Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News

Science News is singing the praises of Al Gore’s sci-fi flick 10 years later, saying that Arctic ice is melting even faster than Gore predicted.

2016: Arctic summer sea ice may disappear as early as 2052. The top of the world could see its first iceless summer roughly a decade sooner than thought in 2006

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 8.38.05 PM

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 8.53.00 PM

Changing climate: 10 years after ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ | Science News

Gore actually predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. In climate math, 2052 is apparently a decade earlier than 2014.

CXKkfn8UEAAjWPl (1)

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

NASA predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2012. In climate math, 2052 is apparently a decade earlier than 2012.


The Daily Reporter – Google News Archive Search

Science News also forgot to mention that 40 years ago they were predicting a new ice age.


March 1, 1975 | Science News

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 9.02.17 PM-down

They also forgot to mention that Arctic warming is cyclical, and has nothing to do with humans.

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 8.44.42 PM-down

18 Feb 1925, Page 12 – Oakland Tribune at

About Tony Heller

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

11 Responses to Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News

  1. chaamjamal says:

    it’s one of those “honey, i ran the climate model” papers.

  2. omanuel says:

    AGW alarmists are desperate, as a new paper at Nordic Science confirms Earth and humanity are totally at the mercy of the Sun,

    as reported fourteen years ago in “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002),

    and recently confirmed by Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt, “The Sun in March 2016”

    • omanuel says:

      LESSON: To understand Earth’s climate we must first correct errors introduced in the foundations of solar and nuclear physics after WWII to save the world from possible nuclear annihilation:

      1. Stars make and discard hydrogen in the solar wind;

      2. Aston’s nuclear packing fraction is the correct measure of nuclear stability; von Weizsacker’s concept of nuclear binding energy is seriously flawed.

  3. gator69 says:

    Climate math…

  4. rachase says:

    Actually, they are getting smarter. They have finally learned that they need to place their predictions of utter catastrophe far enough into the future that those who they scare with them will be dead by the time it becomes apparent that they have been conned. Gore’s ineptness was demonstrated by his gloom and doom forecasts for only 5 years into the future.

    • RAH says:

      Yea but on the down side for them the same types that would believe this BS as a fad are the very ones that won’t care to do something about it because it’s so far into the future. Hell Obama care came into being because in part so many younger Americans would not carry health insurance and because so many older Americans failed to plan for their futures. How can one really think that a prediction for 50 years in the future will phase the types, and that means a majority in the country, that can’t even manage to save for their retirement?

  5. ren says:

    The green curve is based on ERA40 data for the period 1958 to 2002. ERA40 data
    are in fact analyses, made in the same way as above, but done as a hind-cast,
    using a fixed version of the NWP model, and spending time on carefully
    validating and eventually correct or remove all observations found to be in
    error, before the data assimilation. These, so-called “re-analysis”, data
    represent our best estimate of the properties of the atmosphere for the period
    they cover.

  6. wardadam83 says:

    When the chosen “scientific” method climate scientists use is theory trumps data, the results are expected and predictable. They will always be wrong.

  7. skeohane says:

    I read my father’s Science News stack beginning in the early 50sn and subscribed myself in the 70s. After reading some 50+ years of their publication I can’t stomach it any more and let my subscription run out last year.

  8. Petrossa says:

    Reblogged this on Petrossa's Blog.

Leave a Reply