Insanity From The Climate World

  1. Older climate models over-predicted warming. We have replaced them with better models that predict even more warming
  2. We over-predicted Arctic ice loss repeatedly, so we have new predictions for even more rapid ice loss
  3. Temperatures are not warming as we predicted, so we altered the data to make it appear like temperatures are warming.
  4. Sea level isn’t rising as fast as we predicted, so we bumped up our predictions of sea level rise
  5. Hurricanes and tornadoes aren’t doing what we predicted, so we bumped up our predictions

etc. etc. etc. etc.

The biggest scientific fraud in history rolls on.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Insanity From The Climate World

  1. GeologyJim says:

    High priority for the Romney Dept of Justice should be to investigate fraud in government science programs. Also, probes of fraud and political interference in Obama DOJ decisions to investigate/not investigate ACORN, Black Panthers, muslim organizations, Planned Parenthood, etc., etc

    But first task is to fire all federal attorneys and replace. No negotiations, no explanations, no dithering. Elections have consequences, and the first task is to sweep out the vipers of the Obama regime.

    • Don Sutherland says:


      Do you have credible evidence of fraud in the federal science progams? Moreover, given that federal science spending accounts for an extremely small share of the budget, it is more likely than not that any meaningful effort to pursue fiscal consolidation will be focused on the higher-impact items. Finally, the IMF, among others in the economic field, have suggested that fiscal consolidation efforts should be careful to differentiate between spending that yields no future benefits and investment that yields future benefits, otherwise the program would have the unintended effect of slowing the long-term growth trajectory. In turn, slower long-term economic growth would make the fiscal challenges greater than they would otherwise be due to a smaller economy’s generating less tax revenue. Science research expenditures fall into the latter category.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Rationalizing the end of the world using climate models is *not* science. The money could be used elsewhere thanks.

      • RobertvdL says:

        watch this.
        Peter Schiff: Congressional Committee of Oversight & Reform

        IMF = crooks and criminals

      • Blade says:

        Don Sutherland [September 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm] says:

        “Do you have credible evidence of fraud in the federal science programs? Moreover, given that federal science spending accounts for an extremely small share of the budget, it is more likely than not that any meaningful effort to pursue fiscal consolidation will be focused on the higher-impact items.

        There you go again, leaping before you look. Your scoffing about the fraudulent use of our taxpayer money (or to be perfectly accurate, future taxpayers like our kids and grandkids) does you no service and is hardly scientific. You are just using the cookie cutter excuse to do nothing at all. Big surprise. It is a tired and well-worn political trick, here, see if you recognize it …

        Prototype your excuse as: ‘Given that federal science spending accounts for an extremely small share of the budget, it is more likely than not that any meaningful effort to pursue fiscal consolidation will be focused on the higher-impact items.’

        Example: Rape accounts for an extremely small share of the teacher-student experience, it is more likely than not that any meaningful effort to pursue educational ethics will be focused on the higher-impact items.’

        Another: Murder accounts for an extremely small share of the crime problem, it is more likely than not that any meaningful effort to pursue social harmony will be focused on the higher-impact items.’

        Fill in the blanks as needed. Meanwhile, in 2010, President DingleBarry’s second Federal Budget looked like this…

        $2.381 trillion (est) Revenue
        $3.552 trillion (est) Spending
        $1.171 trillion (est) Deficit

        So that year spending was $3.552 Trillion (or 3,552 Billion). If only 1% was suspected as fraudulent or mismanaged we are facing 35 Billion wasted across all agencies and programs. A million here, a million there soon becomes real money. At least that’s what we used to say. Obviously now it is using Billions.

        No-one must be above scrutiny when it comes to safeguarding taxpayer money, ESPECIALLY when high profile scientific fields are infested with agenda driven leftists. Many other scientific fields are ACTUALLY working on life-saving inventions and discoveries which should be fully funded. Zero out the climate kooks and spend the cash that we can on worthy fields. That’s what I say.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        You are incorrectly assuming that I don’t believe fiscal consolidation is necessary. It is. The CBO has discussed the implications of the United States’ long-term fiscal imbalances. The IMF has also discussed it in its Article IV consultations with the U.S.

        The tiny share of the budget allocated to scientific research is not a driver of the long-term imbalances. Mandatory spending programs are the key drivers of spending growth. On the revenue side, the tax system, which collects a smaller share of revenue than is the case in most other advanced countries is the other. The appropriate mix of spending changes and tax revenue changes is a policy question. From the IMF’s Article IV consultation:

        “Given the size of the budget deficit, age-related spending pressures, and the relatively low tax ratio, this medium-term consolidation effort will need to rely both on higher revenues and reforms to slow the growth of entitlement spending.

        • With discretionary spending capped and defense outlays projected to fall significantly, policymakers’ attention must shift to entitlements such as pension and health benefits, the key driver of spending growth. The cost-saving provisions of the health care reform should be implemented fully and additional saving measures could be phased in gradually. The Social Security imbalances warrant an early reform, including a modest increase in the retirement age, a more progressive benefit structure, and higher contributions.

        • Revenues—which are low relative to GDP compared to other advanced economies—could be raised through a menu of options…”

        Cutting science research to the bone–or eliminating it–will make a negligible contribution to fiscal consolidation. It would be a gimmick and little more, but a costly one. It would restrain the nation’s long-term growth rate via reduced innovation and improvement. In a sophisticated economy, reduced innovation and improvement can be extremely costly, as innovation and improvement are essential to sustaining economic competitiveness.

        Finally, as noted earlier, no credible evidence of fraud in the science programs has been cited.

      • Me says:

        So what did the US do before there was an IMF?

      • Don Sutherland says:


        That’s a hypothetical question, since the current imbalances occur in the context of a world in which there is an IMF. Even if there were no IMF, fiscal consolidation would still be necessary. There has been no serious effort at fiscal consolidation since the 1990s and the magnitude of what is needed to address the long-term imbalances is much larger than what was undertaken in the early 1990s by Presidents Bush and Clinton.

      • Me says:

        So your defending it or are you backing away from it?

      • Don Sutherland says:


        I believe the IMF’s suggestion is on the mark. I do believe U.S. policy makers should understand and act upon the need for credible fiscal consolidation without the IMF’s having to remind the U.S.

      • Me says:

        Yeah that’s not what I asked, but it is the Whatever answer I figured you’d give. So answer the question already?

      • Don Sutherland says:


        I said that the IMF’s recommendation is on the mark. Therefore, I support the recommendation. In my view, it’s the right recommendation. So, I’m “defending” the recommendation.

      • Me says:

        Like I said before? 😆

      • Don, depends how you use the word “fraud”. The entire US government budget is essentially a ponzi scheme which must inevitably implode…. In that sense the US federal government is acting in a fraudulent manner. To then ‘act shocked’ to acknowledge that particular federal science programs are wasting money and pushing politically motivated agendas is rather naive to say the least.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        Jim referred to “fraud.” I’m using fraud according to its proper usage, which involves deceit.

      • Me says:

        Is that deflection I see yet again?

      • Blade says:

        Don Sutherland [September 1, 2012 at 11:32 pm] says:

        “Cutting science research to the bone–or eliminating it–will make a negligible contribution to fiscal consolidation.”

        All “science research” is a strawman. Never said that. In fact I said fully fund REAL science (within the actual budget), especially Cancer (just for example, not my agenda) or any other actual life and death field.

        Phony sciences, e.g., climatology and all its derivatives should be zeroes out. Let them eat CO2.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        The last resort of the climate scientists is to hide behind the mantle of science. They have nothing left. Real scientists are producing results.

      • Me says:

        They don’t like it when they are questioned. 😆 It’s the debate thinggy!

      • Andy DC says:

        Do you have credible evidence that fraud is not taking place? Warmists adjusting raw data to show nonexistent warming is prima fascia evidence of cheating.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        The burden of proof is on those making the allegations, not the other way around. I have no evidence of the kind of fraud to which Jim referred.

      • Me says:

        It appears to be you folks to prove that not the other way around. Ya haven’t done it yet, So can YOU do it then?

      • Me says:

        Why am Me\I not suprised!

      • Blade says:

        Don Sutherland [September 2, 2012 at 1:41 am] says:

        “The burden of proof is on those making the allegations, not the other way around. I have no evidence of the kind of fraud to which Jim referred.”

        Now you pretend to discover a form of the scientific method? LOL!

        Besides, that is not how taxpayer funded expenditures are managed. The ‘spender’ has to justify their books, dot every ‘i’, cross every ‘t’, audit, and answer to an inspector general. Even the private sector is extremely stringent. And then you may have heard of the IRS and the burden of proof for individuals.

        Taxpayer funded researchers are not given a credit card and ushered on their way to only be questioned when evidence surfaces of fraud. While they are not yet treated exactly the same as private citizens (presumed guilty), they are certainly not allowed free reign and presumed innocent. That would be stupid.

    • Don, people use hyperbolic words all the time in discussions such as this because the nonsense they are seeing upsets them. To focus on being critical of the use of a particular hyperbolic word rather than the substance of the claim is to present a very weak rebuttal to my mind.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        I very much doubt that he used the wrong word. He stated that the Department of Justice should investigate fraud in the federal science programs. If he had in mind waste or inefficiency, he would not have called for a DOJ investigation. That’s a serious allegation. He called for such an investigation and provided no credible evidence that such fraud has occurred.

      • Me says:

        I see ya like to talk in riddles and dance. Are you an arts major?

      • Eric Barnes says:

        It’s a very serious subject Don when the government is trying to reach into everyones pocket to pay for climate change mitigation. Why don’t climate scientists make a *prediction* that has consequences? They won’t do that because they don’t want any downside, but only an upside of more funding. Make a prediction that isn’t 100 years in the future Don. Please. Or stop the BS and go home.

      • Don, it is very difficult to prove academic misconduct, and anyway most of this is likely confirmation bias, hubris and basic incompetence. I don’t think anyone should get the Department of Justice involved because someone is stupid and arrogant. But of course, lots of people are really upset about the behaviour of this group.

  2. Don Sutherland says:


    On point #1, the newer climate models are vastly better than the earlier ones. Very likely CMIP5 will lead to better estimates in the next IPCC assessment.

    With respect to #2, here’s what the just published paper by Stroeve et al., stated:

    “Previous research revealed that the observed downward trend in September ice extent exceeded simulated trends from most models participating in the World Climate Research Programme Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3). We show here that as a group, simulated trends from the models contributing to CMIP5 are more consistent with observations over the satellite era (1979–2011). Trends from most ensemble members and models nevertheless remain smaller than the observed value.”

    Also from the paper, the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble mean trend is “less than a third of the observed trend” for the 1953-2011 period, even as it is “slightly larger” than the value for the CMIP3 ensemble mean. For the 1979-2011 period, most of the CMIP5 ensemble members also have slower forecast trends than the observed trend.

    As for #3, once natural variables are accounted for, the anthropogenic warming signal remains clear. AGW does not mean that natural forcings or natural oceanic cycles are irrelevant. Instead, the natural oceanic cycles play out in the context of both the natural forcing and growing anthropogenic forcing.

    • What bullshit.

    • Steve, you beat me to it… Don writes –

      “the newer climate models are vastly better than the earlier ones.”

      It will take 30 years to find out if the newer models are any better than the older ones. A drug company can list a dozen reasons why it’s new drug is scientifically superior to an older one, then in drug trials it turns out that it is no better, and may in fact have more negative side effects.

      You don’t know if some model or scientific advance is ‘better’ until it’s tested. As you say, until proven, such claims are bullshit. The real point of claiming that the latest model is better than some older one is that it permits the advocate to acknowledge that the old model was miserable yet try to argue that failure doesn’t apply to the current version. Conveniently, it takes 30 years to definitively disprove the claim.

      • Me says:

        Yeah just because! 😆

      • Don Sutherland says:


        It’s not going to take 30 years. Already, there’s evidence of better performance e.g., one aspect of that improved performance is documented in the recent paper by Dr. Stroeve, et al.

      • Me says:

        Deflection yet again? I see!

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Say hello to confirmation bias Don.

      • Me says:


      • Don Sutherland says:


        If there’s evidence of worse performance, I won’t ignore it. Do you have some specific evidence showing that the CMIP5 performed worse than the climate models it is replacing?

        Right now, the early evidence is that it has performed better. That does not mean that it is perfect and room for improvement exists. Some of that improvement will depend on future advances in knowledge concerning the climate.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        The sentence should read “That does not mean that it is perfect and that no room for improvement exists.”

      • “It’s not going to take 30 years.”

        It won’t take sceptics 30 years. But it will take advocates and apologists 30 years to admit that their position was untenable. By that time, they have moved onto some other claim or scare.

      • Me says:

        Excues me, but from what exactly, and why did that happen?

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Keep your eye on the ball Don. People don’t want “better performance”, they want a firm statement regarding what the effects of climate change are 10, 20, 100, 500 years from now. Come back when you *know*, not when you have further findings consistent with models. IMO, Steven is much more effective at climate change communication because he’s skeptical, shows a wealth of information, isn’t invested in a study for which he hopes to turn into another study, etc.
        Sure. It’s warming slightly. Is it dangerous? Take another look at the ice age temp/co2 graph and tell me something more severe than an ice age is going to happen. Then I’ll be on your side.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        You’re expecting more of the climate scientists than one can reasonably expect from just about any field in which forecasts are made or attempted. For example, should investors or insurance companies expect a “firm statement” from market analysts, portfolio managers, etc., where the S&P 500 will be 10, 20, etc., years from now?

        The climate scientists are working hard to better understand the likely evolution of the climate and pushing the frontiers of knowledge with their research. They’re trying to offer reasonable ideas of what lies ahead given the pervasive impact of climate on the environment and human society.

        Climate science has had its successes. Early calls that the global climate would warm on account of anthropogenic forcing and that the warming associated with anthropogenic forcing would distinguish itself from the “noise” of internal variability appears to have played out. That the warming would feature Arctic amplification also appears to be in its early stages of unfolding, showing up in the fall temperature anomalies there.

      • Me says:

        What we expect is real not speculation, so stop deflecting!

      • Don, there is no particular reason to believe that there is a detectable AGW ‘signal’ rising out of the temperature ‘noise’ that we can discern. That is wishful thinking at best. A clinical look at the data suggests the opposite, with major indicators (sea level rise, lower tropospheric temperature trends, ocean heat content, etc.) all going in the wrong direction.

        Now, I agree with you that are perfectly reasonable grounds for believing we will be able to detect an anthropogenic signal in the long run. But there is nothing compelling in the data to assume that presently.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        That’s where we differ Don. It’s other peoples money and the standard should be very high to charge everyone for CC mitigation. There has to be something better than the “climate scenarios” of the IPCC and the silly percentage driven “likely, very likely”, etc in the SPM.
        I appreciate your thoughts. I just think you and the climate science community goes a step too far and panders for cash in a cowardly fashion. Science should be used to make the world a better place, not used as a rationalization to control people.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        There is an AGW signal:

        Moreover, oceanic heat content is rising, not falling:

      • Don, there is only a ‘detectable global warming signal’ if you assume certain things are true. If your assumptions are wrong the signal is not there. Foster and Rahmstorf are heavily invested catastrophists in this debate and I really have zero confidence in their impartiality.

        Ocean heat content rise has flattened when it should be accelerating. The missing heat is presumed to have disappeared somewhere in the deep ocean, where by consequence it becomes harmless. Even your own links to the data refute your argument.

      • squid2112 says:

        Right now, the early evidence is that it has performed better.


        Better than what? Better than shit is still shit. GIGO is still GIGO …

        So, yesterday I was in my backyard hitting golf balls. I hit a few into my neighbors house and took out his bay windows. He came running over to me yelling and screaming, and quite understandably upset. But I told him, “it’s ok, there is strong evidence that my new swing is better than my old one”.

  3. Streetcred says:

    September 2, 2012 at 1:41 am Don Sutherland says: “The burden of proof is on those making the allegations, not the other way around.”

    So let’s take this and apply is to “climate science’ theory … oh sh8t ! FAIL !!

    Conclusion, CAGW climate science dogma is a fraud.

    • He gets that exactly backwards. The burden of proof in science is on the one making the positive claim.

    • Don Sutherland says:

      There was no failure. The world has been warming. The warmth is worldwide. The last cool monthly global land and sea anomaly occurred in February 1994 on GISS and February 1985 on the NCDC dataset. The last cool annual anomaly occurred in 1976 on both the GISS and NCDC datasets. In a June 2012 Journal of Climate paper, Gerald A. Meehl et al., found “little net warming” over the 1975-2005 period from “natural forcings only.” Moreover, the warming during recent decades cannot be accounted for when anthropogenic factors are excluded (

      Those arguing against AGW have yet to offer a natural mechanism that could serve to explain recent climatic trends as well as anthropogenic forcing, even as those trends cannot be represented without including anthropogenic warming.

      Some have attacked the temperature record. The ‘kill the messenger’ approach is a dead end. Declining summer sea ice extent in the Arctic, a lengthening of growing seasons, northward shift in winter nesting ranges for birds, shortening duration of lake ice, and northward shift in plant hardiness zones, general landcover change, and general retreat of glaciers, all demonstrate that the global climate is warming. The warming is real. It is not an artificial construct of temperature adjustments. Moreover, it cannot be explained by the natural forcings.

      • The world’s been warming for approx. 300 years Don. Note the “global” part of “global warming”. I can cherry pick cold spots on the planet (because the distribution of heat content is never 100% equal across the surface of the globe over shortish time spans) and build up a collection of just-so stories arguing for global cooling. It’s the global trends that are relevant here. That’s why your argument is poor.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        The world has been warming (as a whole, but not uniformly) generally since coming out of the Little Ice Age. Until fairly recently (~ mid-20th century), the temperature trend could be explained by the natural forcings (volcanoes, solar, orbital fluctuations). Afterward, the natural forcings explained less of the trend and the trend could not be reasonably represented unless anthropogenic forcings were included in the mix. That the oceans, surface, and lower atmosphere are warming simultaneously indicates that energy is being added to the earth’s climate system. The sun can’t be blamed, as solar irradiance has actually fallen slightly in recent decades. The earth is in an energy imbalance due to the rising atmospheric CO2. No credible natural alternative has been introduced.

      • No Don, past temperature trends were not all explained up until recently. The cooling period is explained by invoking aerosols. We have no little data on aerosols during that period so this is speculation. (And a very convenient one at that.) The warming period up until the 1940’s has been ‘explained’ as correlated to solar activity, maybe. But again we have little data to back up the speculation. The fact that current models require so many ad hoc assumptions and that there is now a new divergence between models and temperature trends in the last 15 years is hardly confidence building. But if I was a climate modeller, I would be putting forward the same argument you are…

        And if that didn’t work, I’d tell you how smart I am and how the authority of the IPCC should not be questioned, and if that didn’t work, I’d just call you a denier and engage in other name calling. 😉

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Don Sutherland says:
        September 2, 2012 at 3:10 am

        Reading from the Mike Mann playbook Don? I don’t think you are on very firm ground there.

  4. GeologyJim says:

    Hey Don Sutherland –

    I can’t bother to read all of your blather, but . . . .

    I used “fraud” in a very specific context.

    Federal scientists who claim various climate/weather conditions are “unprecedented” are guilty of committing fraud. Fraud, yes, FRAUD.

    As a geologist, nothing less than 15,000 years is credible for establishing “precedented”, because that’s the minimum duration for natural cycles of warming and cooling.

    Every glacial cycle in the last 2 million years began when existing conditions were at a warming peak (and CO2 was at a contemporary high), and yet temperatures (and CO2) plummetted.

    Hmmmmmm. How did that happen – – -without SUVs or air conditioning??

    The science establishment has contrived to assert that modern conditions are unusual, extraordinary, and due to human activities. I challenge them to demonstrate any one of those assertions, in contrast to natural variations.

    • Maybe it’s “fraud” and maybe it isn’t. But by asserting it’s “fraud” you are presuming you can get inside their heads and know their intent. To my mind, there is no need to assert criminality when less innocuous explanations will suffice. You may be misunderstanding the power of herd mentality and the human capacity for stupidity.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Have to agree with Will. It doesn’t seem criminal to me (hard to prove intent), but I can’t fathom how these guys sleep at night.

      • Glacierman says:


        I think there are some, very few individuals, who are definately doing this with knowledge and intent. The rest are just usefull idiots. Dupes for the cause. Some of them get a career, some get to occassionally sit at the table of power, they all get the warm and fuzzy feeling that they are saving the Earth and of course, they feel they are obsolved of the guilt they feel from having come by their success without actually producing anything. And by produce I mean actual production, which is needed to pay for them to sit around and think and preach.

    • Don Sutherland says:

      That a natural mechanism led to CO2 being transferred from storage to the atmosphere prior to humanity does not mean that humans are not capable of carrying out the same process. The primary mechanism by which humans are carrying out the process is the taking of fossil fuels from the earth and burning them, which releases the CO2 into the atmosphere.

  5. Chewer says:

    If any of the major seven published climatologist’s had anything contrary to C02 being the driver of our climate, never mind, that cannot happen.
    Do those of us that understand atmospheric chemistry have any doubt how to get $?
    In case you haven’t noticed, the world-wide government funding machine needs answers and they aren.t looking anywhere else for their answers.
    Ever notice exactly where and to whom that money goes?
    Over the past eleven years, over 3000 spectacular proposals have been submitted in several countries around the globe, looking at other climate driving mechanisms, from atmospheric chemistry (up to 10hPa) and the interactions with EMF (the full spectrum), gravitational waves, mesospheric-stratospheric interactions, upper tropospheric-stratospheric interactions as well as the never stable conditions in our chaotic ocean-air circulation systems.
    If you want money, it’s who you know!

  6. tckev says:

    A timeline of climate insanity is here –

    I shows how by misunderstanding nature, man keeps grasping at more irrational answers.

  7. rw says:

    It’s basically fraudulent to take problematical data make large claims on that basis. Selection of CO2 readings, ice core data, tree ring data, and the temperature record itself are all problematic – to the extent that the extrapolations that have been made from these results could be called “post-normal science”.


    Beck, Energy & Environment, 2007, 18, 259-282 (CO2)
    Jaworowski, Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 1994, 1, 161-171 (ice cores)
    McIntyre’s analysis of the hockey stick as indicating some of the problems with tree ring data
    Mitchell, J. Journal of Meteorology, 1953, 10, 244-261 (temperature data – and of course, there’s the later work of Kral et al, Menne et al, etc. that also indicate how problematic these data are, not to mention the work of A. Watts et al. – which among other things showed an almost careless disregard for careful methods of observation)

  8. slimething says:

    Don Sutherland you are so full of crap.

    • A devastating critique of the CIMP5 models. The bottom line, don’t worry about discussing how well they model the past or the future. They cannot even model the present.

  9. slimething says:

    I get impatient when people like Don Sutherland speak with such elegance as if they know Jack about what they’re saying. He uses talking points right out of the AGW handbook.

    Climate models use very little first principle physics. The vast majority is parametrization. If they had any validity the models would to through a rigorous 3rd party IV&V not connected to the group that created the model.

    Every modelling group makes unsubstantiated claims about their model, then when it is shown how horrible they really are, a “new and improved” model is created with even more wild claims are made. Now IPCC AR5 will showcase CIMP5 as evidence when models are not evidence for anything.

    If they can’t model even the hydrological cycles correctly, they cannot be correct on much of anything else, including clouds. If modellers didn’t know what the past climate was like, can anyone say with a straight face they could hindcast with any degree of accuracy? Ha!

    • These research groups have allowed advocates to oversell the merits of their calculations. Politicians have invested heavily. There is no easy way for any of them to back out now.

  10. Hugh K says:

    How quickly and conveniently some forget. To those that take issue with the concept of investigating “fraud” as related to climate science I have just two words to offer in making the case that fraud does in fact exist in the pro AGW climate community — Peter Gleick.

Leave a Reply