Software Expert Exposes 30 Years Of ‘Totally Messed Up’ Climate Forecasts, Embarrassing NASA Scientists

A video released by software expert Tony Heller exposes 30 years of completely false predictions made by NASA “climate experts” and how the predictions have no more value than those from a swindling crystal ball fortune-teller of a traveling side show.

When it comes to the climate debate, one could say he “floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee.”

Few skeptics are as hated and vilified by climate alarmists and global warming fraudsters as Tony Heller of Real Climate Science.

One reason for the hatred is Tony’s voluminous stream of inconvenient climate facts and climate science fraud he exposes day after day at his Real Climate Science blog.

Exposing false predictions and inconvenient climate history

Again and again Heller, a software and programming expert, effectively and convincingly points out that none of the scary predictions made by climate alarmists and media have come true, and that today’s often claimed unprecedented weather extremes have in fact happened many times and long before – even 100 years ago or more when CO2 was low.

As you are about to see, very often the OPPOSITE of what global warming alarmist “scientists” predicted years ago has in fact occurred.

The degree to which the alarmist predictions have been wrong is nothing short of stunning.

Video viewed tens of thousands of times in just days

The latest is a 14-minute video that looks back at the past 30 years of totally failed climate predictions, many made by NASA scientist James Hansen when he testified before Congress in 1988 to warn the world of a coming climate disaster.

The video is a must-see if you haven’t viewed it already, and is certainly one that ought to be sent to your political representatives, or friends and relatives.

So far the video has viewed more than 33,000 views, and shows no signs of slowing down.

Hansen warned in 1988 of huge droughts and heat waves plaguing the US soon in the future, but in the video Heller shows how temperatures and drought conditions were in reality far worse back in the 1930s and in 1988 than they are today.

Hansen “dead wrong” about his drought forecast

For example in 1988, NASA’s Hansen warned that his climate models (primitive compared to today’s models which still don’t work at all) showed the US Midwest would get drier and droughts more and more severe as time went on.

Yet, Heller presents a chart in the video that tells us the exact opposite has in fact happened since!

Source: Cropped here.

As Heller’s chart above shows, in the late 1980s it was very dry, but then almost immediately after Hansen’s testimony warning of more drought, it got wet again. Moreover the last 5 years have been particularly moist. The exact opposite of what Hansen predicted is in fact occurring today.

Hot days have FALLEN

Hansen also warned that the number of hot days above 90°F (32°C) would increase dramatically to 85 days a year in Omaha. Nebraska and Washington D.C.

But in the chart Heller presents at the 7:30 mark of the video, we see that the opposite has happened (arrows in all charts added by author):

Source: Cropped here.

The number of days above 32°C for Ashland, Nebraska (near Omaha) have fallen over the past 20 years, and not risen as NASA’s James Hansen had forecast in 1988.

Hansen also “completely messed up” his forecast of 38°C+ days for Beltsville, Maryland near Washington D.C. (7:52), Heller shows:

The number of very hot days (38°C or higher) for the Washington D.C. area each year has declined instead of rapidly rising as NASA’s GISS Head James Hansen projected in 1988. Source: Cropped here.

“Arctic ice has gotten much thicker over the past decade”

Hansen’s predictions concerning the Arctic have turned out to be equally awful. Though the Arctic saw ice loss until about 2010, it has since rebounded robustly, which means that it has nothing to do with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and more to do with natural cycles.

Totally messed up forecast

The chart he presents at the 9:00 minute mark shows a comparison between 2008 and today. Heller notes: “Instead of getting much thinner, the ice has gotten much thicker over the past decade. [….] Arctic sea ice volume is the thickest since 2005. […] Hansen totally messed up that forecast.”

Lake levels higher instead of lower

Next the experienced software expert looks at the levels of major lakes, which James Hansen said would drop to possibly dramatic levels. The reality today, however, is that they are higher!

The Great Lakes did not dry up and see their levels sink. They increased instead. Source: Cropped here.

The Great Lakes in the US are not drying out as Hansen predicted.

Sea level forecast totally botched

Next NASA’s Hansen warned in 1988 that melting polar and glacial ice would lead to rapidly rising sea levels and so New York City would be partially under water by now (2018). Al Gore also made a similar prediction in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

But as Heller points out, “Hansen completely messed up that forecast.” Nothing could be further from the truth, as the following chart vividly illustrates:

Tide gauges for Lower Manhattan show sea level has barely risen since NASA’s Dr. James Hansen warned in 1988 the area would be under water by now. Source: Cropped here.

NASA forecasts no better than fortune telling by swindling gypsies

In a nutshell, these NASA forecasts have turned out to be no better than the junk fortunes peddled by swindling gypsies of a traveling sideshow. Any meteorologist with that kind of dismal forecasting track-record would have long found himself employed as a taxi driver.

It’s time for NASA’s incompetent and fraudulent scientists to start looking for new careers and to stop wasting money and resources.

Taxpayer’s deserve far better for their hard-earned tax dollars. We’re sick and tired of being defrauded and it’s time for President Trump to clean house.

60 responses to “Software Expert Exposes 30 Years Of ‘Totally Messed Up’ Climate Forecasts, Embarrassing NASA Scientists”

  1. Yonason
  2. Bitter&twisted

    Never have so many been conned, by so few and for so much.
    AGW is the biggest fraud in history.

    1. SebastianH

      Never have so many been conned, by so few and for so much.

      Then why are you guys continuing this? Why do you want to con the public into thinking that climate change isn’t real, that is isn’t largely caused by human emissions and that it isn’t bad at all? Why?

      This only makes sense if you are somehow profiting from this nonsense. Are you?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Why do you want to con the public into thinking that climate change isn’t real, that is isn’t largely caused by human emissions and that it isn’t bad at all?

        Once again, SebastianH chooses to engage in dishonesty. He knows B&T wasn’t referring to skeptics, but he dishonestly makes up a claim that he was anyway. And then he adds the conspiratorial charge that B&T is “profiting” financially (?) from conning people. And perhaps he thinks this sophomoric rhetoric is resonating with some phantom audience he thinks he has here. Embarrassing.

        1. SebastianH

          Oh boy, Kenneth … if that is dishonesty in your book, then I have news for you: everyone here is doing it, you too. Do you consider everyone including yourself to be dishonest? Surely not. It’s only when I have some fun with B&Ts comments that you try to play this game 😉

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Do you consider everyone including yourself to be dishonest?

            No, only certain people who regularly engage in dishonesty.

            It’s only when I have some fun with B&Ts comments that you try to play this game

            Oh. So you were just having fun with B&T’s comments by making it appear he had written something he had not. And we were to understand that you weren’t serious, but having fun, why? There was no “smiley face.” There was no indication that you were, uh, just kidding (if that’s what you are now claiming). Because making up stuff that others have said is something you do routinely, SebastianH. And no one here finds it either funny or fun when you do. Do you have an audience that does find your “fun” comments amusing?

      2. spike55

        Poor ZERO-SCIENCE, ZERO-EVIDECNE seb returns from re-had

        With yet another EMPTY rant.

        Hilarious.

        Great to see your back, seb.

      3. spike55

        “Why do you want to con the public into thinking that climate change isn’t real, that is isn’t largely caused by human emissions and that it isn’t bad at all?”

        Only slight warming in the last 40 years has been from two El Ninos ocean releases.

        Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that they were caused by human emissions?

        Apart from the slight beneficial warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years, in what way has the global climate changed?

        In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

        Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        Or will you just continue with your EMPTY RANTS, forgoing any actual scientific proof.

        But that is the ONLY tactic you have left to you, isn’t it.

      4. Denis Ables

        @Sebastian

        The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require an increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until the 1800s, long after the MWP, so neither was there any water vapor feedback !.

        With no co2 increase there is obviously also no further temperature increase provided by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been nothing apart from natural climate variation. It therefore becomes becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be mostly due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2 level, and Mann and his hockey-stick DENY that the MWP was global and likely warmer than now.

        However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. A significant subset of this group also insists that the “science is settled”.

        A brief meta-analysis, using numerous peer-reviewed studies as well as other easily accessible data follows to demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

        First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locations where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

        Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

        Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were reflected in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim. One of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it is a different “ballgame”. More important, peer-reviewed studies continue to regularly show up confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.

        The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study, for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. There’s also this: https://junkscience.com/2018/06/study-ancient-greenland-was-much-warmer-than-previously-thought/

        These numerous MWP studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers using various temperature proxy techniques and representing many different countries. Idso is merely operating as the librarian. These studies now span several decades and new confirming investigations continue to show up regularly.

        Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected study sites were warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data.

        There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.

        The MWP studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies. The studies can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.

        One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” the claim of a global, warmer MWP is that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies sited herein were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” constraint must also admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event.

        For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”.

        There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran until at least 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

        Also, related to the “synchronous” claim, any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point after the cooling which ended in 1975, so no earlier than 1975. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has reluctantly acknowledged yet another GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. (That’s in spite of the fact that co2 level has steadily continued increasing since it started around 1830-1850. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” devoted significant time to wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. Such miniscule differences are not significant because it is clear that the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is as large as one degree.

        So, all this current “global warming” controversy involves just over two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.

        http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

        Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, all cherry-picked?) Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.

  3. spike55

    Love TH’s work on the data showing just whata FARCE AGW really is 🙂

    Also love Josh’s work in showing things as they are

    https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/narcissene_josh-617×720.jpg

  4. SebastianH

    One reason for the hatred is Tony’s voluminous stream of inconvenient climate facts and climate science fraud he exposes day after day at his Real Climate Science blog.

    You mean “stream of nonsense”, right?

    The latest is a 14-minute video that looks back at the past 30 years of totally failed climate predictions, many made by NASA scientist James Hansen when he testified before Congress in 1988 to warn the world of a coming climate disaster.

    Except the predictions didn’t fail at all.

    Though the Arctic saw ice loss until about 2010, it has since rebounded robustly

    It has not “rebound” …

    Next NASA’s Hansen warned in 1988 that melting polar and glacial ice would lead to rapidly rising sea levels

    Does anyone of you guys even read those papers you are arguing against? Can you name the circumstances under which that was “predicted”?

    It’s time for NASA’s incompetent and fraudulent scientists to start looking for new careers and to stop wasting money and resources.

    No, it is time that pseudoskeptics realize that they are the ones pushing conspiracy theories and nonsense on simple-minded people “who want to believe”. You call this Tony Heller guy an “experienced software expert” … I work in this field and there is not a single competent person I have interacted with that believes in the nonsense that gets broadcasted on blogs like this one. Those who understand algorithms/mechanisms and can handle exponentials and derivatives usually clearly see the problems and don’t try to do this weird denial theater act.

    We’re sick and tired of being defrauded and it’s time for President Trump to clean house.

    For the first part of that demand: stop listening to nonsense from guys like Tony Heller.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Except the predictions didn’t fail at all.

      The IPCC predicted 0.3 C per decade of warming in 1990, and yet it’s warmed by less than half that rate — and just 0.1 C total (0.05 C per decade) in the last 2 decades.

      James Hansen predicted the Hudson would engulf New York city by now.

      The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

      There’s less crime in New York City today. The trees and birds are still there. There’s no tape across the windows. And the West Side Highway isn’t underwater.

      West Side Highway 1936: http://www.nycroads.com/roads/west-side/img1.gif
      West Side Highway 2018: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/West-Side-Highway-NYC-2018.jpg

      But you go right on ahead and continuing believing that the alarmist claims were right all along. And continue believing that 30,000 species are going extinct every single year.

      You oddly characterize non-alarmist commentaries as “nonsense” — and ridicule those who don’t believe in your catastrophism. It’s almost laughable…but you’re dead serious.

      1. SebastianH

        There have been enough articles on the web detailing Hansen’s predictions from 30 years ago. Just read them and don’t continue with this “all predictions were/are wrong” farce …

        Do you think it is a good strategy to call the other side “alarmist” and “believing in catastrophism”? Do you think that makes believing in nonsense and making up stuff better?

        P.S.: You called me dishonest (again) in the other thread. If you could refrain from editing my comments please then …

        1. Kenneth Richard

          There have been enough articles on the web detailing Hansen’s predictions from 30 years ago. Just read them

          I have. And your claim that his predictions “didn’t fail at all” has no basis. So apparently you believe that the West Side Highway is now underwater. And why should we believe you…when it’s not: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/West-Side-Highway-NYC-2018.jpg

          Do you think it is a good strategy to call the other side “alarmist” and “believing in catastrophism”?

          Do you not agree that your side uses alarmism (A staggering 9 trillion tons of ice lost from the Greenland ice sheet since 1900!! [even though 9 trillion tons is the sea level equivalent of one inch]) to try to get people’s attention?

          http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/we_are_not_alarmed_enough_about_climate_change.html
          Alarmism Is the Argument We Need to Fight Climate Change

          Since you’ve previously stated you believe that the rapidly accelerating sea level rise will eventually submerge coastal cities if human emissions aren’t curtailed, would this kind of rising sea level not be catastrophic for human civilizations?

          You’ve previously stated that you believe 30,000 species are going extinct every year. I would assume you agree that such losses are catastrophic. Or is 30,000 species lost per year not a big deal to you? You made it seem that way when you wrote this:

          http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
          SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”

          P.S.: You called me dishonest (again) in the other thread.

          Correct. Because you engaged in blatant dishonesty.

          If you could refrain from editing my comments please then …

          I have not edited your comments in this thread. The last time I did was a few months ago when you kept on calling people names or insulting people with whom you disagree.

          1. SebastianH

            So apparently you believe that the West Side Highway is now underwater.

            He never predicted that this would be the case. You are being dishonest when you make up stuff like this.

            Do you not agree that your side uses alarmism

            Have you read any article by Pierre here recently? His language uses stronger words than “staggering” … things are exploding in his world. Do you call your blogger colleague an alarmist or sensationalist?

            You’ve previously stated that you believe 30,000 species are going extinct every year. I would assume you agree that such losses are catastrophic. Or is 30,000 species lost per year not a big deal to you? You made it seem that way when you wrote this:

            Have you ever checked the source I gave you for this claim? Where this number comes from and what the current background extinction rate is?

            Because you engaged in blatant dishonesty.

            I’ll remind you when you and your commentator friends do exactly what I did there, ok? 😉

            I have not edited your comments in this thread.

            Then it’s Pierre who doesn’t want to hear the truth about Trump-style politics leading to the Idiocracy future 😉

          2. Kenneth Richard

            So apparently you believe that the West Side Highway is now underwater.

            He never predicted that this would be the case.

            He predicted the West Side Highway would be “underwater” in 20 years in an interview with Salon conducted “12 or 13 years” before 2001 (1988 or 1989). This is what the West Side Highway looks like today: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/West-Side-Highway-NYC-2018.jpg

            https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/ (October, 2001)
            While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

          3. SebastianH

            Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

            “When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”
            James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:

            “Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.”

            and

            “although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”

            http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/Basic%20Rebuttals/2011-02-22-Basic%20Rebuttal%20%23170_%20Hansen%20predicted%20the%20West%20Side%20Highway%20would%20be%20underwater.html

            Years got mixed up in that Salon article, but a skeptical reader like you seems to believe anything if it fits his agenda, right?

          4. spike55

            poor seb, even in Germany, he still gets a deep case of TDS.

            Hilarious. 🙂

            Trump is great value. He is doing all the right things to MAGA.

            One great thing he does is TRIGGER mindless unthinking reactions in far left SJW idea logs. 🙂

            Its priceless comedy to watch them. 🙂

          5. spike55

            Hansen still thinks all his predictions will come true, even the WestSide Freeway comedy

            Sea level rise is going to have to accelerate massively for that particular furphy to come true… and by that, I mean REAL acceleration, not statistically faked acceleration

            Currently local tide shows a SCARY natural 3.5mm/year

            http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/12_high.png

        2. spike55

          “don’t continue with this “all predictions were/are wrong” farce …”

          You present NOTHING, as always, seb

          EMPTY baseless rhetoric.

          You are sounding REALLY desperate since you came back from rehab. !! Its hilarious 🙂

        3. tom0mason

          seb,

          “There have been enough articles on the web detailing Hansen’s predictions from 30 years ago. “

          No there has not, not by a long way.
          Hopefully Pierre and Kenneth can find opportunities to highlight J. Hansen’s gross distortions of scientific data and evidence were designed to manipulate and mislead the media, governments, and the population.

    2. tom0mason

      SebastianH,

      You are the only ‘pseudoskeptic’ here, you are one of the ‘simple-minded people “who want to believe” the IPCC garbage whole without the application of intelligence or rationality.
      It’s you pushing the ‘conspiracy theories nonsense’ no one else does.

      1. SebastianH

        Do you really think you are applying intelligence and rationality to this topic, tomOmason? You who don’t understand the definition of the second?

        P.S.: Don’t just mirror stuff at me. That is childish …

        P.P.S.: Everything you said times 1000 back to you!

        1. tom0mason

          Seb, you are beyond ridiculous.
          You’ve only asked to divert attention from the main subject of this post — that Tony Heller is correct in saying J. Hansen was wrong on so many counts with his predictions. That’s what being a troll (which is you) is all about — divert by ask dumb off-topic questions, so in my effort to mirror you, how are your 30,000 extinct animals doing and where’s the evidence for them?

          As for your way off-topic “You who don’t understand the definition of the second?” question. You do not (probably can not) understand science. Obviously you have no appreciation of standards for measurement, or how the measurement of standard time works. Feel free to prove me wrong on that but I doubt if you can.
          Know anything about phase and frequency locking? And what’s the difference? Know how reciprocal mixing works? Any ideas about hetrodyne mixing? And why that causes problems in clock circuits? Phase noise? Jitter on digital circuit and what causes it? Any idea why all of these tie into the measurement of time? I doubt it. Come back when you understand the basics, then we can have a meaningful discourse, till then as far as I can see, you know nothing.
          I’d guess you would not know what a substandard is either, not without looking it up, because they are what I work on and with. Again feel free to prove me wrong, and that you understand the very basics on that but I doubt that I’m wrong. However I’m thankful I’m not your teacher, I’ll leave it to some other poor sap to try with on you.

          So troll-on SebastianH, I will continue to answer you with the contempt you justly deserve. 😉

          1. SebastianH

            that Tony Heller is correct in saying J. Hansen was wrong on so many counts with his predictions.

            He is not, but keep believing it … your choice.

            how are your 30,000 extinct animals doing and where’s the evidence for them?

            I am too lazy to repeat my reply to this for the 187th time. Not going to take your hand and lead you to it every time. Once must be enough …

            Any idea why all of these tie into the measurement of time? I doubt it. Come back when you understand the basics, then we can have a meaningful discourse, till then as far as I can see, you know nothing.

            *sigh*
            http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/10/new-hell-climate-change-gets-certified-schellnhuber-prophesizes-end-of-civilization/comment-page-1/#comment-1265634

            Your words were:

            How to count pulses (or transitions) per second — aka how to count frequency.

            You use something called a frequency counter […]

            The point of getting the timespan that is a second is TO COUNT THE PULSES! Not the pulses per second! You got that wrong and you could not admit to it. Citing your “experience” … it’s weird that you need to assert that I “know nothing” as a reply when you were and are clearly wrong.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            that Tony Heller is correct in saying J. Hansen was wrong on so many counts with his predictions.

            He is not, but keep believing it … your choice.

            So it is your belief that the West Side Highway is underwater why? Why do you continue to believe this prediction was accurate?

          3. SebastianH

            So it is your belief that the West Side Highway is underwater why? Why do you continue to believe this prediction was accurate?

            Why do you continue to believe that this is a prediction that was made?

            It was a goddamn interview question to illustrate what might happen in 40 years if the CO2 concentration doubled.

            You are being the dishonest one here.

          4. spike55

            “I am too lazy “

            Yes, we know that.

            You are TOO LAZY to do ANYTHING to back up anything you say.

            You STILL are TOO LAZY to present any evidence of CO2 warming anything, anywhere.

            You are TOO LAZY to bother learning anything passed basic junior high maths, physics , science, biology.

            Only thing you manage is basic AGW mantra ranting… but that is all to do with your manic need for attention.

          5. spike55

            3.5mm/year, seb

            10m to go. !!

            You do the maths.. if you can

          6. SebastianH

            Interesting, AndyG55 alias spike55 provides the proof for the kind of “twist the words” that Kenneth called “blatant dishonesty” 😉

            “I am too lazy “

            Yes, we know that.

            You are TOO LAZY to do ANYTHING to back up anything you say.

            Anything to say to that, Kenneth?

          7. spike55

            Poor sad lonely seb

            Now playing the “victim” card.

            ROFLMAO

            You get more pathetic and LAZY by the day.

          8. Yonason

            Funny how only now that nothing bad has happened do they tell us it was for forty years, not twenty. TOO LATE!

            Einstein famously made a calculation error in the degree to which light would be bent by going by the sun. Fortunately he discovered and corrected it BEFORE Eddington made the measurement. He realized that his credibility was on the line, and would have been seriously damaged had he waited till after the experiment to make the correction.

            As to Hansen, we only have his word and that of the interviewer, both of whom did nothing to set the record straight for 20years. And we’re supposed to believe them? Sorry, but their credibility is long lost. Deal with it.

            Furthermore, if they only just changed their story, and we couldn’t have known, how are we twisting anything? They tell a tale, and only after we report it was tall do they change it, …and we’re the bad guys??? I don’t THINK so!!!!!!

            And when Hansen’s fib doesn’t materialize after 40 years, can we then expect some activist historical revisionist will then tell us he really meant 80 years?

          9. SebastianH

            Funny how only now that nothing bad has happened do they tell us it was for forty years, not twenty. TOO LATE!

            “They tell us” … conspiracy thinking again? It’s written down in book form. Someone from that magazine interviews the author over the phone and it became 20 years. No correction has been issued.

            As to Hansen, we only have his word and that of the interviewer, both of whom did nothing to set the record straight for 20years. And we’re supposed to believe them? Sorry, but their credibility is long lost. Deal with it.

            Huh? The book was published and is the straight record. The magazine failed to correct its article. This should tell you that you should not believe in any source published on the internet if you can’t verify it. Something which skeptics don’t do … everything that fits your narrow view of the world gets posted. No skepticism towards sources that “sound too good to be true”.

            Furthermore, if they only just changed their story, and we couldn’t have known, how are we twisting anything? They tell a tale, and only after we report it was tall do they change it, …and we’re the bad guys??? I don’t THINK so!!!!!!

            Definetely conspiracy thinking again … you need to snap out of this state of mind, Yonason! It’s not healthy.

            And when Hansen’s fib doesn’t materialize after 40 years, can we then expect some activist historical revisionist will then tell us he really meant 80 years?

            Why? Then it will be a wrong prediction (assuming CO2 really doubles until 2028). In a line with many more wrong predictions. It was made in an interview to illustrate something … do you freak out about wrong predictions from your side too? I have some to share … will you question the validity of skeptics because of ridiculously wrong predictions made by skeptics?

          10. Kenneth Richard

            Huh? The book was published and is the straight record.

            Great. So Hansen predicted that the CO2 concentration would double from 350 ppm (1988) to 700 ppm by 2028, not 2008 (which means he’s predicting +29 ppm/year for the next 10 years), and he predicted that sea levels will rise by about 6-8 meters in the next 10 years, which is the amplitude that’s necessary to engulf the West Side Highway in sea water.

            And this is the straight record of Hansen’s prediction: Again, 6-8 meters of sea level rise in the next 10 years, and +29 ppm CO2 per year for the next 10 years.

            For some reason I don’t think this helps your case that Hansen’s predictions have been, and will be accurate (your claim).

          11. tom0mason

            seb,
            “The point of getting the timespan that is a second is TO COUNT THE PULSES!”

            And there is your total ignorance!
            You do not understand, you do not appreciate what frequency (as a concept in electronics) is. You do not have the basic understanding, and I will not be teaching you.

            I will give you a hint:
            Look-up what frequency, Hertz, and cycles per second mean. Then you may, I say just may, understand that a measurement of frequency is also a measurement of time (via some trivial mathematics).
            e.g 2Hz=2 transition pulses per second, 10 Hz is 10 pulses per second!
            And maybe you’ll appreciate that the counting of pulses, (or transitions) IS a measurement of frequency of the time-reference of an atomic clock (it consists of an electronic oscillator operating at a particular microwave frequency.)

            Failure to appreciate this is a failure to understand very basic science!

          12. SebastianH

            And maybe you’ll appreciate that the counting of pulses, (or transitions) IS a measurement of frequency

            No! The measurement of pulses is the measurement of pulses. To get one second we aren’t measuring a frequency, we are counting pulses of an extremely stable pulse source.

            I don’t get how you are able to ignore this and assume a frequency gets measured to get the timespan that is a second.

            How is the hour defined? 3600 second “pulses”, right? Are you measuring the frequency of something to know when 1 hour has past or do you count the second “pulses”?

          13. Yonason

            @tomOmason

            Q – What is the frequency in hurts?

            A – If it hurts your doing it too frequently.

            Just thought you’d like to know. 😬

            ========================

            As to the 20/40 years, here’s what Watt’s had to say.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

            “I’ve saved the Salon.com web page as a PDF also, here, just in case it should be deleted. So not only did Dr. Hansen make the claims in the late 1980’s, he reaffirmed his predictions again in 2001.

            …and even at 40 years he’s still going to be spectacularly wrong.

            But we’re the conspiracy theorists?

            I’d have thought as much kook aid the poor sob has guzzled he’d be a lot more mellow. We must have hit a nerve.

          14. SebastianH

            As to the 20/40 years, here’s what Watt’s had to say.

            For you … the timeline again:
            1) Hansen presents his findings in 1988
            2) Bob Reiss interviews him
            3) Bob Reiss writes a book about this (“The coming storm”)
            4) A website names salon.com interviews Bob Reiss in 2001 about that meeting with Hansen and writes an article
            5) The “prediction” mentioned suddenly became 20 years instead of 40 years as in the book and no mention of doubled CO2 concentration either
            6) Skeptics fall for this and continue to use it even though it has been long explained by both the author of the book and Hansem himself. But salon.com did not correct their article and thus it remains a source for skeptics to spread their nonsense … hoping nobody notices and something might stick in the minds of casual readers of their blogs.
            7) Yonason comes along and claims that “they” changed prediction. Talking of a conspiracy …

            Got it?

          15. Kenneth Richard

            The “prediction” mentioned suddenly became 20 years instead of 40 years as in the book and no mention of doubled CO2 concentration either

            Oh, so you’re saying that the prediction was for the West Side Highway to be underwater by 2028 instead of 2008? Does this look likely considering the West Side Highway is, uh, not underwater now, and hasn’t changed position since 1936?

            And you’re saying that Hansen’s prediction was for the 1988 CO2 concentration (~350 ppm) to double to 700 ppm by 2028? What’s the likelihood that we’ll average +29 ppm/year for the next 10 years, SebastianH? This looks like yet another failed prediction.

            Sheesh, it’d be good for you to stop digging. But we don’t mind.

            By the way, we know your source for the above revisionist history (It was 40 years, not 20! It was for doubled CO2 by 2028, not 2008!) is the Skeptical Science blog. We understand why you wouldn’t want to admit that.

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

          16. SebastianH

            Oh, so you’re saying that the prediction was for the West Side Highway to be underwater by 2028

            I am saying that it never was a real prediction. He was asked to illustrate what it could look like if CO2 concentration doubled in 40 years. He just took a few moments and then replied with this West Side Highways thing … that is not a scientific prediction, but you seem to think it is and invest a lot of energy in “proving” that it is a failed prediction (with the wrong dates). I wonder why. Should we discuss failed skeptic’s predictions? Like the one from Pierre about the -2.x anomaly that we ought to achieve in the 2 years left until 2020? Or the climate bet on this very blog? Or this constant doomsday-the-ice-age-is-coming nonsense repeated everytime it is a bit colder than normal for a few days?

            And you’re saying that Hansen’s prediction was for the 1988 CO2 concentration (~350 ppm) to double to 700 ppm by 2028?

            Not at all, but keep making up stuff you think I said … and maybe call me “blatant dishonest” afterwards?

            By the way, we know your source for the above revisionist history (It was 40 years, not 20! It was for doubled CO2 by 2028, not 2008!) is the Skeptical Science blog. We understand why you wouldn’t want to admit that.

            Do you think that makes it less real that the salon.com website got it wrong? Wow! You are really lost … calling it revisionist history. Yeah, like the climate record being faked to hide the past warming, right? You need to snap out of this state Kenneth. Nobody can take you serious anymore. Unfortunately not a lot of people read comments below post, especially when buried so deep …

          17. Kenneth Richard

            Oh, so you’re saying that the prediction was for the West Side Highway to be underwater by 2028

            I am saying that it never was a real prediction.

            Ah, so it went from claiming Hansen’s predictions were right to saying that the spectacularly wrong predictions were never even predictions. Would it kill you to just admit that you were wrong about all of Hansen’s predictions being accurate? It’s not like you’re convincing anyone here.

            When, exactly, do you think the West Side Highway be underwater? How many more years before sea levels rise by about 6-7 meters? How much time do we have before this catastrophe occurs?

            He was asked to illustrate what it could look like if CO2 concentration doubled in 40 years. He just took a few moments and then replied with this West Side Highways thing

            That doesn’t sound anything like what was written originally. We understand why it needed changing, though.

            https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/
            “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
            ———————————————————–
            As you probably don’t know, Hansen has predicted in a peer-reviewed paper that CO2 concentrations will reach 1400 ppm by 2130, and this will cause temperatures to rise by 16 degrees C across the globe, and by 30 C (!) at the poles, which will make the planet uninhabitable (by humans). Since you believe in human-caused catastrophism, do you think this Hansen prediction is accurate too? It was made in 2013.

            Hansen et al., 2013
            http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.short
            “If we assume that fossil fuel emissions increase by 3% per year, typical of the past decade and of the entire period since 1950, cumulative fossil fuel emissions will reach 10 000 Gt C in 118 years. Are there sufficient fossil fuel reserves to yield 5000–10 000 Gt C? Recent updates of potential reserves, including unconventional fossil fuels (such as tar sands, tar shale and hydrofracking-derived shale gas) in addition to conventional oil, gas and coal, suggest that 5×CO2 (1400 ppm) is indeed feasible. Our calculated global warming in this case [1400 ppm] is 16°C, with warming at the poles approximately 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages approximately 20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world. Increased stratospheric water vapour would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer. More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans.”

          18. SebastianH

            Ah, so it went from claiming Hansen’s predictions were right to saying that the spectacularly wrong predictions were never even predictions.

            Wow, who is the dishonest one now. Why do you make this up?! Or do you really not understand what prediction I meant? You know … the main one! That temperature graph with those 3 scenarios. This one: https://imgur.com/a/sWm9FZR

            Considering that he didn’t include a weakening Sun and used a climate sensitivity a bit on the high side, it is a good prediction of what happened in the last 3 decades.

            Would it kill you to just admit that you were wrong about all of Hansen’s predictions being accurate? It’s not like you’re convincing anyone here.

            Would it kill you not to twist my words around and misinterpret everything others say/write?

            That doesn’t sound anything like what was written originally. We understand why it needed changing, though.

            What was written originally is in that book. That salon.com article came later. What changing are you talking about? Do you honestly believe that “they” changed what they originally said? How deep into that rabbit hole are you, Kenneth?

            As you probably don’t know, Hansen has predicted in a peer-reviewed paper that CO2 concentrations will reach 1400 ppm by 2130, and this will cause temperatures to rise by 16 degrees C across the globe, and by 30 C (!) at the poles

            I do know about that paper and no, he didn’t predict what I emphasized in your reply.

            You ignored that there is a big if right at the beginning of your quote of that prediction. Do you think their math is off for that assumed scenario? If so, where?

            Sorry Kenneth, but you are making ridiculous statements and try to mitinterpret what I write on purpose. I think this will likely end in one of those endless threads with you being you. I’ll end it for you right here by admitting that every prediction made by Hansen is super wrong. There is not global warming caused by CO2. Everything is fine. See? Satisfied? (lets see if you can detect sarcasm)

          19. Kenneth Richard

            Wow, who is the dishonest one now. Why do you make this up?! Or do you really not understand what prediction I meant?

            SebastianH, calling me dishonest is not helping you here. It wasn’t a single prediction that you said “didn’t fail at all.” It’s the predictions in the last 14 minutes of the Heller video that you responded to when you wrote that “Except the predictions didn’t fail at all.” So now you’re trying to backtrack and claim you only meant one prediction, not the all the predictions in the last 14 minutes of the video. Here’s the exchange that I’m talking about:

            http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/29/software-expert-exposes-30-years-of-totally-messed-up-climate-forecasts-embarrassing-nasa-scientists/#comment-1267034
            The latest is a 14-minute video that looks back at the past 30 years of totally failed climate predictions, many made by NASA scientist James Hansen when he testified before Congress in 1988 to warn the world of a coming climate disaster.

            SebastianH: “Except the predictions didn’t fail at all.”

            it is a good prediction of what happened in the last 3 decades.

            Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater by now. That was not a good prediction. Because it isn’t — the water is still 6 to 8 meters below the highway. Can you at least agree that this prediction wasn’t accurate, or are you going to continue with the claim that that wrong prediction doesn’t count because it wasn’t really a prediction?

            I’ll end it for you right here by admitting that every prediction made by Hansen is super wrong.

            How about just saying that the West Side Highway prediction was super wrong…instead of sarcastically claiming that it’s being said that “every” prediction is wrong?

            Would you agree that the 1400 ppm CO2 concentration leading to 16 C to 30 C of warming is clear and accurate?

          20. SebastianH

            So now you’re trying to backtrack and claim you only meant one prediction, not the all the predictions in the last 14 minutes of the video.

            Sorry Kenneth, I can’t be bothered with watching even one minute of this Tony Heller guy. I can’t stand his voice, I can’t stand his reasoning. This guy is a fraud and you guys are falling what he is offering you. No need to watch additional videos from him …

            Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater by now.

            No he didn’t! Please stop repeating this as if it were true.

            Would you agree that the 1400 ppm prediction by 2130, and the concomitant 16 C to 30 C of warming, are likely outcomes? Or do you agree that we get that kind of warming (+16 C to 30 C) with tripled CO2?

            Why would that not be the case? Reasoning seems to be lost on you … why do you think he predicts what you write? You are so pedantic with words at times, but when it suits you, you completely ignore the exact wording of claims/findings.

          21. Kenneth Richard

            Sorry Kenneth, I can’t be bothered with watching even one minute of this Tony Heller guy.

            So then why did you claim that the predictions he detailed “didn’t fail at all” even you didn’t even know what it was he was talking about? Or why do admit you don’t know who Peter Gleick is since that reveals that you didn’t even read this short article, but just started commenting?

            This guy is a fraud

            So why should we take your opinion seriously about Tony Heller being a fraud if you don’t even listen or read what he writes? I read Skeptical Science and RealClimate.org routinely. Why? It’s not because I have a high opinion of their tactics and contributions to climate science.

            Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater by now.

            No he didn’t!

            So what year was he referring to in his original prediction about the West Side Highway being underwater, more traffic, more crime, birds gone then? Or are you back to claiming that these weren’t actual predictions?

            do you agree that we get that kind of warming (+16 C to 30 C) with tripled CO2?

            Why would that not be the case?

            So if Hansen’s calculation of 16 C to 30 C (at the poles) warming with 1400 ppm CO2 is “the case”, how is this consistent with the calculation that doubling CO2 (560 ppm) yields only 1.2 C of warming? How do we get from 1.2 C of warming with 560 ppm CO2 to 16 to 30 C of warming with 1400 ppm?

            http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.short
            “Recent updates of potential reserves, including unconventional fossil fuels (such as tar sands, tar shale and hydrofracking-derived shale gas) in addition to conventional oil, gas and coal, suggest that 5×CO2 (1400 ppm) is indeed feasible. Our calculated global warming in this case [1400 ppm] is 16°C, with warming at the poles approximately 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages approximately 20°C.”

          22. spike55

            “I can’t be bothered with watching even one minute of this Tony Heller “

            Absolute PROOF that poor seb CANNOT HANDLE THE FACTS.

            You have yet to show one single point where TH is incorrect

            EMPTY, headless chook routines are not proof..

            .. no matter how much you wish they were.

      2. tom0mason

        so, seb,
        “Don’t just mirror stuff at me. That is childish …”

        Why is that? Because I’m too good at mirroring your childishness.

    3. spike55

      ZERO SCIENCE, ZERO anything to back up your rants, seb

      Hanson was manifestly WRONG in basically EVERY prediction he made.

      You KNOW that but are desperately clutching at fantasies and lead straws to keep your AGW addled brain for having even further mental meltdown.

      I doubt an single one of the people you interact with in COMPETENT is any way whatsoever, just rabid non-thinking far-left idea logs , like you.

      We have all seen YOUR deep level of inept incompetence, post, after post, after post. No-one competent would want to be associated with you (which is why you are SO lonely and constantly seeking attention)

      TH would eat their computer knowledge for breakfast.

      You have yet to provide one tiny bit of science or one tiny bit of rational thought in any of your arguments

      You have yet to counter one point made by TH with anything resembling rational science.

      All you have are headless-chook rantings backed by NOTHING except brain-washed AGW agenda mantra.

      Its all you have.

    4. spike55

      Temperatures are following Hanson’s “great big cuts in CO2” predictions

      This is effectively PROVING that CO2 has ZERO EFFECT on temperature.

      You do know that there is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back up the claim of CO2 warming, don’t you, seb

      You have had enough time to find such evidence

      But your inept incompetence, and the fact that there is none, means you will FAIL EVERY TIME.

    5. spike55

      “It has not “rebound” …”

      OOPS, seb .. wrong again

      It is current higher than any year back to 2005

      Those who understand algorithms/mechanisms

      Ah, the mythical FANTASY seb al-gore-rithms, and make-believe mechanisms.

      You have proven time and time again that your maths, physics and science comprehension is limited to a low end junior high level.

      Hilarious , seb. 🙂

  5. tom0mason

    Even at the time or just after James Hansen testified before Congress in 1988 to warn the world of a coming climate disaster, there were many scientists, environmentalists and economists who disagreed with his math, science, and his anti-fossil fuel advocacy.

    Here just one report from the time —

    https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/hansenagainsttheworld.png

    Also see https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/
    and the latest criticism of his early work at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/dr-hansens-statistics/

  6. spike55

    Hansen’s crystal balls temperature predictions are a farce

    He has 3 scenaios

    A: increase in CO 2 emissions by 1.5% per year

    B: constant increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000

    C: No increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000

    Emissions have risen by about 2.5% per years, so temperatures should be above those of scenario a.

    But they are BELOW scenario C

    https://s19.postimg.cc/8rrag4bar/hansen_temps.gif

    This essentially proves that CO2 has zero effect on climate

    But we already knew that.

    1. SebastianH

      *sigh*

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/

      Read. Learn. Understand.

      Why the new name AndyG55?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Why the new name AndyG55?

        AndyG55 is now spike55 for self-stated “complicated” reasons that he explained to Pierre personally. It matters not, so we’re moving on.

      2. spike55

        you poor dear, all that *sighing* and pathetic carrying on.

        You have NEVER understood, seb

        And you have certainly NEVER LEARNT.

        Just regurgitate the mantra, seb

        Its all you have.

      3. spike55

        And seriously ?????

        To mark GISS or Cowtan & Way as “observations” is a complete torture of the English language.

        LAUGHABLE to say the least.

        Even you must KNOW that they are deliberately fabricated in a vain attempt to match the farcical predictions of their models.

        CO2 following Scenario A

        REAL temperature BELOW Scenario C

        GET OVER IT !!

        And FPS, stop your pathetic *sighing*,

        .. makes you sound like a jilted SJW teen flower.

      4. spike55

        Chimp5 is also based on LESS CO2 emission than there has actually been.

        Even that fabrication of “wrong” models could only match REALITY at the very peak of a major El Nino, with that peak only just inside minus 2sds.

        The models are TRULY sick when put against real temperatures, and as temperatures drop over the next couple of years with become NOTHING but an hilarious comedy act.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/hz5lgm6hv/biggestfail2.png

        Red is UAH

      5. SebastianH

        UAH 6.0 deviates from all other temperature indexes. Why do you consider it to be the “real” temperature? If it would deviate in other direction you would certainly claim that it is fake because it doesn’t match anything else …

        1. spike55

          YAWN

          Poor seb

          Reality really hurts you, doesn’t it, seb

          It almost as though you KNOW that the GISS and similar fabrications are NOT REAL.

          Its all just mindless play-acting to you, isn’t it.

          But its the only way you can get the attention you DESPERATELY seek.

  7. RSLawrence

    WOW!!! You really have to wonder if some of the global warmers bother to do anything but parrot their messiah Gore.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close