Hello Everyone,
First let me wish you all happiness and good cheer, wherever you are. I want to thank everyone for their participation and the commentary at WUWT this past year, for without you, this would just be a distant and unknown corner of the Internet.
We’ve accomplished a lot this year. We’ve added unique and relevant AI generated but user-directed images as a feature for our head-post illustrations, which gives WUWT a special ability to illustrate and poke fun at some of the issues and people we cover. We’ve added other new features such as the Failed Climate Prediction Timeline. We’ve had contests for essays on climate change. We’ve added new graphics to the sidebar to illustrate the state of temperature for the U.S. and the world you won’t see elsewhere. We have recently updated the Everything Climate reference website to be part of WUWT – it was originally a separate URL but we had troubles keeping it managed and working properly due to internal WordPress issues. We’ve added a page showing that severe weather is not in fact getting worse despite what the media tells you. We are fighting back against the belief that climate related doom is just around the corner… with facts, and we will continue to do so.
We passed the 500 million views mark this year – no other climate related website can claim this. Many have not stood the test of time, disappeared, or have become inactive. We are still here. Many of our hostile screeching detractors at these websites have disappeared as well.
THANKS
I also wish to sincerely thank those of you that have contributed funds to WUWT in sums both big and small. I thank those of you known and unknown, who have kept us afloat. Despite the fevered fantasies of our detractors, we’ve yet to get a single penny from “big oil.” Hell, we can’t even run Google Adwords anymore to generate some compensation as we have been banned because we publish things that are counter to the alarmist climate narrative and Google decided to listen to angry fools, instead of realists. Yet we persist, despite the efforts to starve and silence us with search engine and social media suppression.
I’d like to thank our detractors as well, it is because of your inane pigheadedness and resistance to logic and facts that we have the inspiration to move forward. Even many of our fake commenters are worthy of a thank you, except of course, “Griff,” who chickened out when we went to a registration requirement to comment. What I’ve learned is that most of our detractors are simply cowards.
And then there’s the fact that one of these anonymous cowards doxed me this year. I’m fighting on that front too. I can’t say more at this time, but so far the law is in my favor.
Most importantly, I would like thank the many people who keep the site running on a daily basis with maintenance, updates, and guest contributions. Both Charles Rotter and Eric Worrall deserve special thanks for their tireless efforts at updating and improving the site. I thank Willis Eschenbach for his regular data driven investigations. Behind the scenes, I thank Jim Secola who has been whittling away at the thousands of broken links and missing images in older posts. Also, there have been many people who have contributed fantastic WUWT essays over the year that I wish to acknowledge:
- Andy May
- Dave Middleton
- Lawrence Hamlin
- Kip Hansen
- Kevin Kilty
- Roger Caiazza
- Ronald Stein
- Paul Dreissen
- Ken Haapala
- Jennifer Marohasy
- Geoffrey Sherrington
- Rud Istvan
- Christopher Monckton
- John Parmentola
- Barry Brill
- Steve Goreham
- James Steele
- Russell Cook
- Susan Crockford
- Bob Tisdale
- Josh at Cartoons by Josh (get his 2024 calendar)
I’m sure I have missed a few people, you have my regrets for that oversight as well as my sincere thanks. There are also some people in my thoughts who have helped greatly, but prefer not to be named. You also have my sincere thanks.
THE FUTURE
This coming year will also be a year of growth and change. I want to give you a peek into the future.
- I am setting up an Internet TV studio. I’ve been working slowly on it for about a year. The challenge for me is to make it work with my hearing issues while making it look professional like I did during my many years of live television weather. The studio will be for weekly live broadcasts and for making instructional videos.
- With the new studio, there will be a regular weekly live interactive broadcast at WUWT to discuss the issues. That will be a subscriber based event. A subscriber based weekly newsletter is also in the works.
- Along those lines, I am working on a 24/7/365 live “ClimateTV” channel that will run videos, graphics, data, news items, and entertainment. I have done some test runs and it is looking good. There’s still much more work to do before I launch. This will be free and public, though we may run advertising on it.
- We will be updating the “Reference Pages” – they’ve been broken, mainly by WordPress cache issues which makes any fix disappear quickly, but our resident writer and programmer Eric Worrall has come up with a plugin that will solve this long-standing problem that prevents us from displaying live information. Our goal is to become the “one-stop-shop” for all climate information, especially the things you can’t find elsewhere.
- Eric Worrall is working on a WUWT App, both for Android and Apple phones. This will be made available to everyone for free. The challenge was to make one that neither Google or Apple can “shut down.” We’ve got that figured out. I’ve tested it and it is a great start, we just need a bit more tweaking before release in early 2024.
- We will be adding new topics to the Everything Climate section – feel free to make suggestions.
- We will do a website overhaul, to go to a more modern theme that is better for speed and SEO. Our current theme is over six years old and it is creaking under the load. It has no update path.
- I want to do a monthly “state of the climate” report, much like NOAA does, but from a perspective of sensibility. If funds permit, I’ll send out press releases each month to all media outlets. PRNewswire is not cheap.
- I have designed and prototyped a fantastic replacement for the NOAA MMTS temperature measurement station that is affordable, automated, accurate, and most importantly mostly immune from local site biases as I outlined in my 2022 Corrupted Climate Stations report. I’ll need people to fund stations and test it on location. Anything the government can do by contract, can be done better by people with determination. NOAA has become the “DMV” of surface temperature measurement. More on that later.
FINALLY – A REQUEST FOR SUPPORT
Doing all this not only takes time and selfless commitment, it takes funds. Since we’ll never get a dime from “big oil” nor even “big tech” now that Google has prevented us from running advertising, I have to beg. I hate doing this and it has been awhile since I have asked. Without my asking, many of you have become regular contributors via a monthly program with PayPal, while others have sent larger one-time sums to keep us going. I thank each and every one of you.
If you’d like to help reach our goals outlined above for the coming year, any amount, big or small, will help. See the DONATE BUTTON on the right sidebar or this link. This allows you to use a credit card or a one-time bank transfer. If you need to mail it by USPS or other means, please use the contact form and I’ll be in touch.
In closing, let me say that I’m honored and humbled by all of you who come here and participate. I am thankful that we can continue, despite the odds.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and may God bless you all! – Anthony Watts
It’s a good thing that a web site like WUWT exists because it provides people with a proper balance on climate issues, especially when the mainstream media, left-leaning governments and alarmist environmentalist organizations are doing their utmost to convince people that some sort of “climate crisis” exists. Their real motive is an excuse to raise taxes and living costs and impose unnecessary restrictions on the populace, all of which will simply erode living standards and have minimal effects on what little climate change is actually occurring. WUWT can be depended upon to set the record straight and call out the con-men.
to coin a phrase; if Watts didn’t exist he’d have to be invented but since he does so much the better
I want to thank Anthony and all of you whose only agendas are to seek the truth and expose the lies. You are fighting the good fight and your voices crying out in the wilderness do not go unheard. May 2024 be even more successful for WUWT and all of you!
Well done Anthony et al for keeping the web site up and running
You do an indispensable job towards scientific reality.
…
On a funny note.. Red Energy in NSW , who propaganda themselves as “Carbon Neutered”…
…. is offering 15,000 QUANTAS frequent flyer pint if you change to them as provider.
D’OH !!
Dear bnice2000,
Perhaps its the Christmas spirit, but Qantas is actually spelt QANTAS, points are POINTS and in the USA, some say quaint-ass …
Nevertheless allthebest to you …
Cheers,
Bill
Don’t know how the “U” got there !..
My typing is as bad as my attempted piano playing.
I turn Mozart into Sculthorpe. 😉
Best wishes also !
Thanks Anthony (and your elves) for your perseverance, and all the best for 2024.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston and the crew at http://www.bomwatch.com.au
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
Ha Ha Haa Haaaaa Ho Ho Ho,Warren,
I have tried and tried. Appropriate scientific journals, especially the ones you mention are run by warmists, for warmists, and are refereed within the tent with the warmist narrative in mind.
You are simply having yourself on if you believe “arguments [are] carefully and expertly peer-reviewed”. The journals themselves also generate large incomes for their publishers, an income stream that they zealously protect.
Imagine if along comes a paper that shows unequivocally that homogenisation of Australian temperature data is nothing more than elaborate data-fiddle.
That changes in equipment, particularly the replacement of 230-litre Stevenson screens with 60-litre ones, use of plastic (PVC) screens, replacement of manually-observed thermometers with automatic weather stations, spraying out the grass with herbicide, stripping top-soil in the vicinity of where temperature is measured …. is entirely responsible for all the increase in maximum temperature recorded across Australia’s vast continent (including Tasmania).
In case your imagination is unable to cope, what would happen is that hundreds, possibly thousands of those “expertly peer-reviewed” papers would have to be retracted. PhD’s would not be worth the weight of the paper they are printed on, the Great Barrier Reef would be fine for another few thousand years, and net-zero would be exposed as the hoax that it is ….
No matter how carefully written, of course they can’t publish anything that dispels the global warming fantasy.
There is nothing that I have referred to in this reply to your rather dumb and shallow assessment, that is not justified by at least several studies that I have published at http://www.bomwatch.com.au.
I suggest for a start, see the report on Townsville (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/data-quality/climate-of-the-great-barrier-reef-queensland-climate-change-at-townsville-abstract-and-case-study/), the methods paper on Amberley (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/bureau-of-meteorology/are-australias-automatic-weather-stations-any-good/), the study on Marble Bar (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/data-quality/part-2-marble-bar-the-warmest-place-in-australia-2/), or an earlier post on Sydney Observatory (https://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/sydney-observatory-where-warming-is-created-by-site-moves-buildings-freeways/).
Why not share amongst your friends the good news that there has been no measurable warming in weather station data from across Australia.
Story Tip
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Since all Universities and Scientific Institutions in the world affirm that ‘Earth is warming, human activities are the cause, and the net effects are harmful to humans and other species’, it makes one wonder why the world should pay much attention to opinions such as yours.
I see you’re still trolling.
Ha Ha Haa Haaaaa Ho Ho Ho,Warren,
Its that c-word – consensus amongst the scientists, by the scientists, for the scientists, who use $taxpayer to publish nonsense in journals that are far too expensive, so they can get more money. Analyse some data Warren. The Amberley paper mentioned above should give you a lead-in.
Alternatively, try https://www.bomwatch.com.au/climate-data/climate-of-the-great-barrier-reef-queensland-climate-change-at-gladstone-a-case-study/
Happy new year,
All the best,
Bill Johnston
Still no evidence, just calls to far-left academic consensus… pathetic.
Warming since the LIA has been TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to life on this CARBON-BASED planet of ours.
The ENHANCED CO2 has also been a MASSIVE BENEFIT to all life on Earth.
You have only your totally worthless opinion.
NEVER ANY ACTUAL SCIENCE. !!
No evidence exists that contradicts the prevailing scientific theory I posted. If you have some, let’s take a look.
The LIA was a regional phenomenon, not global, affecting primarily Northern Europe.
please explain how CO2s beneficial properties have anything to do with its greenhouse properties.
Great that you STILL haven’t produced any actual evidence.
Just keep waffling.. Its funny !
At least you have now admitted to the MASSIVE and PROVEN benefits of enhanced atmospheric CO2
Yes, CO2 is used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.
Now you need to produce some real scientific evidence that it causes atmospheric warming.
But you KNOW you won’t be able to… so you will just keep waffling.
If you’re not aware of the enormous body of evidence that atmospheric CO2 warms the planet, you haven’t looked. Greenhouse gases, including CO2, are what distinguishes the climate of earth from that of the moon. if it weren’t for CO and other ghgs, earth would be ~60F cooler, and inhospitable to most life.
“if it weren’t for CO and other ghgs, earth would be ~60F cooler, and inhospitable to most life.”
A load of hogwash based on not understanding the effect of gravity and atmospheric mass.
Sorry, but no. Your opposition to 6th grade science is noted.
Your lack of understanding of ANY science is shining through.
At least you have now admitted you only got up to 6th grade science.
You seriously are missing some basic physics by denying the role that the greenhouse effect has played in sustaining life on planet earth. Usually it’s covered in AP physics or earth science in HS or as a basic part of atmospheric physics at University.
So how do CO2’s ‘life giving’ properties contradict its greenhouse properties? You still haven’t explained.
Produce scientific evidence of warming by human released CO2.
You know you can’t, otherwise you would have done so by now.
There is no evidence of CO2 warming in the whole of the satellite temperature record.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
If it weren’t for CO2 there wouldn’t be any life on Earth at all.
It is the absolute essential ingredient for 99.9999% of life on the planet.
Atmospheric CO2 is currently at very low levels compared to optimum plant grow and compared to Earth History.
Did you know that there is absolutely ZERO evidence of warming by human released CO2 in the 45 years of UAH data.
None, nada, ZIP !!
You know it’s well past time to head for the exits with the doomsday climate cult and their mumbo jumbo fed into computers when even the taxeaters who believe there’s a Gummint fix for everything that goes bump in the night are asking the hard questions-
Government to conduct review on BOM warning systems (msn.com)
Much mirth promises in 2024 with the true believers and their hubris.
‘credible explanation for the data on climate change’
What data?
The world is warming from the LIA. I date the warming from the last Thames ice fair in 1816.
Even the IPCC AR4 SPM fig 4 said that was all natural until about 1950–simply not enough change in GHG forcing.
Anthropogenic CO2 is rising (C12/C13 ratio proof) BUT
-Model predicted tropical troposphere hotspot does not exist.
-Model predicted sea level rise acceleration didn’t happen.
-Model predicted disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice didn’t happen.
-Model,predicted disappearance of Glacier National Park glaciers didn’t happen.
-Model predicted disappearance of UK winter snow didn’t happen.
What we do have is massive evidence for scientific bias/misconduct among the ‘climate scientists’. A few prime examples from a very long list:
Straw man argument. Models are never evidence, nor do scientists consider them to be evidence. The evidence is in hard data taken from the physical world.
Ha Ha Haa Haaaaa Ho Ho Ho,Warren,
How many data-based papers do you know of, that don’t resolve into something to do with models?
As an example of a data-based study, you could check out my report on Marble Bar (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Marble-Bar-back-story-with-line-Nos.pdf).
If you want do a ‘factcheck’ the data are there too (Click here to download the Excel spreadsheet with data points 1901 to 2020).
Cheers,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Sorry, but that’s incorrect. No models are ever used as evidence, anywhere.
Models are the ONLY , and fake, evidence there is of human caused global warming. !
Prove it by producing some actual scientific evidence..
First you will have to figure out what “scientific” means !!!
Again.. all we expect is claims to “consensus, and nebulous citations of JUNK science that you have never read.
As often as you repeat that nonsense, it won’t change the facts.
“…it won’t change the facts.” When you define your own ‘facts’ of course it won’t. :<)
Yet you continue to produce absolutely no evidence..
Do you realise what an absolute goose you are making of yourself !
What “facts” are you talking about.. produce scientific evidence to back them up.
Read any f the peer reviewed sources I’ve cited.
You haven’t cited anything correctly.
Just a nebulous meaningless non-citation.
Is it that you can’t actually find anything…
….or that you are a low-level journalist hack who wouldn’t know what a scientific citation was even if it slapped him in the face.
“No models are ever used as evidence, anywhere.”
Ignorance is not bliss!
“Ignorance is not bliss!”
But it is all he has in his life.
Have you submitted any of your material for publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
What a totally pathetic comment.
Bill’s work is there for all to see and read.
Counter it if you can, or continue to make a mockery of yourself.
He won’t submit to review by experts because he knows his nonsense can’t withstand scrutiny.
Yawn!
Your pathetic attempts are truly hilarious.
You are welcome to look at his work and say where he is wrong.
But you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of doing so.
You prove that with every post you make.
Bereft of any scientific knowledge whatsoever.
You are just making random, fart-like noises.
That is the limit of your capability.
Which you are TOOTALLY INCAPABLE of produce.
Because it DOESN’T EXIST !!
You have been given the chance to produce scientific evidence…..
and have FAILED.. utterly and completely.!!
The LIA was regional, affecting mostly Northern Europe. The World has been slowly cooling for the last 1400:years, until interrupted by the spike in global temperatures beginning about 1900.
Models never made the predictions you claim, except possibly slr acceleration which was established by Nerem et al.
the claims of misconduct are all hokum, cooked up by an illegal hack. Seven independent investigations cleared the East Anglia scientists of any wrongdoing. And Mann’s hickey stick has been confirmed by multiple peer reviewed studies, and replicated several times. It’s entirely accepted as valid by the scientific community, though, as you imply, Deniers not so much.
LIA was world-wide , as was the MWP (warmer than now), and the RWP, even warmer, and the MUCH warmer Holocene optimum.
If you had even the slightest understanding of maths or science, you would realise that Mann’s Hockey Stick is TOTALLY BOGUS.
Mann is the anti-science hack.. you are just too brain-washed to realise it.
You’ve repeated a number of unsupportable talking points, most notably accusations of fraud against scientists whose conclusions you dont like. Seems like your favorite debating technique.
Been proven as bogus. Stop your denial.
And even if it wasn’t a load of hacked together nonsense, all the fake hockey stick shows is the effect of CO2 on tree growth.
“slr acceleration”
Is a load of anti-science hogwash.
It was obtained by altering successive different satellite records (which can’t measure SL accurately anyway). and by introducing dubious non sea level “adjustments™“
No acceleration has been measured at any tide gauge anywhere around the world.
In addition to claiming Tide gauges can provide an accurate representation of global sea level changes (they don’t), you assert that Nerem et al reach their conclusions fraudulently. So when you don’t like the conclusions, you accuse the scientists of fraud.
Satellite data has “adjustments” that cause the fake acceleration
Didn’t you know that. !
NO acceleration in any tide gauge.
I thought you were pretending to be interested in facts…
… but seem rather into denial of facts.
They have yet to produce any real scientific evidence.
They have MODELS.. that is all.
Please submit some actual evidence not based on erroneous models.
But we all know you will just yap mindlessly about “consensus” and other anti-science garbage, because that is all you have..
And you obviously don’t know how “climate science (lol)” peer-review works.
ps.. you say you know all these journals..
Surly you should be able to find something….. anything !!!
(this will be hilarious.. or Warren will just disappear as yet another scientific non-entity.)
Try the IPCC 6th Assessment. Or any of the world’s Science Academies. Have you read reports by the National Academy of Sciences (US)? Or the Royal Society (UK)? Or NASA’s Earth Sciences Division? Or any of the 10s of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers published in recent years in journals such as Nature or Science?
You obviously haven’t read them.
Otherwise you would know there is no actual evidence in it.
If you pretend you have, then cite exact evidence.
You have done exactly as I predicted… a childish call to consensus, without producing a single solitary piece of evidence.
We can wait.
Oh, I’ve read them. And you are actually accusing those organizations of reaching their conclusions WITHOUT EVIDENCE? Appalling.
Then produce the evidence
Stop waffling.. You are proving me correct with every post.
Yes, it is absolutely appalling.
But religious agendas can be like that.
Of course produce the evidence.. or just keep yapping.
All those papers.
And yet you have produced absolutely NOTHING
Why is that ???
The evidence is in the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers referred to in the IPCC 6th assessment, the National Academy of Sciences reports, and on the NASA website — or you could simply read scientific papers in Nature or Science. But I doubt you will look –because you want everyone else to do your homework.
Well PRODUCE ONE. !!
You are the one who needs to find one.
You are doing exactly as I said you would
FAILING UTTERLY
Do you have difficulty reading? I gave you the references. But I’m not doing your reading for you.
You poor muppet.
Stop waffling
You ae the one says the evidence is there ..
YOU find it and present a correct citation….
… or don’t.. and keep proving you have no evidence.
Of the hundreds of trolls that come here, it’s rare to see one run through their climate alarmist talking points so quickly. You should pace yourself.
I cite only the basics of peer reviewed standard science as found in every University science textbook on atmospheric physics. In contrast, you seem to think you’ve discovered fundamental errors in the science taught in every major University in the world. If so, that’s delusional.
So averaging intensive properties like temperature is valid? You’re delusional. It violates standard thermodynamics–something climate scientists don’t have a clue about.
When every scientist in the world is using a certain technique or methodology , and you think it’s wrong, indeed one has to wonder who has it right.
Still with the ignorance and NO EVIDENCE.
Very sad little person, aren’t you.
“When every scientist in the world is using a certain technique or methodology . . . .”
I would give you an example of such nonsense, but I don’t think you have the necessary math skills.
A low-end propagandist journalist is my guess.
Lots of mindless yapping… but..
… certainly not much understanding of science, maths or physics.
Oh, I can’t wait for another episode of your “Ive discovered MORE fundamental errors in the body of peer reviewed science”
You certainly don’t have the capability to read and understand ANY of the actual science.
Rational comprehension is totally beyond you
So, just open your little empty mind and gullibly swallow the whole lot.
There’s a good little cultist !!
So you declined my challenge. It’s been noticed!
YOU HAVEN’T CITED ANYTHING !!
All the fundaMENTAL errors are with your total lack of basic understanding of any real science.
Basic physics is beyond you.
Basic understanding of atmospheric actions is beyond you.
Stick to your low-level journalist/ propaganda..
It is all you can understand or will ever be capable of.
Warren…. you need to know what you are dealing with here. Benasty2000 does not want any evidence. He doesn’t put any value on data or logic. He is the man who looks at the recent graphs, sees that the warming peaks are during the el Nino years and so concludes El Nino is the cause of the warming. That is the depth of his thinking. Yep…..
Heh. So Simon finally makes his appearance.
Why not? You make it sound like I’m not welcome to this open forum where all opinions are valued? Are you that insecure in your opinion that you can’t tolerate or value robust debate?
No, I enjoy reading your nonsense. Please comment away. Unlike you (who’s projecting), I think freedom of speech is a right.
Yep, we don’t mind gormless twits like the simpleton commenting.
Shows everyone the utterly feeble nature of their empty anti-science arguments.
WB seems to be striving to match ‘simpleton’ status..
You and fungal now have competition for “most obvious loser”,
Thanks sir!
Yes, nasty and you seem to have a mutual admiration society (but not much understanding of the basics in science)
Poor Warren, you really are cowering under your little rock, aren’t you.
Still no evidence. Still ZERO science
So sad… so pathetic.
I like the fact that he refers to you as “nasty.” You are scoring points in his pathetic world.
A demented chihuahua yapping behind a 6ft fence would be more credible…
.. and more intelligent !
“but not much understanding of the basics in science”
I have a BS degree in EE with a specialty in digital electronics. I’ve had lots of classes in physics, lots of classes in engineering, and lots of classes in mathematics. Your statement is ludicrous.
I also have a masters in software engineering–but that’s related to computer stuff–mostly. There’s obviously nothing about computers in climate science. /sarc
I am also a retired Navy pilot. Have you ever flown a P-3 through a thunderstorm at night in the Philippines? How much weather do you think a typical P-3 pilot experiences during his career?
Warren hasn’t shown any understanding of anything to do with science.
A sort of empty sad-sack. !
Nice. But I think you should stick with flying jets and circuit design.
Because you have no knowledge of either. It would illuminate your world!
“ But I think you should stick with flying jets and circuit design.”
And you should stick to making cheap cafe-lattes at your local Starbucks…
If you can even mange that. !
“I have a BS degree in EE with a specialty in digital electronics. I’ve had lots of classes in physics, lots of classes in engineering, and lots of classes in mathematics. Your statement is ludicrous.”
So if you are as clever as you proclaim, what part of the climate science debate don’t you get? Why don’t you trust the people who study this stuff at the highest level? Seriously I’m curious to know.
Sad that the simpleton doesn’t have the mental capacity understand the actual science, or to see the many, many mistruth and mis-directions in the climate literature.
It makes for a mindless, gullible know-less-than-nothing nonce..
Doesn’t have the ability to understand that it is about the actual abysmal LACK OF SCIENCE behind the climate fairy-tale…
.. even though, when asked to produce it.. he can’t, because there ISN’T ANY.
The really bizarre thing is that he is absolutely DETERMINED to remain brain-washed and ignorant.
I used to ague with creationisst about evolution. When climate alarmists sound like creationist, i think they are clueless.
Your saint Greta retracted her claim of doom. That means she either is complicit in the conspiracy, or she’s an ignorant tool. As you are an antisemitic and a Communist, I don’t care what you think.
“As you are an antisemitic and a Communist, I don’t care what you think.”
Ok it is offical… You are a nutbar….
“what part of the climate science debate don’t you get?”
Why cretins like you strive so incredibly hard to show how incredibly ignorant you are.
“Why don’t you trust the people who study this stuff at the highest level?”
I have… and you certainly haven’t.
You are barely out of nappies and your mind is still at kindy level.
“Why don’t you trust the people who study this stuff at the highest level? Seriously I’m curious to know.”
The environmental movement has been captured by Communists. There’s a claim made by the environmental community that 70,000 to 100,000 species have vanished in recent times. One time founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, tried to find the source of this assertion, because it was basically nonsense. It was difficult because the various environmental groups just repeat what other environmental groups claim. He eventually traced it to a computer program on the desktop computer of E.O. Wilson. So no dead bodies; no counting or tabulating actual data; just numbers created by a flawed program.
I’ve studied climate science for decades, and it’s totally bogus science. I actually read some of their climate papers. There’s always a hat-tip to the climate agenda. It’s there so it passes the gatekeepers. It’s there even if the paper sometimes contradicts the hat-tip
And I notice that no one discusses climate-gate anymore. Why bring up obvious fraud by the CRU.
“Why don’t you trust the people who study this stuff at the highest level?”
I was taught to question everything in science, because nothing is settled. Of course, you need to accept some things, because you can’t check everything. Plus I knew enough about past climates to know that the current climate nonsense is a hoax.
By “researching climate science” seems to mean watching YouTube videos, not attending University. It’s a good thing the world doesn’t rely upon you for it’s science.
So basically you’re just a troll with nothing to add. I figured that out when you made the exact same comment on two different posts.
I think you should take this to heart:
So you believe that 1+1=3. Good to know.
“ not attending University.”
It is VERY obvious you have never got passed Junior High.
Jim has attended University
So have I.
YOU HAVEN’T. (failed arts degrees do not count)
If the world relied on science from you.. science wouldn’t even exist !
In the last line, I didn’t mean you, Jim.
I meant that simpleton and fungal have another contender for “most obvious loser”
I know. I was thanking you for the first line.
Slap-stick base-level clownery, as you constantly provide…
What could be better for a LAUGH !!
The empty-brained simpleton appears
ALSO WITH NO EVIDENCE. !
You haven’t got a single clue about data or logic
They are a total anathema to you, simpleton.
DENIAL that the warm peaks coincide with El NIno and that El Nino is their cause…
Only a totally blind, ignorant and gormless idiot would do that !!
Simon was right! (About you)
Is that the best you can do.
Talk about PATHETIC !!
Simon has never been right about anything.
Pathetic is defined by your rejection of science and physics taught in every major university and affirmed by all the worlds institutions of science. I’d be willing to bet you’ve never tried to learn. So you get your thrills out of opposition to the simplest of physics, but lack any comprehension of any basics. Don’t you ever wonder why you’re left out of the discussion?
I don’t think i seen a more scientifically INEPT clown as you are.
You obviously know NOTHING about physics.
You have present ZERO science.
You know NOTHING about citing papers.
You have nothing except mindless yapping.
It truly is hilarious how you keep exposing your ignorance and ineptitude.
“ I’d be willing to bet you’ve never tried to learn.”
I am willing to bet I have FAR MORE degrees and other academic qualifications, relevant to climate, and data, than you will EVER go near.
Your failed Arts attempt, does not count !
“Far more degrees and academic qualifications”. Only one qualification matters — name a peer reviewed climate paper you’ve had published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
You are the one with absolutely NOTHING to back up a single thing you say.
You are so IGNORANT of science that you still think “climate” peer-review” actually means anything.
You don’t even know what “peer-review ” is really about, do you !!
All you have offered so far is gullible, gormless IGNORANCE.
Even better ask Bnasty to name one peer reviewed paper that backs up his “it’s El Nino that done it” theory. He can’t even find a crazy climate denier to join his team. He is on the extreme of the extreme.
Have you found a peer-reviewed paper that proves human released CO2 causes warming yet..
Or are you still looking under the rocks under your bridge ??
DENIAL of the effect of El Ninos is your problem, not mine.
You aren’t seriously saying the small temperature spikes in 1998, 2016 and now weren’t caused by El Nino are you.
You aren’t seriously saying they didn’t add energy to the atmosphere and the ocean surface, are you ???
WOW !!!
I know science is something you have never had the remotest understand of, and never will…. but seriously !!!
Your ignorance knows no bounds. !!
“Have you found a peer-reviewed paper that proves human released CO2 causes warming yet..”
Yep, how many thousand would you like? Maybe start with this easy to read document that was produced by perhaps the finest most respected scientific organisation on the planet….
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
“DENIAL of the effect of El Ninos is your problem, not mine.”
Hmm I’d say it’s yours if you keep telling the world you have found the cause of global warming and and it’s El Nino.
“You aren’t seriously saying the small temperature spikes in 1998, 2016 and now weren’t caused by El Nino are you.”
Umm yep. And so is everyone other breathing human being on the planet. Got anyone anywhere who agrees with you? A scientist working int he field would be a good start. But anyone. Anthony Watts… nope. Roy Spencer…. nope. Anyone?
“how many thousand would you like”
Well.. present one.
We are waiting !!.
You are batting -1000 so far.
WOW.. blatant DENIAL of El Nino warming spikes.
Can you get any more hilarious. !!
Poor simpleton can’t even post a workable link.. Hilarious. !
And I know that propaganda paper you are trying to link to..
It actually contains ZERO scientific evidence...
lots of baseless conjecture based on mantra,.. but no evidence.
Do you even know the difference???
Please point to the “scientific evidence”.
… and, of course, a whole heap of data which is known to be either highly urban affected, or just plain fabricated from models..
For instance….
It is totally impossible to get a realistic Global surface temperature from a whole heap of random urban affected and airport sites.. many of which are totally unfit for purpose..
so any of those can be tossed in the circular file.
Ocean heat content.. Please explain how it was measured in say 1955?
Then consider the graph below, where the so-called OHC rise is the little squiggle at the end.
The snow graph is also totally bogus.
NH snow has actually been increasing, and this year is a real big one.
Figure 2 Temperature graph.. Massively URBAN affected.. no use at all for anything.
Part 5...
Conjecture…. not evidence of anything.
Part 6..
baseless conjecture of CO2 warming. At least they admit that most of the Holocene has been FAR warmer than now.
Not evidence.
Part 7
400ppm is actually at the very low end of plant requirements. Optimum is around 1000ppm
Figure 3 shows highly beneficial increase in atmospheric CO2.. saving the world’s plant life.
Temperature in the Antarctic, unaffected by increase in CO2, proving ZERO warming effect.
Evidence of NO warming effect
Part 8.
More baseless conjecture based on a baseless conjecture of CO2 warming.
Not evidence
Part 9.
Using urban affected surface temperature.. Not evidence of anything but urban warming.
Part 10.
Petty excuses for a non-warming period.
So your attempted link contains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except propaganda aimed at ignorant AGW apostles/cultist.
The rest is also just lots of mantra waffle… waffle is not evidence.
If you think there is actual scientific evidence of CO2 warming.. rather than just acceptance of the mantra conjecture….
… then point to it by page and line. !
Oh, btw.. did you know that the Arctic sea ice for day 364 is above every year’s extent back to and including 2004.
Did you know that the current level is actually in the top 5% or so of the last 10,000 years.
Or are you continuing to comment based on your inbuilt gullibility and ignorance ?
“You are batting -1000 so far.”
Make that -1001 now.
Yet another abject and complete FAILURE.
The story of .. you !!
Oh, and we are all still waiting for your answer to how much WARMER it must have been for forests to grow 1000 or so years ago, where now there are glaciers.
And how much warmer for peat bogs to form where now they are in permafrost.
Only pathetic whimpering from you so far… on anything !!
You have had my answer. You didn’t like it. What a surprise. Now do you have anyone in your corner? Anyone?
And what a totally PATHETIC answer it was.
A total NON-answer. A pathetic evasion .
Billy Madison would be proud of you.
Noted.. you STILL can’t answer the question.
Noted… you STILL haven’t provided any scientific evidence of warming by human CO2
Why is that ??
Me!
Haha… brilliant. So maybe you explain how this magic works coz your “fwiend” can’t.
And while you are at it, how come no one else on the planet has ever thought of this solution? And finally (and this is the killer) if El Nino’s have been around forever, while are we not just having these warming steps though history? I mean we should be boiling… but we are not.
So what are your qualifications? You have none as far as I can discern.
Did you see up above where the simpleton said that the small atmospheric temperatures spikes in 1998, 2016 and now… weren’t cause by El Ninos.
How much funnier, gormless and idiotically anti-science can he get !!
I also noticed that he has no scientific qualifications. I have many. He has none. Simon is an oxymoron!
“So what are your qualifications? You have none as far as I can discern.”
Really? I wasn’t aware that you needed to be a climate scientist to have an opinion on this page? You better tell the 99.9% of contributors.
Passing primary school would be a probably difficult start for you, simpleton.!
You obviously have very little scientific education of any sort whatsoever.
Yes, you can comment…
… but you will continue to make and abject fool of yourself..
… and be provable WRONG on basically any matter pertaining to anything remotely scientific.
You are essentially a scientific moron.
Oh wait you are not one either. That makes us equal. How does that feel?
The internet also agrees with me.
Huh? That does not say El Nino has caused the recent long term increase in global temperatures. You will notice the word “temporarily” in your quote. That is called an own goal. Thank you.
So you now admit El Nino causes warming
WOW.
a tiny tiny step for a mental toddler. !!
Don’t fall back and squish your nappy !!
The effect of these strong El Nino lingers as a step change.
Hadn’t you got around to realising that yet.
Maybe you should actually look at some data…
… not that you have any capability of understanding it.
The only thing you seem capable of is absolutely ZERO rational thought or comprehension.
Comes from having basically zero school education.
You and Greta would be a good match.
Paired in deliberate ignorance.
Have you worked with the NarClim database? Do you even know what it is.?
Have you done reports for the UNSW Climate cabal?
Do you know what Hydrology is ? Have you taught it at university ?
Do you know anything about climate science AT ALL… apart from the propaganda misinformation you have swallowed whole ?
“Have you worked with the NarClim database? Do you even know what it is.?
Have you done reports for the UNSW Climate cabal?
Do you know what Hydrology is ? Have you taught it at university ?”
Are you trying to sound clever? This is all getting a bit sad.
So you admit you have ZERO understanding or education in anything remotely connected or to do with climate
Thanks…. but..
We already knew that.
“This is all getting a bit sad”
Yes.. terrible sad that you keep getting caught out as knowing absolutely nothing and as having absolutely zero education in anything remotely related to climate science.
Very sad and very pathetic.
But that is who you are choose to be.
By now, it should be clear that Bnasty has the worse case of Dunning-Kruger on WUWT (and that’s saying something!)
By now it is clear that Warren has absolutely nothing to back up anything he yaps about.
ZERO education in any field remotely related to climate, that is for sure.
Primary school level understanding of science and related fields, at best.
He obviously knows he has absolutely nothing to offer to any rational or scientific discussion.
Equal only in your own mind….
Like a kindergarten pass grade (maybe) is equal to an Engineering degree with multiple science and physics subjects..
You would like to pretend to yourself you are equal….
… but you are more like the scrapings from the bottom of a grease trap.
OMG!
There’s that simpleton IGNORANCE of El Ninos shining through yet again.
You really haven’t got the vaguest clue, have you !!
UN is with me, simpleton
Nope they are not. El Nino warms… La Nina cools. = Neutral. What a silly old man you are.
Again, you are showing your ignorance of El Nino and La Nina.
Very funny to watch you flapping about mindlessly !
Do you understand that El Niño and La Niña are only internal exchanges of energy within earths system, and neither add nor subtract energy from the system? And so cannot be the source of net planetary warming?
He (probably) does but he has backed himself into a corner and he is too stubborn to admit he is wrong. He must be fun (have been fun) to live with.
You are the one still unable to answer simple question or produce any evidence of anything.
You certainly have done nothing to show I am wrong.. in fact your pathetic inability to present any scientific evidence is proof I am correct..
You are cowering, with your face firmly stuck in the corner like the petty little non-learner you are.
Truant from class.. with zero ability to comprehend.
Not a good way to go through even a life, even one as insignificant as yours.
Warren also shows he doesn’t understand El Nino and where the energy comes from.
So sadly ignorant.
Poor simpleton, cannot even read or comprehend what the UN said.
You really are a mindless little muppet, aren’t you.
“I mean we should be boiling”
Ask your mate Tedros !! 😉
You are yet again displaying your abject ignorance of El Nino, what it is and how it functions.
But please keep going.. It is hilarious to watch such ineptitude and ignorance.
Simon,
The only reliable information we have regarding global average temperature pertains to influence of El Niño and La Niña. Otherwise, the magnitude of measurement uncertainty is so large that it is possible we are cooling. The ENSO index itself shows a negative trend, and there is a slower trend in Arctic sea ice extent compared to the earlier part of the record, suggesting recovery. Snow cover extent is increasing in the fall and winter but decreasing in the spring. Beijing, China, the MOTHER of UHI influence, is recording its coldest series of temperatures in 5 decades (consider what those measurements would show in a rural area).
I’ve made a mistake: bringing up Beijing doesn’t contribute effectively to this argument.
Your assertions are wrong. . It is not possible that we are in a long term cooling trend precisely because the temperature data shows conclusively that the planet is warming. And your claim about accuracy of the data is wrong — likely because of your failure to understand temperature anomalies and data homogenization, which eliminate the systemic errors.
of course, you are still operating under the misguided belief that a non expert can overturn 125 years of scientific research by use of an internet connection.
You’re still appealing to authority. There’s a link at the top of this website that covers all the failed predictions of those expert opinions. I think it’s up to eleven pages now. When what you are doing isn’t creating correct results, maybe what you are doing is wrong.
That’s because you don’t read any science. If you did, you wouldn’t fine any failed prediction by a scientist. Because there aren’t any!
That’s a laugh. You are completely clueless.
You truly are not up with reality are you, Warren.
Many failed predictions by many self-styled “climate scientists”
“failed prediction by a scientist”
What little warren is saying is that all these FAILED PREDICTIONS, are not from real scientists.
I think we can all agree with that.
AGW “Climate scientists”, generally aren’t scientists at all.
So we agree there are no failed climate predictions by scientists. Glad you came around
Temperature data relies on averaging, and when attempting to average weather, the critical assumption of the Central Limit Theorem is violated: each measurement is non-identical and non-independent due to the chaotic nature of the climate. Uncertainty is not random; therefore, as you increase the number of averages, variance also increases, leading to a greater loss of the true climate signature within the noise of averaging. Unique contextual factors at individual weather stations, including topography, coastal influences, snow cover, UHI, etc., create a virtually infinite list of variables. Computing a ‘global average temperature’ becomes an extreme departure of the CLT assumption given Earth’s diversity.
Averages, however, are highly sensitive to extreme events. While averaging the diurnal cycle in land measurements provides a balanced mid-value from the warmest and coldest part of the day, oceanic phenomena like El Niño lack a balancing cooling phase. If such sustained events occur in the large areas (i.e. the central and eastern equatorial regions), they can significantly influence the global average, observable in a time series. We don’t, however, observe any persistent Co2 forcing in these derivatives, as emphasized by bnice. The ENSO index data created by climate scientists, assuming they correct represent the ENSO cycle, show a decreasing trend over time. The ENSO index data, as created by climate scientists, exhibits a decreasing trend over time (assuming they accurately represent the ENSO cycle). Other non-average indices, such as total sums for snow cover and Arctic sea ice, do not demonstrate a CO2 forcing but rather display natural variability.
Data homogenization does not eliminate scientific errors; they are pseudoscience fraud.
*each measurement is non-identical and non-independent. Due to the chaotic nature of the climate, uncertainty is not random*
Your long winded explanation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of data homogenization.
Data homogenization will not eliminate the error associated with the violation of the Central Limit Theorem.
But your assumptions are incorrect.
Do explain…
No warren… you are the one making stupid mathematical assumption.
Perhaps if you had passed maths at junior high level, things would be different for you now..
The first response I receive often reveals the extent of someone’s understanding of the issue.
^
Mr. Beeton really stepped in it on this one.
I’ve got every scientist at NASA, the NAS, the Royal Society, the Met Office, and NOAA on my side. You have….Pat Frank 😝
More appeal to authority.
Yawn.
Thanks for confirming what I wrote.
You’ll fit right in with the low levels, Simpleton Simian & Fungal ToeNail.
😝
Yep. I’m proud to be on the same side of a scientific issue as thousands of peer reviewed scientists and the top scientific institutions in the world….while my opposition has a handful of amateurs who never published because they knew their “work” wouldn’t qualify as competent.
The more replies of yours I read, the more embarrassed I am for you.
“on the same side of a scientific issue”
Except you are not even remotely scientific.
You have zero science, so you cannot be on the same side of a scientific issue.
It is all just mindless regurgitation with zero comprehension.
Even lemmings have more common sense and intelligence.
As opposed to the ZERO understanding of anything related to maths or science, that warren is constantly showing.
Again Waren is showing his ignorance of climate history
He is a manic CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.
Little warren has not been able to prove a single thing you have said.
He does NOT have the ability to do so, or to understand the mathematics behind the farcical global surface temperature data.
All he can manage to do is yap mindlessly.. devoid of all evidence, science and maths.
Even the comprehension of basic junior high physics is beyond him.
“ using accepted experimental and analytical techniques,”
This has NEVER been done in the realm of climate change activism and propaganda.. !
It’s surely worth noting the regular syndication of Paul Homewood’s posts at NALOPKT, and the contributions from Francis Menton that provoke lively debate and increase the focus on why renewables cannot be the future.
Anthony, thank you so much for the work you do to maintain this site. Also, to the editors and folks who write essays. I have enjoyed participating in various threads and have learned much. It makes me aware that no one, and I do mean no one, understands everything about this old world. It disappoints me that so little research has been done to try and identify the piece parts of actual heat “enthalpy” causes and how it varies. There is a way too much emphasis on temperatures as a proxy for heat, but that is only worth back of the envelope stuff.
Keep the place going. Lots of folks do check the site but do not participate and that is ok too.
Again, thank you!
It’s even worse than that Jim – temperature anomalies as a proxy for heat. Scientific fraud behind a smokescreen.
Late to the party here for all kinds of reasons I won’t go into, but thanks to all up above for all the sincere congratulations, thanks and best wishes for the future of WUWT, which I too am honored to echo from down here.
Great stuff guys. Truth will always win …. and that settles it, I’m going to write to Wikipedia with a list of one reason why I will never make a donation unless they change some things related to this site.
“Truth will always win”. For sure, and that means actual peer reviewed science, not the junk science talking points seen on denier blogs
But little warren does not have anything to back up his farcical version of “truth”.
Obviously does not understand what “peer-review is, especially in “climate non-science”.
Another clown that is totally incapable of backing up anything he yaps about with anything remotely based on science, just random calls to nebulous junk science.
Low-end CAGW apostles/clowns are always like that.
Tell us what we “DENY” that you can back up with actual real science.
That means proper scientific references etc etc
Something you have proven that you are totally incapable of doing.
Not true Warren. The truth is the actual data. It’s neither the peer reviewed science nor the junk science blah blah blah.
I suspect that your cognitive dissonance is so strong as to be in the psychiatric range, so you will never be able to process the actual data. Hey ho, you only get one life …….. tough shit dude.
It appears that Mr. Beeton has earned his trolling fee and has moved on.
Well and truly beeton !!
Thank you Anthony , contributors, and moderators, for your continuing efforts.
Heavy rainfall in California will bring heavy snowfall in the Sierra Nevada.

That Santa looks vaguely familiar.
A lot of what I have learned about climate and 1001 other things, I have read here first. Thanks for many years of a good education in critical thinking. Happy new year all, and the best to everyone.