made by the thermogeddoinists, however real world science shows that the situation is a lot more complicated than that.

        • Haha, thats funny.

          It would have to be much colder to have no water vapor in the atmosphere.

          The earth has an atmosphere because it is warm. It is not warm because it has an atmosphere.

          Water cools the planet…

      • Without all green house gases, the atmosphere would be around 10C cooler. CO2 is merely the weakest of all the green house gases.

      • If, as is likely, ECS be about 1.1 degrees C per doubling, then you’re about right.

        200 ppm: -1.1 degree C
        100 ppm: -2.2
        50 ppm: -3.3
        25 ppm: -4.4
        12.5 ppm: -5.5
        6.25 ppm: -6.6
        3.125 ppm: -7.7
        1.5625 ppm: -8.8
        0.78 ppm: -9.9
        0.39 ppm: -11.

        By and below that level, CO2 molecules would be too few and far between to have a measurable effect.

      • John Finn, your claim “the earth would be about 10 degrees cooler” is probably wrong. It is based on a poor understanding of many factors affecting temperature.

        I believe Roy Spencer showed that the overall total GHE should warm the planet by almost 60C. No, not the 33 C that is claimed. The 33 C is obtained after the water cycle kicks in and cools the planet by around 27 C. The question is how much would it cool the planet if the total GHE warming was lower without any CO2?

        My own opinion is that our current temperature would be almost exactly the same as it is now. Thus, one could argue that CO2 doesn’t warm the planet at all. The temperature is controlled by incoming solar energy and managed by water vapor and the water cycle.

    • I can’t believe that there are still people believing that “we” are responsible for any of the increase in CO2….

      …when all of the increase has come from China and the developing world

      exactly the way the UN/IPCC set it up to work

  12. Here’s an anecdote from the Silicon Valley, San Jose California where some of the best and brightest have swallowed CAGW propaganda hook, line and sinker. In my 60 years living here, we’ve seen snow on the low hills of this region perhaps a dozen times. If you’re familiar with this region, you’ll know that snow on the very highest peaks occurs every other winter or so but the low hills at 500 feet above sea level rarely have noticeable snow. Yesterday, Jan 16, 2020 there was a significant amount of show left after a particularly cold and wet storm. As I left work, driving north on highway 680, I was overcome with a feeling of gratitude that this generation of Silicon Valley children will know what snow looks like.

  13. What process would lower the Earth’s temperature 10 degress (C of F) if you remove four tenths of one percent of the gas in the atmosphere? And since CO2 is required for life on earth, who would be left to measure this lower temperature and say “See I told you so.”

    • Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas it must also be associated with a positive feedback. A specific level of water vapor will cause an increase in water vapor causing even more increase in water vapor. Every increment of increase will cause an increased temperature.

      All CO2 can do is increase the rate of increase of the temperature by causing even more water vapor. Any temperature increase caused by CO2 would eventually also be reached by water vapor alone.

      This really calls into question the entire concept of “positive feedback” causing the increased temperatures being exclaimed about. If there were no limiting factors water vapor alone should have, over the millenia, resulted in Earth turning into a cinder. It would have just happened at a slower rate.

      Yet no where do I see any of the CAGW adherents discussing what the limiting factors might be and how they apply. It’s like to them water vapor is *not* a greenhouse gas with a positive feedback while CO2 is. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

      • Water does not heat the planet. It cools it. This should be obvious to anyone….

        Venus shows what happens when a planet does not have liquid water to cool its surface…

        • Water on the surface or in the air both warms and cools, depending on whether it is day or night, whether it is very hot or very cold, etc.
          In short, water experts a strong moderating influence.
          This can be readily observed in numerous circumstances without even looking very hard or having any specialized knowledge.
          All else being equal and in general:
          – Locations right next to a body of water are warmer in the cold season than locations farther
          away from the water, and they are cooler during the hot season than locations farther away
          from the water.
          The larger the body of water the more pronounced is the effect.
          The effect disappears if the water freezes over or evaporates away to nothing.

          – Regions and seasons which have high amounts of water in the air (absolute humidity, aka dewpoint, is higher) have less diurnal and seasonal variations in temperature than locations and seasons in which the humidity is low.
          The greater the humidity levels, the less variation in temperature are observed, and the lower the humidity levels, the greater are variations in temperature.
          This effect is very dramatic at the highest and lowest levels of moisture in the air.
          The driest places are commonly roastingly hot in the afternoon, and frigidly cold at night.
          In the wettest of locations the temperature barely changes from day to night and from one month to another.

          Adrar in Algeria and Colon in Panama are close to the same latitude, and a look at the monthly averages of temperature for the two locations shows how water moderates temperature:



        • Phil,

          I am speaking of water VAPOR as a greenhouse gas, not liquid water on the surface. If water VAPOR is a greenhouse gas then, as a greenhouse gas, it should cause the temperature of the surface to go up. That’s the whole idea of a greenhouse gas! CO2 is supposed to be warming the earth by causing an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere over what it would be without the CO2.

          The problem is that the CAGW people want to say that water vapor alone provides no positive feedback while CO2 does even though both are greenhouse gases. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

          • Tim,
            I agree 100%.
            One requirement of being a warmista is a stunning selectivity of attention.
            Certain bits of information must take on a ridiculously exaggerated importance, while simultaneously entire libraries of well described subject material must be completely ignored.
            Some of the ideas put forth are completely devoid of any logical underpinning or support, and what you describe is a perfect example of this.
            Among the many reasons for confidently doubting any possibility of a self reinforcing positive feedback between elevated CO2, increasing atmospheric water vapor, and further warming leading to catastrophic outcomes as a consequence, is the simple fact of many hundreds of millions of years of Earth history.
            Besides for that…it makes no logical sense at all. For one thing…more w.v. in the air moderates temperature…it will make it warmer where it is dry and cool, but cooler where it is dry and warm.
            There is plenty of extra cooling capacity available.
            The dew point limits temperature on the upside, and on the downside…on a seasonal but also on a diurnal basis.

    • One percent is ten thousand parts per million.
      One tenth of one percent is one thousand parts per million.
      we are at less than half of that now…just over four one hundredths of one percent.
      Rounded to the nearest tenth of one percent, the level in the atmosphere is CO2 is zero.

  14. Does the moderator here allow this type of name calling: “monkfish” in reference to Lord Monckton? Can we please not have this type of thing here?
    We are in a lecture hall and we are all students and teachers to each other. Name callers cannot be allowed in this hall?

    (He quoted it himself in his post) SUNMOD

    • I’m sure Lord Monckton has been called worse and takes it all in stride.

      What I find amusing is Steven Mosher and everyone else of their ilk purports they know the exact temperature of the Earth everywhere at any given time and where we are going. It’s all made up numbers and when what they publish turns out to be getting too far off reality, out comes the next revision of the dataset complete with changes to history and right back on the train they get.

      They are the snake oil salesmen of the past. And what is really bad is any semblance of the truth will never be known due to the obfuscation of the science. A mile high ice sheet can be inching towards New York City and they will still be trumpeting global warming.

      • The concept of “global” warming is ludicrous. Much of the US is *cooling”, not warming. Parts of Africa are cooling and parts are warming. It’s all REGIONAL!

        Why do the CAGW alarmists talk about dire impacts on the US based on “global” warming when the US is cooling? If the US is a major contributor of CO2 and CO2 causes warming then why is so much of the US cooling?

        The answer is money! If they were required to forecast on a regional basis and explain their forecasts on a regional basis their pool of study money would soon begin to dry up!

    • (He quoted it himself in his post) SUNMOD

      Which was quoted from another thread here at WUWT where the insult was not commented upon or SNIPPED by the mods. Is such childish name-calling really ok here, or is it only ok for a certain special individual?

    • Henry
      I wouldn’t be concerned about it. Mosher’s juvenile attempt to insult Monckton really reflects poorly on him and speaks to his character.

  15. All of the numbers argued about are meaningless and will in no way alter what the climate of the planet will do.

    • Yes they are. The real object of study should be water vapor, its variability, why it varies, its effect on surface temperatures. Once we understand that, we can put CO2 in perspective as a trace gas with trace effects.

      • The real object of study should be water vapor, its variability, why it varies, its effect on surface temperatures.

        WV increases with warming which is why the ‘alarmists’ believe there is a strong feedback effect. The CO2 level is much longer lasting in the atmosphere. CO2 in the higher colder & DRIER layers of the troposphere is the key to the energy (im)balance as TOA. Energy emitted to space from these altitudes will be at a reduced power (S-B law). Surface must warm to re-establish equilibrium.

  16. The data is available here
    Data for each month is compiled into a 60-page PDF.
    That’s 60x12x28 = 20,160 pages of data anyone can access anytime they want, like right now.

    You can also access a graphing tool here

    Data also available here

    and here

    and here

    So stop bleating about “give me the source data files,” and in future do your own research.

    • Is it data or model outputs? HUGE difference. Please let us all know the true source of the numbers.

      • Please let us all know the true source of the numbers.

        What? Why?

        Sasha merely linked to sources of data, mostly government or academic sites. Why should Sasha have to justify or validate the source of third-party data suppliers?

        Perhaps the suppliers of these data should be asked instead.

  17. Please give me a clue as to why you rejected this comment?
    Recently a guy in the UK was sentenced to 14 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud by false representation.
    We already have the necessary laws in place but like so many laws that already exist Mr Plod cannot be bothered to enforce them they just play politics to defer their incompetence by asking for more laws.
    There is no climate crisis. You cannot fit a ground source heat pump to a mud hut or a 20 story concrete tenement in Beijing therefore the plea by Chris Starck of CCC that its cheaper to get in first and be beacon for the planet is like the original hypothesis meaningless gibberish. Getting in first to be Zero Co2 by 2050 is estimated to cost the UK £7 trillion.
    Lord Deben of CCC has already admitted that for the UK to be all electric peak winter load could be as high as 150GW’s four times current peak winter load. Panorama, one ground source heat pump system for a normal 3 bed semi £30,000, insulation to make that ground source heat pump viable £80,000. There are about 29 million homes so the cost to the UK is about £3.3 trillion. The Green Party say £100 billion a year and make all fossil fuels unviable in ten years. That means most of the UK would die in the first winter. And this is a party which says it cares about people, what absolute nonsense.
    Normal cold kills 17 times more people than occasional warm. But the Green party like Attenborough believes that humans are a plague for the planet but never appear to understand that being human they are including themselves but addle brained hypocrisy is typical of the green ideology.

    • Hinkley 2 x 1.6GW’s, 100GW’s at £11.25 billion /1.6GW’s is £703 billion, that is 62.5 new nuclear generators by 2050
    • 50GW’s of wind at 2.5MW X’s 20,000 at £3,000,000 is £60,000,000,000 plus x 4 because turbines at best are 24% efficient. Therefore £240 billion.
    • An army of peaker plants coal or gas to provide hot spinning backup to keep the lights on at £1 billion/GW X’s 90% of non dispatchable supply
    • £18 billion.
    The cost of just the UK being Net Zero by 2050 tops £6 trillion and could be more for the planet maybe £700 trillion. But Greens never care to account for all of the Co2 emitted in process of transition for obvious reasons because it would be more than we are already emitting therefore the argument is vacuous infantilism.

  18. Mr Monckton is either quite ignorant about the IPCC projection or he is intentionally misleading. Projections depend on the expected GHG emissions. The actual GHG emissions since 1990 are lower than the BAU scenario from the first IPCC report.

    This sentence:

    “the truth is that ever since 1990 CO2 emissions have comfortably exceeded IPCC (1990)’s predicted business-as-usual trajectory from then till now.”

    is a blatant lie.

    In addition, by limiting himself to CO2, Mr Monckton disregards the reductions in CFCs that have taken place which were only partially incorporated in the BAU scenario.

    • “predicted business-as-usual trajectory”

      “Business-as-usual” is more properly described as “The Worst Case CO2-burning Scenario”.

      When the IPCC says it is a business-as-usual scenario, they are contemplating unlimited and increasing coal burning into the future in this scenario.

      “Business-as-usual” in this context is not wrong from the viewpoint of the IPCC, but it is a misleading description if you don’t know exactly what they are talking about.

    • I looked into this, since if it were true, it would indeed take down the whole analysis. Going through the 1990-1992 first assessment report, I came across the following description of the BAU (Business-As-Usual) ‘Scenario A’: “Under this scenario, the equivalent of a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels occurs, according to Working Group I, by around 2025.”

      It is quite obvious this will not happen since 280 ppm seems to be considered as the pre-industrial level, and current levels at just over 400 ppm are nowhere near 560 ppm. That would suggest emissions have come out much lower than projected at the time.

      So, has the world really been emitting much less? To get more insight we have to go to the 1992 supplementary report.

      In Annex ‘Climatic consequences of emissions and a comparison of IS92a and SA90’ the IPCC gives much more detail about its BAU scenarios. SA90 is the 1990 report’s BAU ‘Scenario A’. On page 174 we find ‘Figure Ax.4’, a graph depicting the 1990-2100 projection for atmospheric CO2-levels. Here we see that the projected number for 2020 lies somewhere between 410 and 420 ppm, very close to the actual level. 560 ppm is projected for somewhere around 2050.

      Clearly there is a big discrepancy between the full report and its annex in describing its Business As Usual Scenario A (and its other scenarios). Probably some sort of misunderstanding. In any case, to me it doesn’t seem like Monckton wrote a ‘blatant lie’.

      • Monckton wrote that emissions “have comfortably exceeded” the IPCC projections. This really is a lie, as your numbers indicate.

          • It matters only because its easier for Big Green to put a price on it, i.e., gas, oil and coal.

            Of course, if they put a price on say, water vapour, then we’d have to start taxing Niagara Falls…

          • That’s the whole point John. The IPCC, MSM, and other alarmists keep going on and on about only *ONE* GHG (and it’s *not* Dihydrogen Monoxide). They are the ones “ignoring other GHGs” by making it all about that one single molecule known as CO2, Monckton is using their data, so of course it too will “ignore other GHGs” by default.

          • That’s simply not true John Endicott. The data that Monckton uses do not ignore the other GHGs. Your argument is just a strawman. Nobody claims there is only “*ONE*” GHG.

          • Tell that to the IPCC, MSM and sundry other alarmist that only talk about CO2, reducing CO2 emissions, “carbon” (ie CO2) footprints, “carbon (ie CO2) pollution, etc. You pretty much never hear about any other GHG from them. ever. And either you know that and are lying or you are so wrapped up in your own bubble you are ignorant of that. Either way does not speak well of you.

          • I don’t agree with your premise, but even if I go along with it for argument’s sake, “they do it too” is not a very convincing defense. If the IPCC and MSM do something wrong it’s OK for Monckton to do it as well? No. (btw, this is also known as the ‘tu quoque’-fallacy, or in this case, ‘ea quoque’. While we’re talking fallacies, there’s a false dichotomy in there as well)

            Anyway I’ll just stay wrapped up here in my own bubble on WUWT 😀

  19. there is a difference between negationism and skepticism : the first doesn’t accept the facts , but the second question the models which cannot predict the future .
    NO equations , even Einstein equations , can predict the future of the universe , the climate or stock market !
    So why should IPCC model be an exception ?
    There are so many unknown about the albedo, the clouds, the oceans, volcanoes … and as we said in the past about butterfly effect: any small change in the data could lead to a hurricane !

    • You have nailed it. The models are no good. Why should we spend billions – or soon real money, trillions – on their doubtful predictions?

      An old boss of mine used to say, It is easy to design a perfect new tool. What is difficult is to sign a production order.

    • Too PC . Not representative of real life .
      Leads to total control of others .
      Right back where we started from ….

    • “Maybe you should adopt a code of conduct, like this one…”

      “I shall now attempt to seize control of all communications and dialogue by telling people what they are allowed to say, how they are allowed to say what is permitted…right down to specific words and phrases and manners of speaking which will henceforth be banned, and other words and phrases which will be mandated by employed by all who converse or communicate.
      Over time what is permitted will be gradually narrowed such that eventually people will have no ability or pretense of free speech, at which point free speech will be stricken from consideration as a basic human right.
      By then, basic rights will consist entirely of things which other people will be able to demand of you.
      Your blithe cooperation is greatly appreciated.”

      How about instead you stop trying to tell people what they can say, do, and think!

  20. It appears apologists for the global warming scam are now arguing that “they never said it would get that hot” but, if that is the case, then why are they arguing to overturn modern industrial society to prevent vengeance from the weather gods? Either they think warming is out of control, caused by human activity and dangerous, or they have nothing useful to say and should go back to their grants and tea kettles and stop bothering the sane.

    • John, “The Pause” is ongoing when you account for non-climate factors. Roy Spencer just has a post where 40% of all the warming in the UAH data was due to when the two major volcanic eruptions occurred. You still need to account for ENSO, PDO and AMO also adding to the trend.

      • You’re wrong. He didn’t use UAH data, he used sea surface temperatures. He didn’t use the whole globe, just the part between – 60 and 60 degrees latitude. And he used model data, which would beg the question of whether the phenomena you mentioned were included at all.

  21. The Keeling curve shows a steady rise in atmospheric co2 of about 2ppm pr. year.

    I think even IPCC says only less than 5 pct. of this rise in due to emissions from

    human activities. The rest is from natural sources.

    Am I mistaken ?

    • Am I mistaken ?

      It’s possible you don’t understand the annual carbon cycle. It’s true that CO2 from fossil fuel burning only represents about 4% of total atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 from fossil fuels only represents about 4% on annual emissions but that is exactly what we would expect.

      Each year about 150 GtC is removed from the atmosphere and replaced by another 150 GtC (+ a bit). The accumulation of the’bits’ has resulted in an increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1850.

  22. 1.4C would more or less harmonize with Professor Lindzen’s Iris paper prediction of around 1.1C for a doubling of CO2. Personally I go on the assumption that this prediction is valid and consequently I am very relaxed about climate consequences of ‘as usual’ behaviour.

      • Yes, but:

        1) math is hard
        2) hype is easy, and getting easier with every dumbed-down generation who can’t think critically
        3) media and political power is based on knowing 1) and 2)
        4) he gave a presentation once to a group that got some of its funding from an oil organization
        5) 4) means he’s cancelled

      • Why?

        It’s likely that the earth has already warmed by about 1 degree C since ~1850 and yet the current forcing from CO2 is only at ~2 w/m2. We’ve some way to go until the CO2 levels are double 1850 levels. It’s also quite possible there is warming in the system which is yet to be realised.

        Note the above forcing value of 2.49 w/m2 is (a) wrong and (b) includes forcing from other ghgs – not just CO2.

        • “John Finn January 17, 2020 at 1:59 pm

          It’s likely that the earth has already warmed by about 1 degree C since ~1850…”

          How many thermometers were there, globally, to measure temperature in 1850 without the need for massive grid smoothing?

          • Irrelevant. We have plenty of recent observational evidence. e.g.

            UAH shows 0.52 degree warming since 1979

            CO2 levels in 1979 were ~337 ppm – now ~410 ppm

            Forcing = 5.35 x ln(410/337) = 1.05 w/m2

            Sensitivity = 0.52/1.05 = 0.5 w/m2

            Forcing for 2xCO2 = 3.7 w/m2

            DeltaT for 2xCO2 = 3.7 x 0.5 = 1.85 deg C .

            (Note : this assumes NO further warming from energy imbalance)

          • John Finn, over 40% of the UAH warming is due to when two major volcanoes erupted. When you ignore known facts it appears you are being intentionally dishonest.

            Now add in the major ocean cycles and you are left without much warming. Probably well within the accuracy of our measurement system.

  23. Monckton has this bit absolutely right:

    “Nothing so rapidly, so securely and so permanently lifts a suffering third-world population from poverty, disease and premature death as universal access to electrical power. “

  24. The method is set out (though defectively proved) in Lewis & Curry 2015.

    Dr. Spencer seems to feel that Lewis & Curry 2018 adequately addresses any failings of the previous paper. link

  25. More importantly than the microscopic temperature changes, did the world end?

    And how many doomsday deadlines have we missed now?

  26. The goal of United Nation’s Agendas 21 and 2030 is to reduce the world population to 500,000,000 people. The United Nation’s climate policies seem to be helping them achieve that goal.

    • “Given the brutal consequences for life, health and well-being driven by this cruel, hate-filled cult’s dishonest promotion of the central falsehood that small warming will do large damage, the truth being that even large warming would do much good, perhaps it is time to begin considering whether every dishonesty and fraud calculated to increase public support for, or to profiteer from, climate extremism should be prosecuted as an indictable criminal offense akin to conspiracy to commit murder, or perhaps even genocide. Enough is enough.”
      This needs to be repeated again and again and again…….
      What role has the U.N played and how can we go about prosecuting those within the U.N. who continue to promote the falsehood.

  27. From the article: “And, since the midrange anthropogenic forcing predicted for the 21st century is about the same as the CO2 forcing, 1.4 C° and not 4.1 C° is the warming we can expect this century, and only that on the generous assumption that all warming since 1850 was anthropogenic.”

    And does anyone with any sense think that all the warming the Earth has experienced since 1850 was caused by human beings and CO2?

    CO2 may cause some warming, but it certainly doesn’t cause all warming, so that 1.4C is too high by an unknown factor, depending on the difference between natural and CO2 forcings.

    The IPCC says the warming that took place from 1910 to 1940 was mostly natural and CO2 was a minor factor at that time. During the period from 1910 to 1940 the temperatures warmed at the same magnitude and up to the same temperature level as the temperature increase from 1980 to the present. There is no unprecedented warming today.

    So why should we assume CO2 is a bigger influence on our temperatues today, when the temperatures were just as warm as today less than 100 years ago, and got that warm without any major help from CO2 (according to the IPCC)?

    Should we assume CO2 is a bigger influence today because CO2 is more plentiful in the Earth’s atmsphere today? Not necessarily. CO2 levels increased steadily from 1940 to 1980, yet the temperatures dropped for all those decades to the point that some climate scientists were starting to fear the Earth was entering into another Ice Age. That’s 40 years of CO2 increases while the temperatures fell. CO2 is the control knob of the climate? I don’t think so.

    We shouldn’t assume that CO2 is the major player in the Earth’s atmosphere. We should assume that today’s conditions are duplicating the conditions in the 1930’s and doing so for the same reasons, which doesn’t include CO2 as a major player. That’s what a good scientist would do, until it was proven otherwise.

    • Let me guess – You’re an American. Am I right?

      The warm 1930s only applies to the USA. It wasn’t as warm in Europe or most other parts of the world.

      • “It wasn’t as warm in Europe or most other parts of the world.”

        Really? The hottest temperature ever recorded in Adelaide, Australia was in the 30’s. I don’t have time to look up other regions. On what basis is your claim made?

        • A lot of people don’t realise Adelaide is at the southern tip of the Simpson desert and northerly winds blast through there all the time.

          • This temperature record was made using the new instantaneous measuring thermometer that does not conform to the world standard of averaging over a few minutes. Since these thermometers have been installed there has been a ‘magical’ increase in maximums. The measuring station has also been moved from Kent Town recently leading to a siting change. The difference in temperatures to the nearby airport are typically higher and this can be as much as 6 degrees based on http://www.bom.gov.au/sa/observations/adelaide.shtml. BOM also homogenizes their measurements using the mysterious ACORN 2 process that shows hotter maximums than the ACORN 1 did and of course huge differences from the original records. All the temperatures from the 30’s have been homogenized way down as has been reported on this site and others.

        • “hottest temperature” is weather. It could be caused by a combination of factors. I think a case could be made that the highest recorded UK temperature was in 1911.

      • “The warm 1930s only applies to the USA.”

        Yes, I am a happy resident of the USA, and the warm 1930’s was a global event, at least to the extent that we have records. The records we have show the 1930’s were just as warm as today.

        This means we are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today, the world has been here before, with no lasting dire effects, and no evidence that CO2 is having any measureable effect at all. In other words, CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is dead, if it was just as warm in the past as it is in the present, and it *was* just as warm in the recent past as it is in the present.

        Here are a few examples for you:

        Tmax charts

        US chart:


        China chart:


        India chart:


        Norway chart:


        Australia chart:


        • These graphs show highest max temperatures – not MEAN or MEDIAN temperatures.

          Also what is the source for these graphs. Bob Tisdale isn’t the original source.

          • “These graphs show highest max temperatures – not MEAN or MEDIAN temperatures.”

            Well, if you want to know what the warmest temperatures are then you look at a Tmax chart.

            Are you denying what the Tmax charts show: That the 1930’s or thereabouts show to be just as warm as today?

            Do any of those Tmax charts look like a fraudulent Hockey Stick chart (see below)? How does one get a Hockey Stick chart temperature profile out of those Tmax charts? Answer: Fraudulent Manipulation of the Data.

            Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick


          • Berkely Earth produces a bogus, bastardized, Hockey Stick chart. It represents a False Reality. I reject False Realities. They are not good for one’s mental health.

            How can you tell if you are looking at a bogus, bastardized “Modern-Era” Hockey Stick global temperature chart?

            The easiest way is to look at the 1930’s. If the 1930’s do not show to be as warm as today, then you are looking at a Big Lie.

            You can also look for the cold 1970’s. If the chart does not show the 1970’s to be exceptionally cool, then you are looking at a Big Lie.

            Here is the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart:


            And here is a U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999), in case you thought only Tmax charts show 1930’s warming::


            Here’s where that Hansen 1999 chart originated: Note Hansen’s lame explanation for why the US surface temperature chart and the Hockey Stick look so different.


            And here’s the AMO chart. I threw this in because you claim the U.S. is different from the rest of the world, but as you can see, the AMO is a “mirror-image” to the U.S. surface temperatue chart profile, in that it shows the warm 1930’s and the cool 1970’s plainly.

            AMO Chart:


            See, the Climategate Charlatans, in order to change the profile of the temperature charts, in their efforts to make it appear that the Earth is experiencing unprecedented warmth caused by CO2, had to cool the 1930’s into insignificance, but in order to retain the magnitude of the hot and cold changes, when they lowered the 1930’s on the chart, they had to raise the 1970’s, so they in effect erased both the 1930’s warmth and the 1970’s cooling in order to create their bogus, bastardized, fraudulent Hockey Stick global temperature chart.

            No other unmodified chart on Earth resembles the “hotter and hotter” profile of the Hockey Stick chart. All the unmodified charts show the warmth of the 1930’s and the cold of the 1970’s.

            If you are looking at a Hockey Stick chart, you are looking at a Big Lie. If you are using a Hockey Stick chart for serious science, you are wasting your time because you are dealing in a false reality and your results won’t resemble reality any better than the Hockey Stick.

          • John,

            Exactly what does the “mean of daily high temperature” actually tell you?

            Is it actually telling you what Tmax is?

            Remember, means and averages simply don’t tell you anything about what the extremes are. Averages and means represent a loss of data. Averages and means don’t tell you much abut what is happening at the edges which is where the actual impact of increasing or decreasing temperatures occurs. The daily mean maximum temperature can go up by having more warm days, not just more hot days. You just can’t tell what is actually happening.

        • “The records we have show the 1930’s were just as warm as today.”

          No they don’t:

          I feel sure you and many on here will persist in thinking that a Blog dedicated to being anti-AGW, really has all the answers, and that the bizarre conspiracy theory of fraud and/or incompetence answers all questions.
          But, actually, as common sense should tell if it were not for raging cognitive dissonance – temperatures now well exceed those of the 1930’s out side of the USA. And the USA is far from being a proxy for the globe.





          • All of these charts give MEAN temperatures, and some are anomalies and not even actual temperatures. An average or mean hides what actual temperature truly are. The mean can go up from having more warm days, not just from having higher maximum temperatures.

            The data you have given tell us more about how long the growing season is but not whether the earth is actually getting hotter and hotter. Only a graph of the *actual* Tmax temperatures can tell you if it is getting hotter. And Tom Abbot’s graphs show that maximum temperatures are no higher than they have been in the recent past.

          • Also all of those charts are meaningless in the context of the current discussion.
            For example, look at the ones from India: The first figure shows data from the four largest cities in India. Does anyone think that looking at temperature data from gigantic cities that are now industrialized concrete jungles with massively expanded populations are a good way to assess changes to the temperature of the entire surface of the Earth and of the atmosphere over time? Ever hear of UHI?

            Other data in these links is similarly dubious…they are from the very organizations and data sets being refuted in this discussion.

            On the subject of bizarre ideas and cognitive dissonance…you are the one dismissing the entire body of historical documentation in favor of the revisionism of people who are employed by what has become a massive and well funded industry, all centered around one basic idea.
            The only thing unusual about the weather these days is the number of people who have made it their life’s work to try to scare people about it, and the number of people who believe something for which all of the evidence has been manufactured out of whole cloth.
            Do you take advice about automobiles from the guy who makes his living selling them?

        • Tom Abbott,

          The chart for India shows the warmest year was in the early 20s and the second coldest year was in the 30s.

          The Norway chart shows 1941 as the warmest year, and the warmest 1930 temperature has been beaten twice this century.

          The Australian chart only shows one really hot year in the 1930s and 5 years during the 30s where a lot colder than any year since 2001.

          In any event these charts are not showing average temperatures, only max, and I assume only a single month for each year. Also they only go up to 2012, so I find it difficult to see how this establishes that the 1930s where globally warmer than current temperatures.

          • No nation’s temperature record looks exactly the same as another.

            The most important thing they have in common is they all show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. CAGW is dead.

          • As you say, regional temperatures are all different, which is why you need some evidence to support your claim that the 30s where as warm as today across the globe.

            If your only evidence is looking at single warmest months, then it’s inevitable that you will be able to find many countries that had a single warm month at some time in their past tayt is as warm or possibly warmer than current warmest months. It’s just variability, and tells us nothing about whether any decade was warmer than today.

      • “The warm 1930s only applies to the USA.”

        You have go to be kidding.
        One thing is for sure…in places where the population is far more gullible and credulous, and historical temperature data more sparse, it was far easier to adjust away past warmth and exaggerate recent warming.
        Any discussion of historical temperature data which does not closely examine what was universally accepted as true prior to the advent of global warming alarmism, is simply not credible.
        There are long lists of individual station data sets which look just like Reykjavik, and many of them which have been subjected to attempts at historical revisionism.

        This is one example, there are many…including for the southern Hemisphere in such locations as South Africa.
        By the late 1980s, no one was disputing that several decades of cooling had erased all of the early 20th century warmth…not just in the US, but globally as well.

      • Historical records show that ice was melting and glaciers retreating rapidly all over the world, including in Europe and the Arctic, in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
        By the late 1940s these trends were reversing…also all over the world.
        The documentation is extensive.
        The efforts to change the past are revealed.
        And besides for documentation…there are plenty of us who REMEMBER very well what was written in the textbooks we studied back in the early 1980s and prior years.
        Newspapers from all over the world describing current events over decades of time…year after year after year…those are unaltered records from the past by people with no agenda except to report the news.
        Why should anyone accept for even one second revisions to history from people with an agenda and a failed hypothesis on the line?

        • From your link:

          “International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere

          New York Times, January 5, 1978

          The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appears in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal. The findings indicate that from 1950 to 1975 the cooling, per decade, of most climate indexes in the Northern Hemisphere was from 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius, roughly 0.2 to 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”

          Thanks for all those links, Nicholas. I found the above excerpt particularly interesting. We have official records that show temperaures cooled for decades from the 1940’s to the late 1970’s, yet this cold time period doesn’t even register on the bogus, fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. If you were looking at a Hockey Stick chart the 1970’s looks like a warming period.

          Yes, we have documented evidence of the cold decades from 1940 to 1980, yet the bogus Hockey Stick chart completely downplays this cold temperature extreme. The alarmist data manipulators erased it from the official record.

          Imo, I believe that recent criticsm on this issue has caused Michael Mann to come out and try to fool people into believing there was no exceptionally cold period that ended in the late 1970’s. Mann has rewritten history in the past and he’s trying to do it again, but I don’t see how he is going to be successful considering all the evidence available to refute his contention.

          But, the Leftwing Media is a powerful thing, so Mann wll get some traction no matter how blatant the lie is.

          The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is below. It shows the Data Manipulators changed the significance of the 1930’s warmth, the 1970’s cold spell, and the warmth of 1998, all in an attempt to make it appear that temperatures have been climbing steadily for decade after decade and claiming all this is caused by human-derived CO2.

          The alarmists would have a hard time explaining their CO2 theory if it was understood that CO2 amounts in the atmosphere had been climbing steadily from 1940 to 1980, yet the temperatures declined all during that time period, so erasing the cold of the 1970’s would serve the alarmists’ purposes. And they erased it.

          The truth is the temperatures climb for a few decades and then they decline for a few decades and then they climb again, all within certain upper and lower bounds for the last few hundred years anyway, where we have fairly adeqate records. We should assume that is what the temperatures will do in the future (repeat past patterns) until demonstrated otherwise.


          The Hockey Stick is a HUGE HOAX that has managed to fool too many people. One of these days it will all come out in the wash.

Comments are closed.