Recurring dreams of memes

\ 11 Comments \ by

A reader observed

You do know that satellites do not measure the surface temperature? The data is subject to considerable manipulation.
You do know the surface thermometers are reliable and show Earth surface [sic] has warmed around 1.2C — depends on the start date.
You do know Christy and Spencer at UAH made a mess of it and had to be shown what to do?
You do know most of the energy is heating the oceans?
You do know you are wasting your time? It’s not a scientific problem any more, it’s a political problem. Trump has gone.

I respond for the umpteenth time

For 17 years this blog has answered these and related questions, but these new answers are not cut and pasted, they are created afresh. A NASA article last updated on 22 July, 2020, talks about the UAH satellite measurements: Continue Reading →

Views: 214

Posted in: General \ Tagged: , , ,

Discrepancy grows between climate models and observations

\ 7 Comments \ by

Important update from Spencer & Christy

A few days ago Drs Roy Spencer and John Christy published updated graphs they first presented to a Heartland conference in July. Roy says:

I keep getting asked about our charts comparing the CMIP5 models to observations, old versions of which are still circulating, so it could be I have not been proactive enough at providing updates to those. Since I presented some charts at the Heartland conference in D.C. in July summarizing the latest results we had as of that time, I thought I would reproduce those here. Continue Reading →

Views: 237

Posted in: General \ Tagged: , ,

The audience strikes back

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Emptiness of AGW theory

Dan Satterfield is an experienced TV meteorologist in Huntsville, Alabama—the town which is also home to the world-famous team led by Dr Roy Spencer that tracks the Earth’s temperature with satellites.

Despite his credentials, despite the fact that he deals with climate information every day and despite the fact that he parrots warmist dogma and calls it “climate science”, Dan evinces no actual knowledge of climate facts. And confronted with that fact, Dan finally confesses (by retreat) that he cannot debate the issues on which he claims to be passionate. In withdrawing, he demonstrates the emptiness of the AGW hypothesis.

When the audience strikes back, he cannot mount a defence. His incompetence is great, though he had poor material to work with. Still, alas, he doesn’t make a notable opponent; he is only today’s. One down, thousands yet to go.

Dreary and detailed

Dan’s post tries to describe the imagined “psychology” of “the deniers of climate change”, rather than accepting that there do actually exist real-world observations which fail to support the AGW hypothesis. Everybody believes the evidence of their own senses, and it has nothing to do with having a particular psychology.

What follows is dreary and detailed; I write it because I can, not because I imagine anyone will hasten to read it. Oh—and because I care about the truth. Observing Mr Satterfield squeezing and pinching the truth of global warming out of shape inspires me to pen this lone refutation, dreary and uninspiring though it may be, whose only reward might be a faint righteousness. Continue Reading →

Views: 94

Posted in: General \ Tagged: , , , , , ,