When Will The Cult Of Climastrology Admit They’re Wrong?

That’s what Patrick J. Michaels wants to know, though he aims his barbs at “climate scientists”

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?

Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.

The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.

The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

It certainly does. But, with all due respect to Dr. Michaels (who has degrees that make him an expert, per Warmist talking points about “listening to Experts”), they will never listen, because this is about politics (and funding, of course. Plus prestige), not science. No matter what science, data, and facts you show to members of the Cult of Climastrology, they will always have an excuse. They will always blame “carbon pollution”. They cannot conceive of any other mechanism that could be causing the warming during the Modern Warm Period. They are quick to agree that the warming during previous Holocene warm periods was mostly/solely caused by nature, including that big nuclear furnace hanging in the sky. But, they’ll say that it is impossible for those same natural forces to be in play now.

Yet, as I so often write, they fail to live their lives like it is a crisis. It may be a tedious talking point, but it does matter. It would be extremely easy to make large changes within their own lives, yet most Warmists, especially the leaders in the CoC, not only refuse to do more than perhaps purchase some carbon credits, the equivalent of paying speeding tickets because you refuse to give up speeding, they often have over-sized “carbon footprints”. As Glenn Reynolds wrote “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they act like it’s a crisis”. All their ideas boil down to far left Progressive (nice fascist) policy prescriptions. If you focus on how Warmists act and what they want to do, the true picture of this “movement” comes into focus.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “When Will The Cult Of Climastrology Admit They’re Wrong?”

  1. Not until they invent a new and improved reason to justify massive state intrusion into the economy.

  2. Jeffery says:

    You’re comparing apples to unicorns. The Denier graphs are not surface measurements at all, are they? The models are for surface temperatures.

    The baseline is improperly set as well (a trick Christy learned from is mentor, Roy Spencer).

    No wonder the lunatics in the House are Deniers.

  3. jl says:

    Hard to admit you’re wrong when your “theory” causes, well,…..everything.

  4. Steve57 says:

    The models are for surface temperatures.

    …No wonder the lunatics in the House are Deniers.

    It’s always fun getting called names by some climate hysteric who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    But I repeat myself, Jeffery.


    “Satellite data are essential for evaluating models — there is no other way for us to know if the models are producing the right results,” says Teixeira. Although planes and ships collect data in the air and on the ground, looking down at Earth from space is the only way to get a true global view. And with climate models continually evolving in complexity, evaluating the quality and accuracy of their results is essential.

    …“Tightening the relationship between modeling groups and developers of satellite observations can help to prioritize the needs for new climate measurements,” says Duane Waliser, chief scientist at JPL’s Earth Science and Technology Directorate.

    Models that diverge from actual satellite measurements are simply wrong. There’s no other word for it. Greenhouse gases can’t heat the earth’s surface if they’re not heating the atmosphere.

  5. Steve57 says:


    AL.com: Why is your research using satellite data a more effective way of measuring climate change than surface temperature? After all, humans live on the surface, not in the upper atmosphere.

    Christy: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. When you put more of it in the atmosphere, the radiation budget will respond appropriately. It’s just that what we found with the real data is that the way the earth responds is to shed a lot of that heat, not keep it in, which climate models do. So I’d rather base policy on observations than on climate models.

    Where is the biggest response to greenhouse gases? It’s in the atmosphere, not on the surface. So if you want to measure the response and say that’s the greenhouse gas response, you would look in the atmosphere. That’s precisely where satellites measure it. So the scientific to how does the world respond is found here. The response of the climate system is stronger in the atmosphere than on the surface.

    If you can look at a model that is supposedly modeling surface measurements and you see a greater increase in warming than you can actually measure in the atmosphere and you thing the model is producing a valid result, Jeffery, then you’re the lunatic. You’ve got the relationship exactly backward.

  6. Phil Taylor says:

    I think we all know by now that AGW model predictions have not materialized. However, my concern here is that 1998 and 2010 were the high points in RSS and UAH datasets. This graph does not show that. If it has not warmed since 1998, this graph does not show that either. Something is amiss here.
    Okay balloons may be slightly off but satellite data should not be.

  7. Liam Thomas says:

    You’re comparing apples to unicorns. The Denier graphs are not surface measurements at all, are they? The models are for surface temperatures.

    The Important data sets are atmospheric heat retention and not thermometers set in a parking lot baking under the asphalt they are place over…..yes this happens quite frequently.

    So the atmospheric data sets are much more accurate as they measure heat retention….something even the IPCC has finally realized is important and not irratic ground level thermometer readings that vary drastically because of where they are placed makes them suspectible to radiant heat and not give an accurate ground level reading.

  8. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Liam:

    Thank you for your reply.
    So to clarify, do not RSS and UAH satelitte readings measure atmospheric heat retention or do they measure surface temperature?
    Is the red line here a measurement of atmospheric heat retention or is it surface temperature?
    I know the red line in any case will be greater than real life observations, but I want to make sure that these readings match what I already know.
    So your clarification would be appreciatiated.

  9. Liam Thomas says:


    If you know then I suppose Im in a gotcha scenario.

    But I will try to answer as best as I understand.

    CMIP5 is a standard set of model simulations designed to take into account a bunch of different things.

    Their goals are to:

    1. Model climate for the near term out to I think they say 2030 or 2035.

    2. Model climate out to around the turn of the century. Without looking up their exact addendum Im just going off memory here.

    3. There are something like 30 different groups that are all running independent models and the red line your seeing in the above graph was a compilation of the 30 agencies models of predicted short and long term temperature rise.

    These groups try to take into account sea level temperatures. Sea Ice Temperatures as well as they look at the urbanization of land and the land useage predictions as it will impact the re-radiation of energy along with the amount of farm land that is turned into urban use and vice versa.

    In other words they look at and try to predict how the economies of the world are going to contribute to urban sprawl.

    Additionally they try to predict the amount of co2 that is going to be expelled by country. Again purely guesswork even though its rooted in heavy statistical modeling which is relatively speaking somewhat accurate.

    There is other things involved in this modeling but again they try to comprehensively include as many variables as they can besides just heat measurement in order to model out to 2100.

    However the goal of these models is to attempt to ascertain how much the planet will heat over the coming century. Short and long term.

    Now as for RSS and UAH…. The microwave sensors on the satellites measure radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. These readings are then used to estimate global temperatures.

    In essence these two sets of data attempt to measure heat retention. In fact the UAH data set has been redone because of so called errors….and the NOAA readings themselves from 1970-2009 were taken down, reworked and put back up with totally different numbers.

    So to answer you question. Originally the AGW crowd were all into temperature readings in parking lots as ancedotal evidence that the planet was hotter. Then along Came Spencer and Christy and published their UAH readings which measured heat retention and because it did not measure up the AGW crowd went to work reworking the numbers so they would FIT the prevailing models.

    It was this reworking that forced the Early IPCC to look at heat retention rather then thermometer readings because with the right amount of tweaking they could make those say pretty much anything they wanted to as well and after all……

    Who would question a 600 Million dollar satellite as opposed to a 6000 dollar Thermal gauge in a Walmart Parking lot.

  10. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Liam:

    Thank you for taking the time to reply. I want you to know I appreciate it.
    Yes this helped to clarify extremely well. Especially UAH having been redone. I noticed that as well.

    Because AGW is not indisputable, promoters look for proxy evidence to bolster their theory. That is fair.
    However, what is disconcerting to me is the lack of transparency by government agencies that should be unbiased but are not.
    Not publishing exact numbers for temperatures is one of them. Instead they use graphs that can be misleading.
    If you know what the temperature is in 2014 and in 1998 you can subtract one from the other to determine the rate of warming or cooling.
    Not untill James Hansen retired did NASA start doing this with 2013 and 2014 mentioned but not previous years. One has to ask why?
    Also, if you know the ice extent in the Arctic in sq miles or kilometers, you can look up 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2007 to see for yourself if the receading ice from 2007 to 2012 has returned. Possible but difficult to find. Why? This should be readily available. If you want to know the price of oil now and in the past you get the dollar amount now and then. Not a graph. You may get a graph in addition but ony as a visual aid not the main content.
    A chart needs to be made of yearly temperatures by year, so we can do the math ourselves.
    However none of this would be necessary if the gatekeepers of satelitte and other datasets simply and honestly told us the results and did not worry about what we need to know and what we don’t.

  11. Liam Thomas says:

    I talk a lot about the NOAA measurements because their subset of published data showed little to no warming from 1978-2009.

    So because this just couldn’t work for the AGW warmist guess what?

    When merging MSU and AMSU together, the data for each generation of satellites is weighted by the number of satellites with valid data for that month. This has the effect of de-emphasizing MSU data after the advent of the AQUA satellite in June 2002. Since the 2002-2004 period is when there is an unexplained warming drift in MSU channel 2 data from NOAA-14 relative to AMSU data, this change has the effect of lowering the overall warming in TMT and TLT during the post 2002 period.

    The changes also result in a reduction of sampling noise and “orbital striping” for periods when data from more satellites is used.

    Data from NOAA-16 is not used because all 3 channels show unexplained drift throughout it’s lifetime. NOAA-17 was only operational for a short period of time, thus it’s data is of little use for climate studies. We plan to begin including data from NOAA-19 after 3 years of operation.

    They could not explain the warming that the NOAA measurements picked up druing 2002-2004 so they just ejected the entire history of readings. In addition the NOAA readings just werent working for their climate models.

    The AGW scientists felt comfortable about their modeling and NOAA readings consistently didnt work for them….so the just ejected the entire subset of nearly 40 years worth of measurements.

    It was around this time that I realized there was something going on and became a skeptic. When you eject entire blocks of data because it does not fit your modeling and cannot be explained with current scientific understanding…….well…….

    The NOAA measurements actually bring the catastrophic rise of temperatures back to a realistic and predictable number…but this number does not coincide with the chicken little meme that the AGW crowd are preaching…….

    So throw it out and use our own data which we can manipulate like Briffa and Maan with their tree ring data and their hockey stick readings.

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    Actually that should read *****they could not explain the warming DRIFT that occurred….or that the entire sample set of NOAA readings showed lower then expected temperatures*****………so they ejected the entire subset of data because it showed cooler then predicted temperatures….Of course they explain this away and any true AGW truther will believe anything they say because they so desperately want to believe that EXXON has weapons of mass destruction.

Pirate's Cove