Probably not the "hottest year"

arctic-ocean-noaaBy Dennis T. Avery

James Hansen of NASA, an ardent believer in man-made warming, announced recently that “The 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute analysis has reached a new record in 2010 . . . NASA, June 3, 2010. The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.” The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than the long-term mean.Should we be alarmed? Probably not very.

My esteemed colleague Art Horn, at the Energy Tribune blog, has blown the whistle on Hansen and GISS. He points out that GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic! It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers. That’s a pretty heroic assumption.

Read the rest at Exit Stage Right.

72 Responses to Probably not the "hottest year"

  1. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 11, 2010 at 5:44 am #

    Is there any scientific integrity left anywhere?

  2. Hal Groar August 12, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    Neil, I think integrity of science now costs you money. You can hire a University to advocate for anything. It is all a money game.

  3. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 13, 2010 at 11:08 pm #

    You know I asked that question out of disgust for these global warming hacks who just claim everything has to do with global warming, but I know there is integrity in science with people like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, and many, many others. But nobody is quoting them in the (so called) media. I just get sick of hearing it.

  4. paul wenum August 14, 2010 at 12:43 am #

    I’m disgusted as well as others. Maybe that’s why the integrity of our media is at it’s low point? Called distrust?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

      Rush Limbaugh says that there is no media, and there are no reporters. They are partisan political operatives. From what I have seen, I can’t disagree with ol’ el-Rushbo on that one. Just take the oil spill for example. All those reporters breathlessly reporting the doom and gloom of the oil spill, hoping and praying it was what they needed to put the nail in the coffin of big oil once and for all. And what is happening now in the gulf? NOTHING! There are fleets of boats cruising the gulf looking for oil, and they can’t find any! It’s all gone! The media people are all pushing an agenda, and it’s not to inform the people, it’s to influence them.

      • Rob N. Hood August 16, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

        So, ergo, Rushbo is also a political operative? Of course he is, and the biggest. So you are taking his ironically phrased opinion to heart, AND defending “big oil” all at the same time…?! That’s more than a double, that’s more like a home run there buddy!

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 17, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

          There is no irony. Rush Limbaugh has never claimed to be an impartial reporter of the news. And has never claimed to be nuetral on any issue. His show has always been about what he thinks, and his views on issues that are reported in the news. The people he is talking about are people who write, and report news on the Liberal networks, cable shows, and blogs that do not tell you what their political views are, and report stories that are no more than leftist propaganda and lies.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 17, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

            Oh, and you would know that if you were to ever listen to him. Something that I know for a fact you have never done, and are unlikely to ever do.

          • Rob N. Hood August 18, 2010 at 9:04 am #

            It’s not ironic to you because you cannot recognize irony apparently. The fact that if you believe Rush’s statement above that would then place him in the same category… get it now? ????

            Or is Rush SO brilliant that he is using some kind of double-secret irony that only his minions can recognize and defend and explain to us non-believing simletons? Yes, that MUST be it !

  5. Mr. Truth August 14, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    I’m disgusted that you people are all so ignorant about global warming. Well, ignorance is bliss, I suppose. That is, until the world comes to an end.

    • Dan McGrath August 19, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

      I have a theory that television transmissions are going to attract hostile space aliens. Nobody can prove to me that they won’t and if I’m right, it will mean the end of the world like that Al Gore documentary, “Independence Day.” Better safe than extinct. We must act now to ban television before giant spaceships start vaporizing our national monuments.

      Some of the greatest scientific minds of our time agree that this is a possibility. Steven Hawking warns against trying to contact extraterrestrial lifeforms, but TV transmissions never stop – they just keep travelling further and further into space, telegraphing our location to potentially hostile aliens who want to eat our babies, and kidnap our women! Stop the madness!

      • Rob N. Hood August 19, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

        Thanks for more right-wing shallow illogic. Yes, I know you were trying to be funny too. Now why don’t you compare apples and oranges. It would make as much sense, and be as funny.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

        I thought it was Republicans that ate babies. I stand corrected;-)

        • Dan August 19, 2010 at 9:37 pm #

          Republicans are hostile aliens. Naturally, no denizen of the Earth could develop such inhuman philosophies like life, liberty and rule of law as opposed to rule by men.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 21, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

            SHHHHH!!!! Gornak will not be pleased that you have revealed our true identities. You may feel the sting of his ovhdkoijcdloks!

        • Dan McGrath August 24, 2010 at 11:15 am #


    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

      You are disgusted? I have done hundreds of hours of research into the AGW theory. How much research have you done on it? What evidence do you have that supports the theory that CO2 is causing the world to warm? The only place such evidence exists is in highly speculative computer models used by the IPCC to support their claims that we are causing global warming.
      Mr. Truth is it? Sounds more like Mr. Sucker, if you ask me.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 8:57 pm #
      “Unfortunately it isn’t as clean and easy as E=mc2. The very complexity of climate science has been used to kick sand into the eyes of the public, blinding us to alternative theories whether they are correct or not. The science is so difficult to follow that no one can refute the IPCC without discussing concepts most of the public don’t have the time or desire to learn. So by default the IPCC has owned the conversation and the playing field. What’s more, they have some big allies in supporting positions.”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

      So where is the warming? You tell me there, Mister.

      [moderator: Please be respectful of your verbal adversaries.]

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 20, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

        How about Mr. Dupe?

        • Dan McGrath August 24, 2010 at 11:12 am #

          How about avoid personal remarks? Attack arguments, not personalities.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 25, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

            Well, I am only playing off of what he called himself “Mr. truth”

  6. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 15, 2010 at 10:16 pm #
    “Miskolczi does not appear to be saying that global warming or cooling doesn’t occur. Instead, he shows that CO2 does not and cannot increase the surface temperature of the Earth independently of incoming energy. In his paper he provides a graph spanning 61 years from 1948-2008. It shows that the greenhouse effect remains constant while CO2 concentrations have risen. Miskolczi has found physical proof that the greenhouse effect works differently than previously thought and it isn’t affected by changes in carbon dioxide.”

  7. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 17, 2010 at 9:18 pm #
    “The “long term trend” (30 years) in Arctic ice continues to be downwards, and would be even if the ice minimum was a record high this summer. But the three year trend shows strong growth of extent, thickness and age. Meanwhile, Antarctic ice is blowing away the record books. Yet the press continues to spread massive disinformation about the state of ice at both poles. Who could possibly be responsible for that?”

  8. paul wenum August 17, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    The media.

  9. Rob N. Hood August 18, 2010 at 8:47 am #

    WYODAK, Wyo. – Utilities across the country are building dozens of old-style coal plants that will cement the industry’s standing as the largest industrial source of climate-changing gases for years to come.

    An Associated Press examination of U.S. Department of Energy records and information provided by utilities and trade groups shows that more than 30 traditional coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction.

    The expansion, the industry’s largest in two decades, represents an acknowledgment that highly touted “clean coal” technology is still a long ways from becoming a reality and underscores a renewed confidence among utilities that proposals to regulate carbon emissions will fail. The Senate last month scrapped the leading bill to curb carbon emissions following opposition from Republicans and coal-state Democrats.

  10. Rob N. Hood August 18, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    I have listened to Rush, of course, how else would I know he is a self-serving racist fascist pig?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 18, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

      Listening to sound bites on Keith Olberman’s show, is not listening Rush. Reading about what someone from buzzflash thinks about something that Rush said, is not listening to Rush.
      If you have ever listened to Rush’s show, you would know that he is not a self-serving racist fascist pig. You think that about him because that is what you are being told to think about him by the hardcore leftists that you rely on for information.
      Have you ever listened to an entire three hour program? I bet you have not.

      • Rob N. Hood August 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

        I have nevr been able to listen to more than 10-15 of minutes ol’ Rushbo at one given time. But I have several occasions. I don’t recall hearing any truth or wisdom ever, nor would I expect it from him. What I heard was hate-filled lies. And his work and reputation preceeds him as it were, so I feel it unnecessary to subject myself to 2-3 hours of fascist rantings. Again your defense of the indefensible is scary. I stand by my opinion of good ol’ Rushbo. He certainly appeals to a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t simply a self-serving entertainer and a racist fascist pig.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

          So, you have listened to what, 30-45 minutes of Rush? Total? I rest my case.

          • Rob N. Hood August 25, 2010 at 8:11 am #

            The actual total would be a little higher than that. If you think a person needs more time than that well that’s your problem not mine. Besides I don’t like projectile vomitting, so I have to take Rush in small doses.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 26, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

            So it was what? 4-6 hours? I still rest my case.

  11. Hal Groar August 18, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    What is an “old style coal plant”? Who would call it that? Are they using coal to boil water to turn a turbine to generate power? What is the difference between an old style and a new style? My guess is the media outlet this was taken from is so far left it makes Barry look centrist. old style coal plant…gimme a break.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 18, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

      An old style coal fired plant is one that has analog controls. A new style one has digital controls. It’s quite simple really;-)

  12. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 10:43 am #
    “The earth’s southern hemisphere is now in the winter season, and it is proving to be a severe one. There have been many deaths of people, animals, fish, and crops. But you haven’t heard about that from the northern hemisphere media.”

  13. Rob N. Hood August 19, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    And so extreme weather doesn’t fall into the climte change category?? Or what is your point?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

      Well, yes it does fall into that category. But it’s not supposed to be getting colder, for cryin’ out loud. According to the original theory, it’s supposed to be getting warmer.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

        I think you have forgotten, Rob, that no one here is disputing that the climate changes. That it has changed, is changing, and will change again. No one.
        AGW. The A stands for ANTHROPOGENIC, which means caused by man. The G stands for GLOBAL, which means the whole planet and not just parts of it. And the W stands for WARMING, which does not mean filling the planet with pleasant emotions! It means a RISE in temperatures around the whole world, that’s caused by us!!!!! More specifically, global warming caused by our production of CO2 and other (ineptly named) greenhouse gases.
        AGW is a dying theory, and I will keep choking it until there is no life left in it. And you, appearntly, will not stop choking on it. You and Mr. Sucker.

        • Rob N. Hood August 24, 2010 at 10:13 am #

          Oh, right. I know you have a canned response to that. You can and do use it whenever cornered and have nothing else to say.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 25, 2010 at 6:06 am #

            It took you 5 days to come up with that one, is that the best you got? A canned response? Ok, sure, it’s called truth in a can. Packed in spring water!!!!
            It sounds to me like you are the one backed into a corner. What makes more sense? That A, AGW is causing the planet to warm, which is causing extreme cold weather events to occur? Or B, that AGW is a theory that is not being shown to be true because of the cold weather events that are occuring, right now, in the southern hemisphere?
            You seem to have forgotten that the theory says that the planet will become warmer, not colder. Oh, but wait…….. you have been successfuly duped into accepting the term “climate change”, to replace the term “global warming”. Which means you are open to think it means whatever they tell you it means.

  14. Hal Groar August 19, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Thanks for clearing up the coal plant crisis. I find it criminal that big coal would insist on building plants with remnants of the Apollo Program. I have read that digital controls are 8 to 10% more accurate at measuring coal! AND they cost less to make! Must be the analog control lobby smooching up to the energy department…or the analog control Union!

    Rob is weather and climate the same thing? Just so I know where you are coming from.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 19, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

      I am always at your service. Glad to help out!
      Honestly, I have no idea what the difference is. But I did learn that I mispelled analouge!

    • Rob N. Hood August 25, 2010 at 8:23 am #

      Significant climte CHANGE could be (would be) just as bad for humans (and many other species) as warming. It’s just another DUH moment broght to you by right-wing extremists. Good enough Sir Hal the Groar?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 25, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

        The climate is going to change whether we like it or not. Your argument is a red herring. The question is, has man’s production of CO2 caused the planet to warm? And we know what the answer to that question is. It’s a big fat NO!!!! I don’t understand how you do not get that. What we need to do is be prepared for a change in either direction on the thermometer, whenever it occurs. Duh.

  15. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 20, 2010 at 5:21 am #
    “In his post Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Anderson’s findings corroborate my own that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.

    Anderson continues, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.””

    “My investigations are increasingly proving that such data was flagged by non-NOAA agencies years ago, but NOAA declined to publish notice of the faults until the problem was publicized loudly and widely in my first ‘satellitegate’ article, US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced. Official explanations initially dismissed my findings. But then NOAA conceded my story was accurate in the face of the evidence.”

    “Dr. Anderson sums up saying; “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.””

  16. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 21, 2010 at 5:50 am #
    “The IPCC’s greatest scam is in its use and citing of climate models. The Assessment Reports show very clearly that knowledge of many climate factors is poor, which means that accurate models can’t be created, but later chapters of the report ignore those deficiencies and cite the predictions of models as if they were unchallengeable. Worse yet, these same models are used attribute blame for variation in climate under the risible notion that if observations agree with models that include a certain factor but disagree with the models if that factor is omitted, then it is evidence that the factor was the cause of climate variation. This line of reason, with the incomplete climate models, is not merely a rejection of commonsense but blatant dishonesty. What’s more, the rationale behind this attribution means that blame can only be attributed to climate forces that are accurately modelled, and the IPCC mentions just one force that it considers to be in that category – manmade emissions of carbon dioxide.”

  17. Eddie August 22, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Fantastic argument Neil, no one even slightly challenged you.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 25, 2010 at 6:16 am #

      Thanks Eddie, I appreciate that. But it is not my argument, it is a paper called We Have Been Conned, written by a guy named John McLean. I do happen to wholeheartedly agree with it, and I wish I could take credit for it, but let’s give credit where credit is due. But thanks anyway!

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 26, 2010 at 5:27 am #

        Full disclosure. Most of the articles I post come from a blog called GREENIE WATCH, and are posted there by a guy named John Ray, a retired Australian scientist. It’s always a good read, and I have found it to be an excellent source for information.

    • Rob N. Hood August 25, 2010 at 8:20 am #

      Really? His quote is a personal fantastic argument, and when I do it it is practically criminal? I get that even when I cite the source so don’t even go there. Hypocrites.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 25, 2010 at 7:37 pm #


  18. paul wenum August 24, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Nice read Neil.

  19. Rob N. Hood August 25, 2010 at 8:24 am #

    Yessss…. climate-change denier porn. Yuuuummmm

  20. Hal Groar August 25, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Ol’ Rob here is actually a denier himself, he just comes around to taunt the people here who are serious about stopping the lies going around. If he could just come in with a relevant point we may pay more attention to him. Being that he blathers on about totally irrelevant topics, he gets dismissed a lot.

  21. paul wenum August 25, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Hal, even though I dislike Rob’s beliefs, it is refreshing to know that in this beautiful country he can say what he wants as well as you and I. The day they take that freedom away is when I really get serious and I strongly mean get serious. You cannot put a price on the freedom of speech for which I assume you, I as well as others agree. That, my friend is what makes us free. By the way a relevant though to you and I is a vulgar thought to others. My grandfather taught me that 50 years ago. Discourse is good for the soul, right wrong or indifferent. Think about it. By the way, does every man agree with his wife? I know I don’t, nor does she. Take care my friend.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 26, 2010 at 5:19 am #

      Thanks Paul. That is why I have never said Rob should shut up. I have only said I wish he would.

  22. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 26, 2010 at 5:31 am #
    “China, India, Indonesia, Brazil Can’t Estimate Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Latest Figures are From 1994”

  23. Rob N. Hood August 26, 2010 at 7:11 am #

    First they went after the Blacks, then they went after the “Reds”, now they’re targeting the GREENS. Oooohhh, the scary Greenies are out to get you !!!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 26, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

      That’s because it sounds too much like meanies, and if you’ve ever seen Yellow Submarine, you would know that they’re the bad guys. Duh!

  24. paul wenum August 26, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    Sorry Robbie Boy but I’m “green” if that’s what you call it. I’m the only one on my Lake that does not fertilize my yard, don’t believe in it, and fertilizer leeches into the lake. I’m an outdoors guy and it’s a cabin not a MacMansion. I watch how much I spend on vital essentials like gas, utilities just like others. By the way, we are all “Green” to a degree. Depends on what you define as “Green.” If you box us all in I assume people are after me? Oh my God protect me! Get real, wake up and smell the coffee. Tastes darn good with a clear head on your shoulders and the daily paper in your hand looking at nature as it is and should continue to be. Life is short, enjoy it in a sound responsible way as all others should and this world would be a better place. Enough said by the Ole Scot.

  25. Rob N. Hood August 28, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    You are such a hypocrite. If you think you are “Green” then really come out of the closet, otherwise it’s just more of your hot air. Pardon the pun.

  26. paul wenum August 29, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    You have no idea what a conservator of the land means and never will. If God came down tomorrow you would be the first one to complain about how he dressed. You, as others of your ilk will never change.

  27. Hal Groar August 30, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    Paul I hope you didn’t misunderstand my last comment. I was not at all stating that Rob should not say his peace. I am all for that. Hell, I may learn something from the guy. I just wish he could stay on topic. I may be the first to say this, I think Rob is a smart guy. I have high hopes for him. He has said in older posts that he does not agree with the AGW theory, so there is hope for him. But wow is he a lefty! Am I saying I dismiss the left? Yea, I guess I do. I do not see anything worthwhile in their cause. I disagree with him on so many topics, none of which belong here, that I get frustrated when he drags them out. I would like to go to a blog he visits on a daily basis and argue a few right leaning positions! What ever the topic! At least I would stay ON TOPIC! Don’t take my dismissive attitude toward him as if he has no right to speak. Take it as a “he has so much potential, yet he is stuck in his child-like ways” way. By the way, I also am at the lake place, I also do not use fertilizer, (no need) and nature is at its best in the morning with a paper and coffee. Too bad I am on vacation and not living the dream. I’ve got about 20 years before I retire, am I chalking the days? You tell me…

  28. Rob N. Hood August 31, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    Hal maybe you should do what you said- go on some left blogs, and see where the real intelligent people hang out. But beware, they are not all as polite and patient with you wing-nuts as I usually am. We perceive you all as child-like, or insane, or just plain dumb. I am just giving fair warning. You all do not have all the answers like you think you do. No one has all the answers. But to perceive “reality” as extremely and incorrectly as you do here (not talking about AGW, but that COULD be another example) you are by defintion extremists. Yes I am very liberal, but at least I am grounded in reality. My perceptions of reality can be defended logically and rationally. Yours… an the others on this site,… not so much. That’s the difference.

  29. paul wenum August 31, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    All I can say to you “Robbie Boy” is that you are darn lucky you live in America. With the hate you spew and degrading people that post on this site, the question is as you state above, why don’t you stay on the blogs where “the real intelligent people hang out.”? Do they have a problem with your posts as well?? It seems by your posts that they apparently do. You, in my opinion, have a problem with interacting with people other than using your fingers to attempt to make a point. You must have had a sheltered life? Hugh Chavez would have you for lunch but not as a guest!

  30. paul wenum August 31, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    Hal, don’t take it personal. We all can say what we wish with constraints. As to “lonesome” Robbie Boy,? yes we do not agree with his inane statements, rants, chastising, hiding behind a name, but you agree with me, that is his right in America. He can state his warped thinking anytime he wishes. Nice to see that you cherish the outdoors as I. Take care.

  31. Rob N. Hood September 1, 2010 at 7:41 am #

    So you cut me down for giving Hal a piece of honest advice? Typical.

  32. paul wenum September 1, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Yes, honest advice. You are correct. Nobody cut you down. Factual statement based upon your posts degrading others. Very simple actually. Typical Alinsky response by you by the way.

  33. Hal Groar September 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    I am an extremist? Hmm…if you question a ridiculas position you become an extremist. That simply does not fly with me. I thought your Sheena Hillary claimed it was patriotic to question the administration? Only when it’s convienant I guess…your slip is showing.

  34. paul wenum September 3, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    Hal, You are right on one statement you just made. Left wing”Progressives” liberals only question/respond “only when convenient” to fit their agenda. It has never changed. Chicago style with Alinski verbiage.

  35. Rob N. Hood September 4, 2010 at 9:26 am #

    When it walks like a duck and talks like a duck… yes you are all extremists, by defintion of that word. Maybe I am too, not so sure about that though. You are under the delusion that you are reasonable and coherant and in the majority. I think not.

    Paul- you are the greatest user of Alinsky style rhetoric around. Once a hypocrite always I guess.

  36. paul wenum September 6, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    You must be right “all knowing one.” I’m a quick learner. As said previously, always know your opponent before you do battle and never go into battle without being well armed, verbally or otherwise. Been there done that. Thanks for the compliment.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.