Tales from the dark side: Global Cooling according to the enemy

The dark side? Sites like Skeptical Science, herein after referred to as (UN)-Skeptical Science.

(UN)-Skeptical Science is a site set up to smear people who are sceptical about the falsified man made global warming hoax.

As Joanne Nova, herself a convert from the dark side, wrote:
SkepticalScience.com is a parody of skepticism. It is “skeptical of the skeptics”, which is all very well, but it accepts everything offered up by Authorities as if it is the Word of God.  “NOAA can do no wrong” (and was that NOAA or Noah?) 
All of the points held up by Cook are weak “whatever” issues: things that are hardly a flaw. He’s noticed that the disorganized mass of real skeptics sometimes disagree with each other, golly gee, which proves we think for ourselves and don’t answer to a higher bureaucracy. John Cook — who so wants to be seen as skeptical –  instead is anything but...
(UN)-Skeptical Science says that the current hiatus in the warming as shown in the graph above is not happening. A guest post by Kevin Trenberth:

Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it

Posted on 30 May 2013 by Kevin Trenberth

The answer depends a lot on what one means by “global warming”.  
Why should it go up? Well, because the planet is warming as a result of human activities. With increasing carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the top of the atmosphere: the greenhouse gases increasingly trap more radiation and hence create warming. “Warming” really means heating, and this can exhibit itself in many ways.
This is the same Kevin Trenberth who, in the ClimateGate emails, was quoted
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. 
Is Trenberth here trying to counter that notorious quote?

Ben Santer who; in the same ClimateGate emails, tried to spike a "skeptics’ paper critical of Santer/Wigley that was published in Climate Research"; lead-authored a peer-reviewed paper:

Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale 

in which he wrote:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
 So using the graph above, Ben and Kevin, does 17 years and 5 months negate the "human effects" on temperature?

Or Kevin, if you are dubious of the graph above, how about your chosen site to post your opinion, (UN)-Skeptical Science:

IS the planet warming or cooling?

Using the (UN)-Skeptical (UN)Science trend calculator, we find that the planet has been cooling, for somewhere between 9 years and 17 years.

Sks Trend Calculator

  9 years: GISS Since 2005                     Trend -0.022±0.269ºC/decade;
13 years: NOAA Since 2001                  Trend -0.003±0.145ºC/decade;
13 years: HadCRUT4 Since 2001          Trend -0.011±0.143ºC/decade;
17 years: RSS Since 1997                       Trend -0.012±0.199ºC/decade;

Is that it, Mr Santer? Will you now accept that the falsified AGW hypothesis has finally been put to bed?

Science has shown that temperature rises BEFORE atmospheric CO2. Why would it suddenly change in the 21st century?

The history shows that CO2 doesn't cause warming:

The current century data show no correlation between Carbon dioxide and temperature:

In fact, the 21st Century, so far has delivered cooling:

Come on Alarmists, hand back your grants, stop disgracing the name of science and admit that you had a political, not a scientific agenda.


  1. G'day, can you please tell me why on the sceptic site they claim last year was the hottest on record, I keep getting lost for words when I'm told the Earth has been continuing to warm after 1998, I understand it hasn't, but how can they say it has?

    1. El Ninos cause the Earth to warm and La Ninas cause the Earth to cool, Volcanoes when they erupt cause the Earth to cool and another event is increased trade winds pushing more heat into the oceans which make the surface of the Earth cool too. When you take these events into account it is extremely easy to see that global surface temperatures are increasing, not decreasing. This graph can explain it http://tinyurl.com/pp43ug5

  2. Well, it is not on the sceptic site, the alarmists try to push the lie that last year was the hottest on record, but that is easily busted.

  3. Can you tell me why, if the planet is not warming, are the ice caps are melting?

  4. Now that would be a fairly hard question to answer, however the icecaps are growing:

    NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent
    link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/

    Arctic Ice:
    The Arctic Ice grew 920,000 in a year
    link: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/ice-free-arctic-by-2013-true-deniers.html

    Greenland Ice Sheet Growing:
    Link: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-peer.html

    Any other questions?

  5. Geoff Brown you seem to think that heat can only be found on land, or in your case the atmosphere since the only temperature record I seem to see you use are from satellites that only measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere. Ben Santer when discussing "no warming for 17 years" is referring to global heat which includes the oceans.

    1. Ben Santer when discussing "no warming for 17 years" is referring to " global-mean tropospheric temperature."

    2. The simple fact is, the Earth is not only the "troposphere" and if the oceans are warming and ice is melting, all that heat has to be included. As we are seeing now, all the heat as is going into the oceans. If the heat is there, its there, and you have to deal with it not deny it.

    3. Pushing the fake ice is melting line Climate (Do you mind if I call you by your first name?) See the links above. Don't make silly statements that are not true.

    4. All your opinions are wrong, of cause. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

    5. You don't give up do you? That paper only goes to sometime in 2011.

      Arctic ice grew 920,000 square miles between Aug12 and Aug 13


    6. Just to try and show how ridicules you sound, since 1979 the arctic has reduced by 67% and during 2012-2013 as you stated before, it increased by 2%. This area increases by 2% all the time! its the decreases that are continuing.

    7. So the Global Warming Nazis predict an ice free Arctic by 2013 and yet the ice grows 920,000 square miles in a year? And you still push the falsified hoax? What will you tell you grandkids? Do you realise how ridicules (sic) you sound?

      And the Arctic HAS BEEN ice free before without the CO2 output of industrialisation.

    8. A school child could understand the maths of a 67% decrease compared to a 2% increase. When was the Arctic ice free? Science shows that the Arctic has not been as warm as it is now for at least 44000 to 120000 years and even when it was hotter then it is now it still was not ice free, it has not been ice free for at least 700000 years!!

    9. If you are going to comment with BoomTish like that, I will ignore your comments.

      Research the Chinese fleet that sailed over the North Pole in the Fifteenth Century and, for heaven's sake, don't accept the Climate Rubbish and Comments (C.R.A.P.) from the Global Warming Nazis.

    10. You are a slow learner aren't you? Or do you not read the links supplied?

      Can you give me the link to Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Remember that the Fifteenth century was way before Einstein.

      Just refresh your memory on the links re the difference between the Global Warming Nazi's "PAL review" and their suppression:

    11. You are deleting most of my comments! I asked for a link that shows when the Arctic was ice free as you claim. You have not linked anything that I have not checked and told you was a pathetic attempt at pushing your lies. Regarding your pointless suggestion about a fictional book authored by Rowan Menzies called 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, I am still laughing.

    12. Nothing deleted. and that book 1421 was rebutted by later research. did you rwad the links re the fallibility of 'PAL'review?

    13. There are numerous comments of mine that you have not shown.

    14. SO? I have published all your Comments Re Anthropogenic Process (CRAP)

  6. I have already discussed with you your use of the graph that shows CO2 over the last 500 million years and how it does correlate with temperature. Can you explain why you are still claiming it does not?

    1. You say: "how it does correlate with temperature?" How does it correlate with temperature?

    2. Your the one saying it does not! Have you not looked into it? Found the scientific papers that say it does not correlate with temperatures over the last 500 million years worth of data we have? What kind bizarre party is this?

    3. "Your(sic) the one saying it does not! Have you not looked into it? Found the scientific papers that say it does not correlate with temperatures over the last 500 million years worth of data we have?

      You cannot be looking at the same graph. Sit down, have a cup of tea, relax and get rid of your anger and then look again at the graph.

      You're the only one who says it does.

    4. So you want me too look at the graph and form an opinion? what kind of idiots do you think read your blog that would think that is how science works.

    5. "what(sic) kind of idiots do you think read your blog that(sic) would think that is how science works.(sic)"

      Well you for one.

  7. Rescued from Spam bin

    From troll Climate Quote:

    Tne, but the comments had facts in them too.. But lets see this scientific proof that the Arctic was ice free? LINK me a paper lol something you cant ever seem to do....

  8. Sheeeeeesh!

    Do you STILL believe in the fallible "PAL" review (PR) process after the links that I have provided you with?

    The links showing the many retractions of PR papers?

    The links showing the GW Nazis suppressing Realist Papers?

    And, by the way, did you find thepeer-reviewed link to that basic scientific equation: E=MC2?

    Or do we have to wipe Eintstein out of the history of science?

    Have you accepted the fact (data) that real world observations blow the Global Warming Nazi's adjusted SHTUFF out of the arena?

    Incidentally, forget about the fact that during the fifteenth century the Chinese Fleet sailed over the North Pole, what about the USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole in 1958?


  9. So still nothing, you cant link any science because you think that all science is part of a conspiracy to take over the world? Unless of cause the science says what you want it to say, lol which none do so its all just a cover up.. nutsville

  10. How dare you try to put words in my mouth. If I give you peer review, you say it isn't peer review, if I point out how peer review as fallen down, you disappear from that chain.

    If you have nothing positive to contribute except inflammatory statements like your "you are going to hell" it will end up in the bin like that disgraceful statement.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!