Comedian does climate for the Herald – results laughable

Here’s a first for the Herald — they now have an Australian comedian writing their climate alarmist stories. We’ve been laughing at their climate stories for years, but now it’s funnier. This Aussie comic makes mischief with an account of recent anomalously high temperatures in the Arctic, complete with references that explain what’s happening. It’s not actually man-made, but he claims it is and forgets to mention the other explanations. Maybe he thinks we won’t check his references, but we did.

The Herald says: “Charles Firth majored in Economic (Social Science)—which seems to be the Bachelor of Political, Economic and Social Sciences degree—at Sydney University. He is also editor of The Chaser Quarterly.” The funny part of that? It’s not obvious that economic (social science) instructs the student in the science of global warming, which is mildly funny. More importantly, the Herald seems blissfully unaware of what Wikipedia thinks is public knowledge:

Charles Henry Burgmann Firth is an Australian comedian, best known as a member of The Chaser productions CNNNN and The Chaser’s War on Everything.


In the Herald last week Charles (call me Charlie*) Firth described his sadness that global warming was destroying the North Pole, the land of Santa. Charlie went into tear-jerker mode as he claimed he couldn’t bring himself to admit to his wide-eyed 6-year-old that “Santa’s big red jacket is probably too warm, even at the North Pole.” Oh, dear, it’s climate change fear. He claimed Santa was a fantasy but climate change was not. He didn’t actually mean climate change, which is natural, very real and as old as the earth. Charlie has caught the orthodox climate bug and was referring to climate change as defined by the United Nations, which is only anthropogenic, not natural. Never mind, many see them both as fantasy.

Firth referenth

In the Firth (sorry, the first) reference we get maximum climate change hyperbole, courtesy of the Independent.

Strange, super-hot temperatures at the Arctic mean that sea ice is melting. Strange events in the Arctic appear to suggest that something very troubling is happening with the sea ice there, scientists have said.

The North Pole is experiencing hugely unexpected hot sea temperatures, which are stopping the usual ice from forming and could be a mark that something [sic] global warming is having even more worrying effects than previously thought.

In most years, the sun goes down in mid-October and that serves as a signal that the sea ice will start coming back as the water freezes. But this year that ice is actually melting, because intense heat is stopping the usual processes from happening.

Scientists say that heat has never been seen in previous years and is “off the charts” when compared with what has happened before. Temperatures have been as much as 20C hotter than where they usually should be.

Wow! Worrying. But then:

Thecond referenth

Next, Science Alert gives us the good news:

Temperatures near the North Pole are an unheard of 36°F (20°C) warmer than average right now, researchers have reported. The Arctic is currently in the midst of polar night, where the Sun hardly ever rises. (my emphasis)

More comedy. The sun never rises during polar night — it always waits till dawn.

Third referenth

This takes us to that fine ol’ newspaper, the Washington Post, which continues the tabloid approach with the headline: The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends. Their level-headed Energy and Environment reporters subscribe to the shock and awe doctrine, regardless of the facts:

But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot

Gosh, level-headed science here—”zany”, “totally off”, “super-hot”. But they give us a glimpse of the reason for the shock and awe: the meteorological movement of air around the polar region.

even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

They make the quite normal air movement (if rarely this extreme) sound extraordinary. I guess that’s why they’re journalists sitting on the beach/deck/lake jetty, while we’re hunched over our sandwiches reading their alarming stories.

To summarise, the Herald says it might be (shock, horror!) only two years before the North Pole disappears; the Independent tells us the Arctic is 20 °C hotter than it usually is, and the Washington Post exclaims breathlessly that northern temperatures are “an insane 36 degrees [Fahrenheit] warmer than normal.” Apparently, a year ago, a large storm drove Arctic temperatures 50 °F above normal. So it’s not unusual, though they ignore that when exclaiming that it’s getting worse.

The real story

The Herald’s source doesn’t get serious, doesn’t tell its readers the truth. Instead, it waffles on pretending to explore the ramifications of this serious disturbance in the force.

Science Alert does a bit better. They explain that a combination of low sea-ice extent, thin ice and high-level winds have pushed warm,  moist air into the Arctic and warmed it up.

But the Washington Post finally helps us out a lot more than the others do.

Abnormally warm air has flooded the Arctic since October. Richard James, a meteorologist who pens a blog on Alaska weather, analyzed 19 weather stations surrounding the Arctic Ocean and found that the average temperature was about 4 degrees (2 Celsius) above the record set in 1998.

Since November, temperatures have risen even higher. “It is amazing to see that the warmth has become even more pronounced since the end of October,” James wrote on his blog.

Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., agrees that something odd is going on. Not only are air temperatures unusually warm, but water temperatures are as well.  “There are some areas in the Arctic Ocean that are as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit above average now,” Serreze said. “It’s pretty crazy.”

What’s happening, he explains, is sort of a “double whammy.” On the one hand, there is a “very warm underlying ocean” due to the lack of sea ice forming above it. But, at the same time, kinks in the jet stream have allowed warm air to flow northward and frigid Arctic air to descend over Siberia.

Charlie claims the temperature has shown a regular pattern for the past 100,000 years but that’s bunkum. He finishes up perfectly breathless with anxiety:

But 22 degrees is different. This moment has long been theorised, and now it’s here. This is the awful moment where the feedback loops start feeding into each other in a big way.

Now he’s frightening himself with his own shadow.

There’s no need to panic over global warming. Sure, the weather events are distinctly odd and out of their normal range, but they have been given a normal explanation. Man-made climate change had nothing to do with it. The air has not warmed over the Arctic, warm air has invaded the Arctic. Air movements, wind, perfectly normal, no need to sell your SUV, no need for a carbon tax. No need to disappoint your children over Santa.

The mischief is in preferring an alarming interpretation over the scientific. Though there’s something funny about that, there’s no humour in it.

* I made up the ‘call me Charlie’ part. That’th the Firth thing. I’ve forgotten what the thecond thing ith.

Visits: 76

75 Thoughts on “Comedian does climate for the Herald – results laughable

  1. Magoo on 15/12/2016 at 9:51 pm said:

    Speaking of speath impedementh, and ath ith almoth Chrithmapth:

  2. Andy on 16/12/2016 at 10:34 am said:

    This map

    shows a rather large (+20 degree) anomaly over the Arctic. Norway and the UK look normal. There is a large -20 degree anomaly over Asia

    Doesn’t seem right to me

  3. Warrick on 18/12/2016 at 8:26 am said:

    We need daylight saving at the North Pole.

  4. Simon on 19/12/2016 at 4:05 pm said:

    Exactly. When an event of extremely low probability occurs, a rational person asks whether underlying conditions have changed.
    GCMs have been predicting for some time that ice melt could cause deviation of the jet stream into wavier patterns and lock weather systems into unusual extremes.
    The xkcd cartoon is scientifically accurate and shows how “unpresidented” recent warming has been.

  5. Magoo on 19/12/2016 at 5:02 pm said:

    Simon, you’re so, so easily led. Your cartoon shows warming from between 2000 & 2016 when there has been … wait for it … NONE (unless you want to pin your all your beliefs on an El Nino in 2014/15 that is). ‘Scientifically accurate’, pfft, what a joke – who do you think you’re fooling?

    Regarding the GCM’s, let’s just have a look and how their predictions (or is it projections) are working out when compared to the empirical temperature data (source: IPCC AR5, TS-14):

    Oops! Comedian indeed, another joke.

    Didn’t the models also predict BOTH poles warming (not just one), and an upper atmosphere that warms faster than the lower atmosphere as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour – a feedback that is supposed to provide at least 50% of the warming? Oops, more jokes.

    Looks like the US is in for a particularly nasty winter as well, just in time for Trump to dismantle the global warming nonsense once and for all:

    The climate change conjob’s in it’s final death throes, and the reason is a total lack of empirical evidence backing it up. Show’s over, go home.

  6. Simon on 19/12/2016 at 5:45 pm said:

    You crack me up Magoo. Take your head out of the troposphere and come and join us on the surface.

  7. Dennis N Horne on 19/12/2016 at 7:33 pm said:

    @Simon. Hilarious! Another “decider” has coined “unpresidented”.

    @Magoof. If your thermometer shows no warming there’s only one place it’s been … wouldn’t pass the sniff test.

  8. Dennis N Horne on 19/12/2016 at 8:11 pm said:
    Why It’s So Freakin’ Cold: Here’s the Science

    “bitter cold, more winter weather is on the way. So what’s behind this extreme chill?

    “Parts of the United States are expected to have historic lows this week, as temperatures in the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and central Appalachians may drop to the coldest they’ve been since the mid-1990s,

    “The freezing weather is part of a weather pattern that began last year, when the polar vortex, a system of cold air swirling around the Arctic, began pushing cold air into the United States

    “This cold weather can take hold, thanks to flows in the middle and upper levels of the atmosphere that travel from northwest to southeast.

    “They form at different times of the year, and they tend to go farther south during the winter,

    “Similar weather conditions that support the polar vortex are pushing cold air toward New England. This winter they’ve been sweeping across or south of the Great Lakes, been coming off the East Coast and then strengthening as ocean storms,

    “It’s unclear whether climate change is a factor behind the freezing weather, as it’s difficult to link any individual weather event to climate change,

    ” researchers look at the conglomeration of many of those events over time to calculate climate change, id.

    ” average global temperatures were above average for the month of January, and they’ve been consistently above normal for the past eight to 10 years

    “In the future, climate change may lead to more extreme weather conditions, such as this frigid winter,

    “More extreme events do show up in some of the modeling studies under the warming planet scenario,”

    Climate change 2015. Man-made. CO2.

  9. Magoo on 19/12/2016 at 8:51 pm said:

    Simon, Simon, Simon,

    I have joined you on the surface, the IPCC graph I linked to showing the models failing against the empirical data uses the surface datasets:

    ‘with four observational estimates (Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4), European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) interim re-analysis of the global atmosphere and surface conditions (ERA-Interim), Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)) for the period 1986–2012 (black lines)’

    source: page 87,

    You and Dennis just can’t help putting your feet in your mouths every time you open them can you. Perhaps you both disagree with HadCRUT4, ECMWF, GISTEMP, NOAA, and the IPCC because you think they’re in the pay of big oil? Hilarious. 😂

  10. Dennis N Horne on 19/12/2016 at 9:28 pm said:

    Magoon the loon

    As Seas Rise, Miami Development Continues Unabated

  11. Brett Keane on 19/12/2016 at 9:30 pm said:

    At last count, some 20 million square miles of Earth are frigid. Including the Arctic, which idiots who miscall it (well, lie, actually) ‘warm’ are cordially encouraged to go to and bask in, please.
    Ultimately the Quiet Sun is responsible, not any gas, and the last of the Nino warmth is now trying to heat outer space, to scant effect. It is cyclical, and should pass well before the next glaciation of this current Pleistocene Ice Age.

  12. Andy on 19/12/2016 at 10:01 pm said:

    Recent email correspondence with MfE confirms zero acceleration in sea level rise in NZ
    Today’s Press has a front page story about a multi million dollar salt water pool development at Brighton

    Yet we, the ratepayers, face serious building restrictions due to imminent sea level rise

  13. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 8:22 am said:

    “About sea level rise
    From 1880 to 2012, global average temperatures warmed by 0.85ºC, as reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report [IPCC website].

    “The ocean is absorbing 90 per cent of the heat added to the climate system. This warming is causing an expansion of ocean water which, in combination with water from the melting of land-based ice, is causing sea levels to rise.

    “The global average sea level rose about 17 cm last century, at an average rate of 1.7 mm per year. From 1993 to 2010 the global average sea level rose at an average rate of about 3.2 mm per year.

    “Due to the influence of regional climate trends and gravitational effects, sea level does not rise uniformly around the globe. Sea levels in New Zealand rose by 17 centimetres last century and on average by 1.7 mm per year over the last 40 years.”

    West Antarctica Ice Sheet is breaking up. How quickly? How much sea level rise?

    Several metres this century.

    More GHGs means more heat retained. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

    Truth makes you uncomfortable? Deny! Deny! Deny!

  14. Alexander K on 20/12/2016 at 8:39 am said:

    I was about to write something cutting about the comments made by Simon and Dennis, then I realised I was getting into the no-win game of arguing with faith-based arguments.

  15. Simon on 20/12/2016 at 9:14 am said:

    If you add post 2013 temperature measures to those dated IPCC charts,( you will find that we are right in the middle of ensemble projections. There is some debate as to whether CMIP5 models are running a bit hot (to date) but CMIP3 projections are bang on given known ENSO outcomes.

    Your claim that there has been no increase in surface temperatures since 2000 is comedy gold.

  16. Andy on 20/12/2016 at 9:43 am said:

    I guess “recent email correspondence with MfE” doesn’t get through the propaganda filter

  17. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 10:11 am said:

    @Alexander K.
    Yep. Faith in the global community of scientists including to all intents and purposes every climate scientist and scientific institution and society on planet Earth.

    And faith in my own judgement.

    I was wrong once. Thanks to a lifetime studying people and a sound knowledge of basic science, weekends with Bob Carter soon brought me to my senses.

    I didn’t know anything about climate science but I knew a lot about bollocks and madness.

  18. Magoo on 20/12/2016 at 10:43 am said:

    Poor old Simon,

    Post 2013 temperatures?

    You do know what an El Nino is don’t you Simon? Did you know it’s a temporary natural weather anomaly that has now finished, and the temperature has dropped accordingly again, right? You also do realise a temporary weather anomaly isn’t evidence of an anthropogenic warming trend, don’t you?

    In your case it should be El Ninny, not El Nino, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Do you really think you can pull the ‘models are correct because of a single El Nino’ conjob here at CCG? BAHAHAHAHA!!! Even you can’t be that dumb Simon, can you? Can you???! Does that mean a La Nina proves the models wrong when the temperature temporarily drops as well? ROFLMAO! If you honestly believe that you’re exhibiting just how thick you really are.

    The writing’s on the wall for AGW, game over, it’s about to be tossed in the dustbin.

    BTW: your link is to the IPCC graph I put up showing how badly the models have failed against the land based records. Imagine how badly they’d fail if the temperature record on the graph was the much more accurate satellite records instead of the inferior land based records.

  19. Andy on 20/12/2016 at 10:50 am said:

    It doesn’t come as a surprise that Dennis has extensive experience in “bollocks and madness”

  20. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 11:02 am said:
    Stunning film exposes climate sceptics #MerchantsOfDoubt

    Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner and inspired by the 2010 book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.

  21. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 11:10 am said:

    @Magot. How’s your “friend” (are you very close) Chris de Freitas doing at the university? You know, one of those places that sack incorrigible science deniers.

    I wish.

  22. Andy on 20/12/2016 at 11:11 am said:

    Of course Dennis wishes “science deniers” be sacked.

    You disgusting, odious creep

  23. Magoo on 20/12/2016 at 11:31 am said:

    Poor old Dennis,

    Just because the empirical evidence falsifies your beliefs and you can’t justify your argument as a result, doesn’t mean you should go around sacking those who use the empirical evidence to justify their arguments. That would make you a denier of the overwhelming evidence dear boy, and we can’t have that can we.

    Regarding De Freitas, I only wrote to him once and he just told me to read the science in Working Group I of the IPCC reports, nothing else. Was he wrong to recommend the empirical evidence in the IPCC reports dear boy? No? Why don’t you accept it? 😉

  24. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 11:54 am said:


    The IPCC is a review of the literature. Not a bible.

    Not that you understand it; you just “pick and mix”.

    Earth is warming due to more GHGs. CO2 has increased 40% since the industrial revolution. Global mean temperature is up >1C

    Arctic sea ice is vanishing. WAIS is disintegrating. East Antarctica is also threatened.

    Denying the facts won’t change them.

  25. Magoo on 20/12/2016 at 1:48 pm said:


    You forgot one other point, all the computer models attributing global warming to CO2 have failed when compared to the empirical temperature measurements, which means dear boy, that regardless of whether all those things you say are happening, the role of CO2 as the source of warming is not as strong as anticipated, otherwise the models would be correct, i.e. catastrophic AGW theory is falsified.

    It’s not just the IPCC I’m quoting dear boy, it’s also HadCRUT4, ECMWF, GISTEMP, NOAA. Feel free to criticise them all if you feel they’re incorrect – maybe it’s a conspiracy theory and they’re all taking orders from Elvis and Bigfoot on the mothership in Area 51 because they really work for ‘big oil’. Hilarious. 😂

    Never mind, the whole conjob’s about to come crashing down, you’ll be put out of your doomsday misery soon. You could try farting in a jar if you feel it might make a difference.

  26. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 4:21 pm said:

    To any witless bullshitting imbecile reading this: ALL data sets show warming.

    More CO2 means more warming and ice lost.

    Psychopathic oil billionaires fund the useful idiots who brainwash the feeble-minded.

  27. Andy on 20/12/2016 at 4:33 pm said:

    Warming exists, therefore warming is catastrophic.

    97% of comedians agree.

  28. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 7:50 pm said:
  29. Andy on 20/12/2016 at 8:10 pm said:

    As I said before Dennis, you random links are worthless to me, as is your entire life

  30. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 8:35 pm said:

    More comedy
    Vladimir Putin And Donald Trump Cold Open SNL Dec 17 2016

  31. Andy on 20/12/2016 at 9:01 pm said:

    Hi Dennis

    You are as welcome here as a Pakistani driving a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin

    Have a nice day

  32. Dennis N Horne on 20/12/2016 at 10:08 pm said:




    The global community of scientists have explained global warming.

    It’s happening.


    And governments are committed to addressing the problem.

    Suck it up!

  33. Magoo on 20/12/2016 at 11:32 pm said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    You’re hilarious when you’re in full denial mode, all those hysterical exclamation marks and personal attacks are no substitute for a lack of empirical evidence dear boy, you should know that. Try ALL CAPS & some foot stomping next time as well, see if that changes the empirical evidence – your usual rantings, frothing, swearing, name calling, & abuse certainly haven’t, but it’s very amusing watching you wind yourself up into a cognitive dissonance tantrum nonetheless dear boy. Have a cup of tea & a lie down, read a couple of your comic books, get your mum to bring you a Christmas mince pie or two … relax, you’ll give yourself an embolism if you’re not careful.

    Good Lord, I just realised it’s Christmas & there’s no snow – GLOBAL WARMING, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! ROFLMAO!!

  34. Magoo on 20/12/2016 at 11:43 pm said:

    Sorry Dennis dear boy, I forgot to mention – Merry Christmas!! I hope Santa gets you everything on your list, and don’t forget to be good, you don’t want to blow it & get on the naughty list at the last moment – Santa’s birdies are watching all the time. 😉

  35. Dennis N Horne on 21/12/2016 at 12:17 am said:

    Magoof. Sorry I can’t answer your comments specifically. I don’t read them.

    What universe are you in?

    Clearly one beyond the reach of the RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS …

    Either that or you just another half-baked fool suffering from delusions of competence.

    Never mind. You’re harmless.

  36. Andy on 21/12/2016 at 8:49 am said:

    “Sorry I can’t answer your comments specifically. I don’t read them.”

    We don’t read your comments either Dennis, because they are worthless spam

  37. Simon on 21/12/2016 at 9:24 am said:

    Magoo: Claiming that satellite records are more “accurate” is untrue. They are irradiance proxies of the troposphere which need to to be calibrated with actual surface temperatures. There has been significant issues with satellite drift, which requires further calibration with balloon radiosondes. There are some good interviews with Carl Mears from RSS about the challenges. UAH changes dramatically with each new release as they are really struggling with the drift problem.

    It is interesting that during La Nina and negative PDO periods, climate septics such as yourself make no mention of their effect on temperature, but then try and blame all of the observed past warming on El Nino when they occur. It is the trend that is important.

  38. Magoo on 21/12/2016 at 10:25 am said:

    Simon: Really, then why do the satellite datasets have the lowest +/- error margins in the IPCC AR5 if they’re not the most accurate? UAH is the most accurate of all as well, especially their new version 6 which was accepted for publication not so long ago. The more accurate V6 shows even less warming:

    Regarding Meers, you obviously haven’t read Drs. Spencer and Christy’s reply:

    The surface temperature record doesn’t even cover half the Earth – the rest is ‘made up’ (Phil Jones), it’s the least accurate method.

    Simon, you really don’t understand what an El Nino really is, do you? Let me explain:

    1/ If the sea purges some of it’s heat to the atmosphere from the ocean then the ocean has cooled as a result, correct?

    2/ As the atmospheric temperature falls again after the El Nino (as in the present case) it proves the heat released from the ocean is not retained in the atmosphere, correct?

    3/ As heat rises then the vast majority of the heat released from the ocean to the atmosphere is released to space, correct? If not, where has it gone?

    As the heat that is released from the ocean is no longer in the atmosphere OR the ocean but in space, an El Nino is a COOLING event, not a warming one – it cools the Earth. Think of the thermostat in your car’s cooling system – the thermostat (El Nino) opens and releases the heat from the engine (ocean) into the radiator (atmosphere) where it is radiated into the air (space).

    The temperature only stayed at a slightly elevated level after an El Nino in 1997/98, and it’s been stable ever since, regardless of all the subsequent El Ninos.

  39. Simon on 21/12/2016 at 1:26 pm said:

    By your definition, La Nina is a warming event. You can’t ignore one side of ENSO, it’s the trend that is important.
    Let’s look at UAH6 shall we? Look, a warming trend, just like all of the series:
    The world really is warming, because of increased concentration of greenhouse gases.
    A myopic Mr Magoo world view can not change that.

  40. Magoo on 21/12/2016 at 2:14 pm said:


    ‘By your definition, La Nina is a warming event.’

    Explain how a La Nina is a warming event Simon, I don’t believe it is. An El Nino purges heat out of the ocean to space via the atmosphere, a La Nina doesn’t introduce heat from space to the ocean or atmosphere, does it? The sun does that. You’ve put your foot in your mouth again Simon, you really need to think a little harder before commenting.

    ‘The world really is warming, because of increased concentration of greenhouse gases.’

    Really? Well if that’s the case then why have all the computer models that predict (sorry, ‘project’) temperature rises as a result of greenhouse gases failed against all the empirical temperature data, both surface and satellite? Hmmm? Why is there a ‘hiatus’ (IPCC) when CO2 levels have risen at their fastest rates ever over the last 20 yrs?

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman

  41. Magoo on 21/12/2016 at 2:35 pm said:


    Sorry I forgot to answer your UAH statement. Yes, let’s have a look at the UAHv.6 shall we, from Dr Spencer’s page:

    Doesn’t look like too much warming from approximately 1996 to me. In fact all the warming in the trend is during the 17 yr period from 1979 to 1996. The ‘hiatus’ (IPCC) period of 1996 to 2015 is 19 yrs (longer than the warming period), and now the temporary temperature spike due to the El Nino has dropped it’s more than likely that the ‘hiatus’ (IPCC) will continue again fairly soon.

  42. Maggy Wassilieff on 22/12/2016 at 8:29 am said:

    Fiddle-fudging (aka homogenisation) of temperature data…..the saga continues

  43. Dennis N Horne on 22/12/2016 at 9:05 am said:


    Don’t you realise it can’t be warmer now because an apparent statistical hiccup says. Never mind that it is.

    A bit like: “She can’t be pregnant we only did it once!”

    Forget thermometers. Forget physics. Forget reality. THE MODELS ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY PERFECT!

    Merry Christmas, Simon. Don’t say long in the nut house. You can’t help these people.

  44. Simon on 22/12/2016 at 11:49 am said:

    Merry Xmas Dennis.
    Thanks for confirming to me that temperatures are rising at an almost geologically “unpresidented” rate of over 0.1C/decade Magoo.
    Thanks for the laugh Maggy, it is fair to say that someone who left the BoM in 1975 will be out of touch. I know quite a few people who have worked at AAD and they have seen the consequences of rapid climate change in their work.

  45. Richard Treadgold on 22/12/2016 at 12:50 pm said:


    Thanks for confirming to me that temperatures are rising at an almost geologically “unpresidented” rate of over 0.1C/decade Magoo.

    I don’t see what you mean, so please clarify how Magoo confirmed that. But that warming rate is the same as declared by NIWA over New Zealand for about the last 100 years (though I disagree). I notice you don’t claim any acceleration, so it’s not exactly a problem. Or, have you or I missed something out?

  46. Simon on 22/12/2016 at 2:39 pm said:

    0.1°C/decade is not a problem? Are you serious? You might want to research the Eemian period.

  47. Magoo on 22/12/2016 at 3:49 pm said:


    How is 0.1°C/decade any different to the same rate of temperature rise recorded between approximately 1910-1950, the temperature rise that is supposed to be natural & unrelated to anthropogenic greenhouse gases?

    Unprecedented? LOL!! Here’s a hint for you Simon – if you have to lie, exaggerate, or be disingenuous in your argument then your argument is weak or untenable.

    BTW, 0.1°C/decade confirms the failure of the climate models as the recorded temperatures drop out the bottom of all the model projections at that rate. As all the disaster scenarios are derived from the falsified model projections 0.1°C/decade isn’t a problem, and if the ‘hiatus’ (IPCC) resumes now the El Nino has ended, & it looks like it will, then you can expect the 0.1°C/decade to drop further.

    Merry Christmas. 🙂

  48. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 9:02 am said:

    The evidence that temperatures today are unprecedented lies in the Holy Hockey Stick of the Prophet Mann (peace be with him)

  49. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 9:44 am said:

    The Hockey Stick Collapses: 50 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable –

    See more at:

  50. Magoo on 23/12/2016 at 10:25 am said:

    Speaking of the great prophet Mann (peace be with him), his lawsuit against National Review has been thrown out:

  51. Simon on 23/12/2016 at 10:36 am said:

    Andy: If there are places in the world that are warming less than average, then obviously there are places in the world warming more than average. RichardC used to struggle with the concept of mean, but I thought you were cleverer than that. Cherry-picking subsets disproves nothing.
    The Mann “hockey stick” has been verified at least a dozen times using differing datasets. Deny all you want, facts are facts.

  52. Richard Treadgold on 23/12/2016 at 11:11 am said:


    The Mann “hockey stick” has been verified at least a dozen times using differing datasets. Deny all you want, facts are facts.

    You give a perfect example of the denial of which you accuse Andy. Andy announces 50 new papers that support a contrary view and you fail to examine them, much less explain or even discuss them. These, too, are facts and you, too, are denying them.

  53. Magoo on 23/12/2016 at 11:16 am said:

    The IPCC has ignored the hockey stick in the AR5 report, and reintroduced the medieval warm period:

    Source: page 409,

    The hockey stick – heh, so cute. Maybe the IPCC are deniers as well. ROFLMAO!

  54. Dennis N Horne on 23/12/2016 at 11:23 am said:
    Just the facts, homogenization adjustments reduce global warming

    Climatologists make adjustments to climate data to remove non-climatic changes (homogenization). This fact is used to accuse them of fiddling with temperature data to create or exaggerate global warming. This is often done by showing for a small piece of the data and suggesting it is typical. Often mentioned is the USA, where the raw data only show half the warming of the adjusted data. However, the USA is big, but still only 2% of the Earth’s surface.

    In recent weeks we had a similar case in The Telegraph about Paraguay. Last year we had similar misleading stories about two stations in Australia and the stations in New Zealand.

    Global temperature collections contain thousands of stations. CRUTEM contains 4,842 quality stations and Berkeley Earth collected 39,000 unique stations. No wonder some are strongly adjusted up, just as some happen to be strongly adjusted down. In fact it would be easy to present a station where the raw data shows a cooling trend of several degrees being adjusted to a warming trend. However, then the reader might start to think if the raw data is really better.

    The information on small regions or a few stations is normally not put into perspective: the average trend over all stations is only adjusted upwards slightly.

    It is normally not explained why these adjustments are made nor how these adjustments are made.

    Zeke Hausfather, an independent researcher that is working with Berkeley Earth, made a beautiful series of plots to show the size of the adjustments.

    The first plot is for the land surface temperature from climate stations. The data is from the Global Historical Climate Dataset (GHCNv3) of NOAA (USA). Their method to remove non-climatic effects (homogenization) is well validated and recommended by the homogenization community.

    They adjust the trend upwards. In the raw data the trend is 0.6°C per century since 1880 while after removal of non-climatic effects it becomes 0.8°C per century. See the graph below. But it is far from changing a cooling trend into strong warming. (A small part of the GHCNv3 raw data was already homogenized before they received it, but this will not change the story much.)


    Victor Venema said…
    Anonymous, you may be interested in the PhD thesis of Linden Ashcroft. She also worked on the temperature record of Australia before 1910.

    The reasons why BOM did not publish homogenized data before 1910 is well explained in their publications. Strange you do not know this if you are serious about your reconstruction. Before this time the measurements in Australia were of very bad quality, measurement were made inside of telegraph offices or on their veranda. There are reports of thermometers inside near heat sources and of screens that are hardly painted leading to radiation errors.

    Thus there is expected to be a very large warm bias in the earlier measurements. An error that is hard to remove by statistical homogenization because the network is very sparse and you need well correlated measurements from neighbouring stations to remove non-climatic changes well.
    Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 02:50:00 GMT


    No hope for those who prefer wvw.wotcrawledout.con and wvw.knownothing.con to Kevin Cowtan, Zeke Hausfather and Nick Stokes.

  55. Magoo on 23/12/2016 at 11:31 am said:

    Hmm, no mention of recording ‘record temperatures’ in places that don’t even have thermometers, or of the temperatures that Phil Jones admits are just ‘mostly made up’? That’s strange, I wonder why that was omitted:

  56. Dennis N Horne on 23/12/2016 at 11:38 am said:

    Extracted from:
    Scott Adams: The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science

    Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote today about how difficult it is for a non-expert to judge science and especially climate science. He argues that it is normally a good idea for a non-expert to follow the majority of scientists. I agree. Even as a scientist I do this for topics where I am not an expert and do not have the time to go into detail. You cannot live without placing trust and you should place your trust wisely.

    While it is clear to Scott Adams that a majority of scientists agree on the basics of climate change, he worries that they still could all be wrong. He lists the below six signals that this could be the case and sees them in climate science. If you get your framing from the mitigation sceptical movement and only read the replies to their nonsense you may easily get his impression.

    The terms Global Warming and Climate Change are both used for decades
    Scott Adams assertion: It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:
    1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

    This is a meme spread by the mitigation sceptics that is not based on reality. From the beginning both terms were used. One hint is name of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global group of scientists who synthesise the state of climate research and was created in 1988.

    Climate models are not essential for basic understanding
    Scott Adams assertion: 2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

    Yes, climate models are complicated. They synthesise a large part of our understanding of the climate system and thus play a large role in the synthesis of the IPCC. They are also the weakest part of climate science and thus a focus of the propaganda of the mitigation sceptical movement.

    However, when it comes to the basics, climate model are not important. We know about the greenhouse effect for well over a century, long before we had any numerical climate models. That increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere leads to warming is clear, that this warming is amplified because warm air can contain more water, which is also a greenhouse gas, is also clear without any complicated climate model. This is very simple physics already used by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century.

    Model tuning not important for basic understanding
    Scott Adams assertion: 3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

    Yes, models are tuned. Mostly not for the climatic changes, but to get the state of the atmosphere right, the global maps of clouds and precipitation, for example. In the light of my answer to point 2, this is not important for the question whether climate change is real.

    The consensus is a result of the evidence
    Scott Adams assertion: 4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.

    It is clearly not career suicide for a cartoonist. If you claim that you only accept the evidence because of social pressure, you are saying you do not really accept the evidence.

    Scott Adams sounds as if he would like scientists to first freely pick a position and then only to look for evidence. In science it should go the other way around.

    This seems to be the main argument and shows that Scott Adams knows more about office workers than about the scientific community. If science was your career and you would peddle the typical nonsense that comes from the mitigation sceptical movement that would indeed be bad for your career. In science you have to back up your claims with evidence. Cherry picking and making rookie errors to get the result you would like to get are not helpful.

    Scientists consider and weigh all the evidence
    Scott Adams assertion: 5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

    No, a scientist cannot produce any result they “want” and an average scientist would want to do good science and not get a certain result. The scientific mainstream is based on all the evidence we have. The mitigation sceptical movement behaves in the way Scott Adams expects and likes to cherry pick and mistreat data to get the results they want.

    Arguments from the other side only look credible
    Scott Adams assertion: 6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

    I do not know which arguments Adams is talking about, but the typical nonsense on WUWT, Breitbart, Daily Mail & Co. is made to look credible on the surface. But put on your thinking cap and it crumbles. At least check the sources. That reveals most of the problems very quickly.

    For a scientist it is generally clear which arguments are valid, but it is indeed a real problem that to the public even the most utter nonsense may look “disturbingly credible”. To help the public assess the credibility of claims and sources several groups are active.

    Most of the zombie myths are debunked on RealClimate or Skeptical Science. If it is a recent WUWT post and you do not mind some snark you can often find a rebuttal the next day on HotWhopper. Media articles are regularly reviewed by Climate Feedback, a group of climate scientists, including me. They can only review a small portion of the articles, but it should be enough to determine which of the “sides” is “credible”. If you claim you are sceptical, do use these resources and look at all sides of the argument and put in a little work to go in depth. If you do not do your due diligence to decide where to place your trust, you will get conned.

  57. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 11:56 am said:

    How is citing a blog post (on which I offered no opinion) that lists 50 papers “denial”?

  58. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 11:59 am said:

    I understand what Scott Adams is on about.
    By the way, he predicted a Trump landslide over a year ago, unlike any of the MSM

  59. Magoo on 23/12/2016 at 12:06 pm said:

    The ‘consensus’ – hehe, that’s cute too. Let’s have a look at what the scientific community really thinks in the following article co-written by an actual famous, award winning climate scientist, as opposed to a cartoonist:

    Hey, if the empirical evidence disagrees with your falsified alarmist faith, why not try to justify it with some other irrelevant concept. Maybe ‘make up’ some data (Phil Jones) as well.

    There’s certainly a lot of Christmas cheer going around at CCG, I’m laughing my ass off. ‘Consensus’ and the ‘hockey stick’. ROFLMAO!!

  60. Simon on 23/12/2016 at 12:07 pm said:

    Richard: All of those papers are regional in outlook. The author has cherry-picked only those where warming is marginal and ignored the rest.

    The climate denial bloggers as usual have got it all arse about face, the Appeals Court Decision affirms Mann’s right to proceed with a defamation suit against the CEI and National Review. You should stop believing the stuff you read on those blogs Andy, you are smarter than that.

  61. Dennis N Horne on 23/12/2016 at 12:17 pm said:

    The global community of scientists as represented by the RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS … present our best view of reality.

    If you think man-made global warming is not real, but a vast conspiracy of scientists in ALL the great centres of learning and research, then you are not a genius. You’re not a sceptic. You’re just a common or garden variety denier of reality.

    Anyway, it’s a grand experiment.

  62. Magoo on 23/12/2016 at 12:20 pm said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    Whoever said that man made global warming is not real? Hmm?

    Do you know what a strawman argument is and why you would need to resort to it? Hmm?

    Merry Christmas dear boy. 🙂

  63. Dennis N Horne on 23/12/2016 at 12:22 pm said:

    Magoon Magoof

    Roy Spencer! Wall Street Journal!

    Sorry, Chris, can’t help you.

    Spencer’s been debunked more often than a sailor’s squeeze. He’s a religious nutter.

  64. Dennis N Horne on 23/12/2016 at 12:25 pm said:

    Magoon Magoof

    Don’t you read the comments on the denier liar websites you link?

    Deny. Deny. Deny.

    Global warming. Greenhouse effect. CO2.

    If you don’t read it, why do you subject us to it? *ucking rubbish. Chris.

  65. Magoo on 23/12/2016 at 12:41 pm said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    Ah yes, the ad hominem in lieu of empirical evidence, another alarmist tactic like the strawman. Dr. Spencer’s temperature dataset is the most accurate of all datasets according to the IPCC AR5.

    ‘Global warming. Greenhouse effect. CO2.’ – Everyone agrees with that dear boy, it’s just that CO2’s effect is proven to be less than anticipated by the empirical evidence. No need to spit the dummy and have a tanty over it dear boy. 😉

    BTW dear boy, I though you said you don’t read my comments, and who is this ‘Chris’ you’re going on about?

    Merry Christmas dear boy. 🙂

  66. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 12:42 pm said:

    I see, regional climate is not unusual, only global climate

    Similar things also apply to sea level.

    Regional sea levels are doing nothing unusual, but when we look at (drum roll please..), the bigger picture,…. then the true horror dawns upon us

  67. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 12:44 pm said:

    I assume that Dennis is a “religious nutter”, since he is taking to wishing random people “happy Christmas”

  68. Magoo on 23/12/2016 at 1:12 pm said:

    Here’s Dr Spencer testifying to Congress that he and John Christy are part of the 97% consensus. In fact he says ALL sceptics are part of the 97% consensus.

    BTW, weren’t Galileo and probably Isaac Newton also ‘religious nutters’? J.S. Bach must’ve been a ‘religious nutter’ as well, he dedicated everything he ever wrote to God. These ‘religious nutters’ really have no idea what they’re doing.

  69. Dennis N Horne on 23/12/2016 at 2:29 pm said:

    Magoof Magoon

    Spencer and Christy part of the 97% consensus? Tripe! They don’t accept the consensus.

    Newton was religious. So? He was also an alchemist. And hanged people for filing gold of coins.

    Science moves forward, deniers stay rooted.

  70. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 2:42 pm said:

    Didn’t John Cook’s paper on The Consensus include some “deniers” amongst the list of people that accepted the consensus?

    I don’t think anyone denies this, including deniers that don’t deny the consensus they are not denying

  71. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 4:49 pm said:

    Dennis is a religious nutter. He is part of the cult known as The Warmist Creed

  72. Dennis N Horne on 23/12/2016 at 5:31 pm said:

    All climate scientists publishing in notable journals, and the vast majority of the scientists of the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … and every other great scientific institution and scientific society on the planet …

    … are all (religious) nutters … according to … Andy Scrase.

    Try that one on a panel of psychiatrists.

    Worldwide, profound, longstanding scientific consensus based on the evidence judged by experts …
    Reality. Reality. Reality.

  73. Andy on 23/12/2016 at 5:35 pm said:

    Nope, I never said that the scientists are religious nutters

  74. Magoo on 28/12/2016 at 10:27 am said:

    A flood of new peer-reviewed papers skeptical of the ‘consensus’ position in 2016. 2017 looks to be a tsunami of disaster for the alarmist crowd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation