Sunday, June 9, 2013

"like a dead frog whose legs are still kicking"

John Hinderaker:


The curtain is coming down rapidly on global warming alarmism, as evidence of the AGW theory’s falsity accumulates on nearly a daily basis. Of course, the global warming machine grinds on, like a dead frog whose legs are still kicking... 
This chart, via Watts Up With That, sums up the hopelessness of the warmists’ position as well as anything. It charts the various projections generated by the models relied on by the U.N., etc, against actual global temperature data as observed via satellites and balloons. The black line represents the mean of the model projections, the green circles represent the average of four balloon data sets, and the blue squares are the average of two satellite data sets. The chart is set so that the mean model projection intersects with empirical observations in 1979: 
Any model must either pass or fail the test of empirical observation. The warmists’ models, on which the entire edifice of global warming alarmism stands, fail the test. The warming they predicted just isn’t happening. The alarmists like to say that the science is settled. We are rapidly approaching the point where they are correct: the science is, indeed, settled, only not the way they intended. If you put aside the trivial proposition that it is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age, there is no empirical basis for climate alarmism. 
Dr. Roy Spencer says: 
In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time. 
Scientific failure will not, of course, put the warmists out of business; not quickly, anyway. There is too much money in it. But the taxpayers’ patience with subsidizing pseudo-science is rapidly running out.

The scam's up, but the warmist frauds will keep kicking until the next green apocalypse gravy train comes along. 

In the meantime, the academic discipline most apropos to climate alarmism will continue to be not climate science but forensic science.


  1. Scientists who promote climatism or evolutionism are doing science great harm. They surmise that brandishing a PhD will make the layman shut down critical thinking and accept their diktats. People are a lot smarter than that and can smell a dead rat (or frog) anytime.

    People are also becoming more suspicious of science and that is regrettable!

  2. I would like to suggest this website as a cure to climatism.

    As a wise man said: Goreham is an antidote to Gore

    1. Here is the good link to the website.

      Sorry, but I am human and prone to typing mistakes!


    2. I like this part:

      If you’re a college science PhD candidate, better choose the road of Climatism. Acceptance of the theory of man-made global warming means research contracts, peer acceptance, tenure, wealth and fame. The alternative road of climate skepticism offers only ridicule, poverty, and failure.

      I TOLD YOU SO!

    3. Pépé,

      Steve Goreham makes the same fatal stupid assertion that humans are responsible for just 2% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, and hence are not responsible for any global warming. Not significantly.

      It considers only the processes putting CO2 into the atmosphere, not the ones taking it out.

      As an analogy, one that an idiot would understand, if you had a bathtub full to the rim, with a tap supplying 1000 litres an hour and a plug hole draining 1000 litres an hour, and then you turned on a second tap supplying 1 litre an hour, it's obvious that the bathtub would immediately overflow.

      Only an idiot would claim, that since the second tap is 'only' supplying 1 litre compared to the first tap's 1000 litres, it has very little to do with the bathtub overflowing. But it's the only reason.

      The same applies to AGW. Humans put 9 billion tonnes of carbon in the form of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and land clearing. 'Nature' puts in 190 billion tonnes and removes roughly the same amount. Hence, humans are responsible for most of the increase.

    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 10, 2013 at 7:54 AM

      backfire, that is perhaps the most absurd, ridiculous analogy I have ever seen. Bathtubs and the atmosphere?

      How about gorillas and tuning forks? Can you do something with that?


    5. backfire,

      You are right! Only an idiot would accept the bathtub analogy as representative of the earth's climate; in the same way only an idiot would accept random mutations + natural selection as a good (and only) explanation of the evolution of life on earth.

      Fortunately both climatism and evolutionism are being generaly recognized for what they really are: hoaxes!

    6. Georgie and Pépé,

      It seems I was wrong. Idiots (like you two) can't understand what an 'analogy' is, let alone what it means. I surprised with you, Georgie, in particular, with your experience of playing with your plastic toy ships in your bathtub.

      We could solve AGW if we could work out a way of stopping the oceans degassing CO2 (one of the processes that puts 190 billion tonnes of carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere), while at the same time absorbing the same amount it does now. Then we could burn as much fossil fuels as we want.

      No, wait, that's geoengineering, which Georgie doesn't like and wants to try on other planets first (which other planet has oceans like the Earth?)

      Anyway, I understand that an experiment to do it - dumping iron filings into a small area of the ocean to encourage an algal bloom and trapping carbon - didn't succeed, because not enough of the algae sank to the sea floor to be permanently removed as sediment to have an effect.

  3. Michael,

    You do realise that the graph isn't actually examining actual average global temperatures, don't you? It's comparing models of mid-tropospheric temperatures 20 degrees South to North to observed balloon and satellite measurements.

    The "'missing' hot spot" loved by AGW denialists.

    There is no missing hot spot.

    The balloon measurements are sparse. There's a problem with the satellite measurements (various ones, orbital decay, calibration etc).

    It also doesn't deal with the level of the atmosphere in which we live. So it's a stretch to claim that this means that climate sensitivity to rising CO2 levels is so low we don't have to worry about it.

    I'm certain someone who knows more about climate will be dissecting Roy Spencer's article in greater detail soon (peer review is important, not just slavishly following denialist sites as you do).