Joe Bastardi To Rolling Stone: “By The Way, How Are Your Computer Forecasts Doing?”

Joe Bastardi has left a comment at Rolling Stone in response to their “10 Dumbest Statements Ever Made About Global Warming” commentary.

Here it is:

By the way, talking about deceit. THIS WAS A GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE. that is the game you chose. To then conveniently turn into Climate Change, which is redundant since over the history of the earth, no place on earth has had a constant climate, because of the nature of the planet and its relation to the sun ( ever notice most of the land is in the northern hemisphere, ocean in the south, a continent at the south pole of the earth, a  frozen ocean at the north, the seasons,  and the changes in feedback at different times of the year, check out MJO phase charts if you wish to see a classic example of that)  is merely deceit. No one denies that there is variance or climate,   THE ISSUE IS CATASTROPHIC WARMING AND WHEN IT STOPPED  you simply decided that if you point out occurrences that people were not able to see as fast before,  then you can point out all the wild things that actually have been happening on the planet since time began. But now you get to see them point them out and say see. Classic example hurricanes. Both Irene and Sandy were not major hurricane yet in 1954 and 1955 5 major hurricanes hit the east coast from NC north in  a two year period. In 1938  a hurricane drove 15 feet of water in Providence rhode island. The weather you see now is just like the weather in the 1950s, the last time the atlantic was warm while the Pacific was cooling and we are seeing the same  things in the 3 true canaries in the coal mine, western Europe, Alaska and the far east where winters first turn colder. Because of the reduction of available moisture from a cooling tropical Pacific, the US first turns dry and dryness breeds heat. Anyone that looks at decadol charts  from the 1950s can see that, along with the increased hurricane threat on the east coast, which so  far can not hold a candle to the 1950s.   But I am sure none of this matters to you. But changing the game from what you started, GLOBAL WARMING, to something none of deny, climate and the variances, is simply cheating. You started it , you are getting whipped, and its only going to get worse once the atlantic flips into its cold mode  and the decreased TSI due to the sun takes over. I made a forecast 4 years ago that by 2030 temperature would return to where they were in the late 1970s, at the start of the satellite era,  and at the end of the last cold cycle of the Pacific, before it warmed ( now back to colder).

By the way, just how are your computer forecasts that have caused draconian measures to be advocated that inhibit the progress of men doing.. well lets see…

Point is you are the ones deceiving people. You are the ones changing the playing field  You are the ones that said global warming, saw you were getting whipped and are trying to change this to something that is inherent to the system naturally, in an effort to deceive  people.    Stick with what you said,  GLOBAL WARMING IS THE ISSUE,  and face the facts. And quit lying about people that  know darn well that the earth is in a constant state of change, and with change, comes conflict, which over a period of years produces the climate  NATURALLY.”

I don’t know about dumb statements, Joe, but C3 Headines show 44 definitely dumb model forecasts.


8 responses to “Joe Bastardi To Rolling Stone: “By The Way, How Are Your Computer Forecasts Doing?””

  1. John F. Hultquist

    Joe’s the sort of person I would enjoy listening to at a an afternoon cookout with grilled burgers and beer. He has great instincts and knowledge of weather events. He is spontaneous in his writings such as in this comment to Rolling Stone. The point of his comment is exactly right.

    Which brings me to the question of just who is in charge of the magazine? Is this in the same family as Scientific American and Nature? Should a magazine doing rock and roll adhere to the new religion, to group thinking and scientific nonsense, or should it be anti-dogmatic — a free-wheeling outlet for inquisitive people?

  2. Ed Caryl

    CAGW was once a new idea. Now it’s dogma. But thinking was never required.

  3. Doug Cotton

    Models can never be correct if they continue to assume that knowing radiative flux we can somehow determine surface temperatures, completely disregarding non-radiative processes which remove two-thirds of the energy which transfers from the surface to the atmosphere before radiation does the rest. Because of this the surface acts nothing like a blackbody.

    Even as of today, Principia Scientific International is still publishing an article “The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy” which refers to an article by Claes Johnson in which Claes quite incorrectly describes how thermal energy moves downwards in an atmosphere. I have added four comments pointing out the error, and written to Claes (copy John O’Sullivan) pointing out the error. The last of my comments on the PSI thread sums it up, and it’s worth repeating here …

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve spontaneously. In a gravitational field this thermodynamic equilibrium (with greatest accessible entropy) is isentropic. Hence, disregarding chemical and phase changes, the total of the gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy in any small region (even a few pictograms of the atmosphere) will tend towards homogeneity at all altitudes in calm conditions. This can happen by diffusion (conduction between molecules) without any convection. Because PE varies, so will KE, and thus there will be an autonomous temperature gradient.

    Thermal energy flows over a sloping temperature plane in a gravitational field in all accessible directions away from any source of new energy which disturbs thermodynamic equilibrium. That, in effect, is what the Second Law says will happen. This is how the base of the troposphere stays warm and supports the surface temperature.

    In summary, PSI (and Claes Johnson) are right in saying what I say in my “Radiated Energy” paper of March 2012 about radiation from a cooler blackbody not transferring thermal energy to a warmer blackbody. But they are wrong in endorsing an article such as today’s, which cites what Claes Johnson has said about non-radiative heat transfers in planetary atmospheres.

  4. Ronnie

    Hej Ed,

    ‘CAGW’ is about as old as ‘climate change’… the new mantra is ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption’.

    It is helpful to know the language when trying to understand a culture and their belief system(s).


    1. Ed Caryl

      “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption”
      I wonder how long it took the committee to come up with that whopper!

  5. Ric Werme

    Very good rant by Joe. He managed to stay coherent and didn’t often refer to stuff most people haven’t heard of. 🙂

    I’m not sure if that article deserved a reply, but at least it got a good reply.

    BTW, an early start to the North Atlantic hurricane generally doesn’t correlate with an active season overall. OTOH, I think it’s mostly dumb luck that the northeast has gotten off so easy so far in this round of positive AMO since 1995. That could change any year now.

  6. Pete Ridley

    Joe Bastardi is listed as a member of blogging group Principia Scientific International (PSI) – – which is now declared to be a “subsidiary” of a recently registered UK private limited company PSI Acumen Ltd. owned by John O’Sullivan (

    Dougy Cotton was at one time named as a PSI member and a staunch supporter of the blogging group.

    In my opinion anyone who is affiliated with PSI needs to think very carefully about the impact that might have on their credibility. More on PSI, PSI Acumen Ltd. and affilates can be found in articles/posts such as “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Anumen Ltd”, “SpotlightON PSI Acumen Ltd”, “Curriculum Vitae for John O’Sullivan (2010)”, etc. etc. at

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

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