Watch: NASA’s chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt claims Texans won’t listen to ‘liberal, Jewish atheist from NYC’ about ‘global warming’

Published on Jan 6, 2016

Speaking at a science conference in Washington, DC, Chief NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt says, ‘we really want to allow less science and more cultural understanding’ to successfully message the climate narrative in places like Texas.

NASA’s Schmidt: “Now, you know there’s some communities I can’t talk to because, you know, I’m a liberal, Jewish atheist from New York City, right? So if I go to Texas and try and tell people about climate change, I’m totally the wrong messenger, right? Because we don’t have any shared values quite frankly. […] A lot of times we think, ‘oh, more science, more science’, and really we want to allow less science and more cultural understanding, and that might take us a lot further.”

Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
2016 Winter Meeting
Washington, DC
January 6, 2015

NASA GISS DIRECTOR GAVIN SCHMIDT: “You have to get to the real problem. And, the real problem is not that they don’t believe the scientists. The real problem is not that the graph was in the wrong color. The real problem is not that the animation wasn’t interactive enough. There’s another problem, right? It’s a question of values, right? What they see when you show them a graph is a rejection of some deep value that they hold dear, right? And, if that’s the way it’s going to go you’re never going to get anywhere, right? So, if you’re talking to somebody you have to find the value issue where you can actually kind of dig down and see what’s going on. And, stories can help with that, because stories can help demonstrate that we share very many of the same values. ‘We all love our children,’ well mostly, and you know and ‘we don’t want people to die,’ and ‘we’d all like to have a nice life.’ I mean, once you build it from shared things, you can go forward.

Now, you know there’s some communities I can’t talk to because, you know, I’m a liberal, Jewish atheist from New York City, right? So if I go to Texas and try and tell people about climate change, I’m totally the wrong messenger, right? Because we don’t have any shared values quite frankly. But, some people do, right? So, Katherine Hayhoe, right? So, you know she married an evangelical pastor, and I don’t know if you saw ‘Years of Living Dangerously’? She’s featured on one segment there talking to townsfolk in Plano, Texas, and she’s one of them. She’s from Canada, so she’s not quite one of them, but she’s almost one of them. So, she can talk with them in ways that don’t threaten their kind of who they see themselves as. A lot of times we think, ‘oh, more science, more science’, and really we want to allow less science and more cultural understanding, and that might take us a lot further.”


437 Responses

  1. Another in a series of NASA chiefs who are more politician than scientist.

    Congress may need to show reasons to investigate NASA for evidence of outside political interference in its scientific programs. If so, Gavin Schmidt should be called to testify why NASA needs to engage in more propaganda and less science.

    1. ❝my neighbor’s mate is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

    2. ❝my neighbor’s mate is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsinter/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  2. If that is not the most inarticulate use of the English language I have ever read/heard, from an otherwise (supposedly) educated man, then please show me a better example.
    American man made global warming ‘scientists’ have set the bar low, and this gentleman certainly did not rise to the occasion.

    1. He is condescending to his audience even as he explains why his audience need to condescend to anyone who doesn’t agree… and, at the same time, he’s pumping “the science” as if it supports the man-did-it crowd. He should be selling aluminum siding.

      1. Isn’t he priceless? How on earth that man became the Chief Scientist of anything is one of the world’s greatest mysteries! Inarticulate, biased, bigoted, and completely in DENIAL of all of the empirical evidence that shows that people are becoming less and less trustful of science. Maybe that “value” you don’t share with the people of Texas is honesty, truth, what can be called scientific and what cannot. His inability to reason and reach accurate conclusions demonstrates he has no business even calling himself a scientist!

  3. Shame on you Gavin. The people in texas are polite, intelligent, and perfectly capable of hearing the message. You’re just a stereotyping bigot who can’t relate to anyone who isnt a liberal Jewish atheist from New York.

    The very real problem demonstrated by the empirical evidence Gavin IS that they don’t believe the scientists. How about you dig down in and ask them WHY they dont trust you anymore. I dare you.

    What a sad little man you are.

        1. That’s weird – the topic was whether the public accepted the scientific findings, and here you are deflecting about prioritization of issues.



          1. “That’s weird – the topic was whether the public accepted the scientific findings” Really? I thought the topic between you and I was whether the public TRUSTS SCIENTISTS. Are you trying to change the subject???

                    1. Little coward runs away and calls names from afar, because its false assertions are called out and it can’t defend them.



        2. He’s not even worth the effort is he? But the EVIDENCE shows he’s wrong. But it’s ok Gavin, Americans don’t trust other people in general today either. We’re more skeptical of everything now than we’ve ever been.

          The public does not accept the 13 “scientific findings” listed here:

          “Only 36 percent of Americans reported having “a lot” of trust that information they get from scientists is accurate and reliable. Fifty-one
          percent said they trust that information only a little, and another 6 percent said they don’t trust it at all.”

          “Science journalists fared even worse in the poll. Only 12 percent of respondents said they had a lot of trust in journalists to get the facts right in their stories about scientific studies. Fifty-seven percent said they have a little bit of trust, while 26 percent said they don’t trust journalists
          at all to accurately report on scientific studies.”

          “National survey data meanwhile confirms that trust in other people is lower now in America than at any point in the last four decades.”

          1. Smart people know he changed the subject. Then there is you. And your other sockpuppet.

            Nonetheless, LoWatts et al duped you. And your Pew is irrelevant to the topic, you didn’t read it surely.

            What the disinformers fail to tell you is only one segment of society is growing more distrustful of science. Cons.


            Trust in scientists is not declining in most polls (not cherry-picking):

            Only a single-digit %age doesn’t believe in the science:

            The vast majority of polls (that is, not a cherry-picked set) refutes you:

            Shucky darns!



            1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I love it when you provide “evidence” Dano2! You always either misrepresent it, or it proves MY point instead of yours for all to see. (Hint…you make me even more credible Thank you!)

              Chart #1-Mother jones? Not known for it’s accuracy or dependability, but let’s examine the graph-

              It shows trust in science for three categories-liberals, conservatives and moderates. It shows that “trust” in the “liberal” category is the same in 2008 (8 years ago) that it was in 1974. What percentage of the population self identified as “liberal” in 2008?

              In 2008, according to Gallop- liberals made up a whopping 22%!

              Trust between conservatives and moderates is dropping. What percentage of the population self identified as “conservative” or “moderate” in 2008? 74%
              Since conservatives and moderates make up 3/4 of the population Dano2-and your graph “proves” they are losing “trust”, then the majority of the population is “losing trust in science”. Brilliant chart. Thanks.

              Chart#2- An IPSOS MORI chart related only to people in the UK. Not the states.
              Link (from the report-quote)

              “Half or more of Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” trust the following for global warming information: Climate scientists (70%), family and friends (67%), other kinds of scientists (i.e., not climate scientists) (64%), television weather reporters (60%) their primary care doctor (57%)
              , and Pope Francis (50%)”

              LOLOLOL!!! This means that “half or less” DO NOT strongly or somewhat trust. So 50% of the population is deducted right off the bat.

              Half or more of Americans”- ONLY 50% (or more?) of Americans are covered in this statement.

              And the “global warming information” they are trusting IS NOT DEFINED…is it AGW information? Or Non-AGW information??? We don’t know!

              Of that 50% of Americans, 70% of them (of HALF) “strongly trust, or somewhat trust” climate scientists for their global warming information:

              70% of 50% is 35% of the American population trusts climate scientists! (100% – 35%= 65% that do not trust for GW info)
              65% of 50%=33.5% of Americans trust their FRIENDS and family (100%-33.5%=66.5% that do not trust for GW info)
              64% of 50%=32% of Americans trust NON-climate scientists (100%-32%=68% do not trust for GW info)
              60% of 50%=30% of Americans trust weather reporters (70% does not trust weather reporters for their GW info)
              57% of 50%=28.5 trust their primary care doctor! (71.5% of the whole does NOT trust their doctor for gw information)
              50% of 50%=25% trust the Pope!! (75% of the whole population does not trust the Pope for GW info)
              Now, since this argument between us is in regards to “scientists”, we can only look at the “trust” related to scientists.

              35% trust vs 65% do NOT “trust” climate scientists strongly or somewhat
              32% trust vs 68% do NOT trust other scientists.
              The average percentage of Americans that DO NOT TRUST SCIENTISTS (climate or otherwise) is 66.5%!!!! TWO THIRDS vs ONE third!

              Link #2-pollingreport-only TWO questions addresses “trust” in scientists-

              “Which of the following better reflects your view on climate change? I trust what scientists say when they warn about climate change. I think scientists manipulate their findings for political reasons.”
              I trust scientists-48%
              Scientists manipulate their findings-43%
              =48% trust, 43% do not

              “How much do you trust the things that scientists say about the environment: completely, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all?”
              A lot-18%
              A moderate Amount-35%
              A little-21%
              Not at all-11%

              Completely or a lot=30% A little or not at all-32% Middle-35%

              CONCLUSION-ALL OF THE CHARTS you or posted links to PROVE ME RIGHT, not YOU!
              But thanks again for them! I’m going to screen cap these results for future reference!

              1. Dishonest. You can’t show I misrepresent one byte of anything I typed. You lack talent and capacity to do so.

                The rest of your flailing is just cuz you are sads and have nothing to show.



                    1. I repeat: You can’t show I misrepresent one byte of anything I typed. You lack talent and capacity to do so.

                      Not capable of showing. Too inept.



                    2. Typical con: regressing to comedy by letting us know it doesn’t know the definition of ad hom</i.



                1. The ONLY thing I have ever seen Dano2 “tolerate” is people who agree with him. Period. The degree to which one deviates from the Dano2 Theory of All Things is directly proportional to the degree in which Dano2 deviates from logic and reason. In fact, Dano2 has left so much empirical evidence on the internet that supports that conclusion, I believe we can form a “consensus” on the matter and have it declared a scientific principle!~

                  1. Agreed. That said, Dano2 rarely, if ever, presents evidence. It is always opinion. That is ultimately his argument: My opinion is better than yours. He is the epitome of “Self Congratulation as a Basis of Social Policy”, see T. Sowell, “The Vision of the Anointed”. It is more likely than not that he is a “paid by the post” troll. Or simply delusional like a snake handling huckster at a tent revival. Thus is born the Dano2 Principle:
                    [(Pixie Dust) + (Unicorn Farts)] x ( factual evidence) = 0

                    1. Dunning-Kruger Effect would be a valid conclusion based upon the evidence HE keeps making available.

                    1. What makes the chart with the blue flashy things that you posted any more valid than the chart Lance posted? Let’s review for YOUR benefit alone, since I can’t imagine what point you are trying to make, and you seem to not understand how to read trend charts plotted between two axis.

                      Fact- Lance’s chart is based on a 35 year average baseline from 1979-2014=35 years

                      Fact -Dano2’s chart is only based on a 4 years average baseline

                      Fact=Lance’s chart begins in 1979 (the year satellite records began) appears to covers ALL of the years since then to 2015=35 years
                      Fact= Lance’s chart uses a zero point

                      Zero points in trend line charts. EVERY chart must have a beginning and end point. In a linear trend chart, when a “zero point” is used, instead of a data point or a date or a specific measurement of something, it indicates (as the author of Lance’s chart indicated in writing, rather than letting people make ASSUMPTIONS about the chart) that the ONLY trend being highlighted by the author is the trend from that Zero Point- specific convergence/intersecting point forward in time. Any other assumptions made by the viewer of said chart, are irrelevant to that trend.

                      Fact- Dano2’s chart Zero point is 1983 and appears to only cover from then until 2013=30 years.
                      Fact-Dano2’s chart uses a zero point.

                      Fact-BOTH charts use degrees in temperatures for their vertical axis, and both charts use dates for their horizontal axis.

                      So Dano2, what exactly is your point?

                    2. I gave fixed the link to the analysis showing how the chart Lance used is deceptive (and how your typie-typing is incorrect or irrelevant).

                      Choose to deny it if you wish.



                    3. I’m sorry. What “analysis” do you think shows how the chart Lance used is “deceptive”? Your chart is not the SAME chart that Lance posted. Your chart is DIFFERENT. It is illogical/irrational to think that posting a different chart that is WRONG, somehow proves that Lance’s chart is also wrong. If the blinky blue phrases and arrows on your chart (which is wrong) applied to Lance’s chart, you MIGHT have a point. But they only apply to YOUR chart.

                      So either you are being deceptive, or you just have no idea how to compare charts.

                    4. I posted a link to the analysis. Readers can click on it to see for themselves whether the Christy chart is intentionally deceptive, thanks!



                    5. There is no chart like the one Lance posted on the website you link to. Can’t even compare the two. What “Christy” intended is mere speculation.

                    6. There is no chart like Lance’s on that site. There’s nothing to deny since it isn’t there.

                    7. Are you drunk? That wasn’t even English.
                      Newer grift to? Loinfos?
                      Congress? Way to change the subject. Denier

                    8. Smart people know where that graph came from. Then there is you – LoInfo.

                      Smarter LoInfos please.



                  1. Who is “they” referring to in both sentences? It’s illogical to assume that anyone could possibly know which “they” you are referring to.

                    If “they” never bothered to publish the chart, then why are “we” looking at it today?

                    1. No chart requires peer review in order to be accurate. Clearly you misunderstand the limitations of peer review/publication.


                      “Many people think that the process of peer review is meant to settle the actual validity of the work, and that in any paper that has passed peer review, the science is entirely correct. This is not the case. Peer review is an “entry level” sort of test that weeds out the pseudoscience
                      and obviously bad work, but is not intended to be a catch-all for outright fraud or experimental error – reviewers simply challenge the
                      rigour by which scientists are reporting their own work or challenge their conclusions if they haven’t successfully eliminated competing
                      hypotheses. Often enough, the demand for the right data and better conclusions made by reviewers is more than enough to ensure the work is
                      valid enough, as the process is about making sure everything is submitted and out in the open with nothing being hidden. Due to this,
                      direct replication and validation isn’t usually a priority or even a necessity for peer review. ”

                      Who is this “denialist crowd”? What are they denying? Does this group label itself as “denialists” and publish a statement regarding what they deny? Or are you just employing more logical fallacies and making accusations again?

                      Who is S & C?

                    2. Peer-review is the highest standard of working scientists sharing their findings in the peer-reviewed literature. Choose to deny this too if you wish.

                      In the meantime, the chart was shown to be deceptive, thanks!



                    3. Nope, the link you posted for “analysis” doesn’t even show the same chart! Thanks!

                      Your opinion about what peer-review is, is clearly your own. Sharing their findings is what publication does. Prove those findings to be accurate or applicable to anything other than what the paper applied them to, is something that peer review does not do.

                      Citation proving my point-

                      “Approval by peer review is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for quality work. It mostly judges basic competence, such as minimising the chances that pseudoscience can masquerade as science, and filters out trivial or low quality work which would not contribute anything of value.”

                      “Following publication, peer review is an on-going process where a work is open to scrutiny by the scientific community at large – this is
                      what publication allows a scientist to do. The process is designed to ensure that the work meets the standards of the field in question and of
                      science in general. A paper which survives initial peer review may be shown to be rubbish when examined more widely after publication.”

                      Miss it? Following publication- “peer review is an on-going process where a work is open to scrutiny by the scientific community at large” (this means everyone else-not just the referees who viewed the paper prior to publication.)

                      “A paper which survives initial peer review (the referees who view it prior to publication) may be shown to be rubbish when examined more widely after publication.”

                      Peer reviewed literature is the FIRST step, not the last. There’s not a credible scientific citation you can provide that will say anything different.
                      Choose to deny this if you wish to, like always.

                    4. How? Is your opinion about what peer-review is, someone else’s? I can’t make up stuff as fantastically stupid as your replies.

                      Citations or shut up.

                    5. Peer review is done in the published, peer-reviewed literature.

                      Everyone knows this. Even the lame commenters flapping their tiny hands to try and convince morons otherwise.



                    6. Ain’t no body saying it except you.

                      Quit insinuating that “everyone” else thinks like you.

                      Dunning-Kruger affect right there on display again for all to see.

                    7. Are you claiming peer-reviewed literature is done in coffee klatches in winter, over tea and nice biscuits?



                    8. Here’s how it’s done in climatology:

                      From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
                      “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

                    9. I noticed.

                      We call that playing the man and not the ball.

                      The usual strategy when you have no real argument.



                    10. A Facebook page of absolute nonsense is your response?


                      That was hysterical!

                      No wonder you don’t know what’s going on.

                      You’re what we like to call “NoInfo”.

                      Boy, when I want to understand the latest in highly non-linear, chaotic, climate modeling, I turn to Facebook.

                      Was it peer-reviewed?




                    11. Where would you like the list of refuted denialist talking points be kept so you can have a good feels? MySpace? Faux “News”? Let us know yesterday’s man.



                    12. That’s the standard con limp reaction #13 when unable to come up with a response.

                      Taylor’s Dictionary of Conservative Reactionary Rhetoric has it at #16. In Japan, it is #22. In Russia, #6. Spanish #9. I was unable to find the frequency in the Mandarin, Hindi or Arabic languages in the time I allotted for this reply.



                    13. “Peer Reviewed” is a worthless tag when the “Peers” all like the conclusion and what they hope are the political implications. The number of Peer Reviewed studies retracted is exploding. Put bluntly, it’s a circle jerk. Yes, you can quote me.

                    14. You have a bit of a problem here. Peer reviewed studies show that most published science is wrong. In a world where peer review is something done pre-publication and not post publication, this is a damning indictment of science and people ought to be going to jail. In a world where peer review is done both pre and post publication, most science being wrong is not actually that surprising a finding. Ioannides, 2005 really laid this out and so far as I can tell, this idea of using post-publication peer review to sort out the “not ready for prime time” wrongheaded publications from the ones that actually turn out to be true is generally accepted at this time.

                      To save time, a study link:

                    15. Speaking of having a bit of a problem, you will have a problem showing this is true: Peer reviewed studies show that most published science is wrong. Especially since you were duped into believing that link supports “your” claim.



                    16. So you’re going to go with denial. The study in question is “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”. I was paraphrasing the title of the study and you claim that the study itself doesn’t support the paraphrase.


                      You didn’t make any comment on the study whatsoever. Do you believe that Ioannides 2005 is reliable as an accurate assessment of the state of scientific publication? If you don’t believe so, do you have any rebuttal papers that would be better assessments?

                    17. You were duped (willingly?). This essay was discussed and resolved years ago, lad. Catch up. You act like a yesterday man.



                    18. Ooh, I wish I could be a cool kid like you and not give any evidence, assume superiority of information without proving it in a forum where there’s no way to tell if I’m some chatbot or not.

                      Teach me, master, how to do *that*. That’s so kewl, rad, hip. You’re today’s man alright. No need for actual logic, facts, or evidence. Posing is the future! You’re proving it every day apparently.

                      Thanks a bunch chatbot. You’ve really made my day.

                    19. Are you asking for evidence of the wide discussion or whining, lad? Let everyone know.



                    20. Still waiting for a bonafide opinion on Ioannides 2005. Do you agree or not and on what basis?

                      Thanks for the CPU cycles chatbot.

                    21. Are you pretending you asked now, to try and gain some rhetorical advantage? Are you asking for evidence or are you whining?



                    22. You keep dancing around answering any simple, straight up questions. I’m still waiting for a genuine opinion on a specific scientific paper that has obvious relevance to the thread. I’m not going to negotiate with you about it. This is where you put up something more than just snark or you shut up about any pretensions of being more than just a chatbot.

                      So come on, chatbot, pass that Turing test.

                    23. Civil society asks for citations or references. Are you a part of civil society? Or are you going to act unpleasant and boorish? You choose.



                    24. I not only gave you a cite to the paper I asked about. I gave a link to it. It’s a civil question and you aren’t answering, chatbot.

                      Turing test fail.

                    25. I still don’t see a quershin for me in here. Is there a question in the near future that civil society recognizes?



                    26. Ok, I’ll repeat my direct question and hope for different behavior.

                      What is your opinion of Ionnides, 2005? Do you agree or disagree with the conclusions and on what basis?

                      I don’t want to repost the link because moderators tend to act against repeating, identical links. I also do not wish to paraphrase the findings again because you did not react well to that the last time I did that within this thread.

                      Really, there is chatbot code out there that would provide a better attempt at passing the Turing test. Can you beat it?

                    27. I disagree with the co-opting of some who only use the title because – as everyone said years ago when this came out – what he really means (his conclusions) is that a lot of conclusions are premature and new papers must be replicated or tested in medicine before we can reach definitive conclusions. Indeed, it is more likely that a paper is true the more it is tested and replicated.

                      So it is only a wish by some to believe that most findings are false.



                    28. Congratulations, you’ve just endorsed post publication peer review. Thanks for changing your mind on that. I’m curious to see if it’ll stick.

                      Yes, there do seem to be people who have taken the bit between their teeth and gone all crazy endorsing the title but not the contents of the paper. I am not one of them.

                      Applying Ioannides, 2005 to the global warming debate, it would be important to see not only the conclusions of individual papers but the trends of those conclusions across time as the chaff gets separated out from the wheat and overwrought press releases turn into a large body of studies that agree with each other. What seems to be happening is that the CO2 sensitivity numbers seem to be trending down over time, away from apocalyptic scenarios and more of a lukewarming world. That’s actually good news and I’m glad to see it.

                      In terms of GCMs you would expect that a healthy scientific sector would look at the divergence of the real temperatures being measured from the GCM runs would send the groups running back to the drawing board so that GCM runs would have real world temperature results at the center of their prediction cone instead of them mostly being much hotter than reality. That doesn’t seem to be happening and the longer that adjustment doesn’t happen, the more unlikely it is that normal, honest science is what we’re dealing with at present in this field.

                      There is a bias to the GCM model errors and it should bother everybody on all sides of the argument.

                    29. I haven’t changed my mind on anything, thanks!

                      What seems to be happening is that the CO2 sensitivity numbers seem to be trending down over time,

                      False, thanks! Still central value 3C.

                      the divergence of the real temperatures being measured from the GCM runs would send the groups running back to the drawing board

                      No divergence, thanks!

                      Here’s how the models are doing.

                      A different look at latest run.

                      An interesting depiction of latest run.

                      Here’s how some older models are doing.

                      And some older ones.

                      And some older ones.

                      And some older ones.

                      And some older ones all together.

                      And what several scientist said in the 1980s that was surprisingly accurate about Arab Spring.

                      Here is the the very first climate projection from 1981, constructed from this paper. Pretty dang good, no? Not what the disinfo sites tell you, is it?

                      Here is something from the 1970s that is surprisingly accurate as well.

                      Here is an early prediction from an early pioneer of climate science, from 1975, 50 years ago. Pretty darn good. (source, and original paper)

                      Heck, even Exxon scientists were pretty durn close in the early 1980s!

                      This is where we are now.


                      For those not chart-driven:

                      Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

                      That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

                      That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

                      That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

                      Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

                      That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

                      The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

                      They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

                      They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

                      The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

                      The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

                      The expansion of the Hadley cells.

                      The poleward movement of storm tracks.

                      The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

                      The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

                      The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

                      That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.


                      o Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools

                      Manabe and Wetherald 1967

                      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

                      Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006

                      De F. Forster et al. 1999

                      Langematz et al. 2003

                      Vinnikov and Grody 2003

                      Fu et al. 2004

                      Thompson and Solomon 2005

                      o Nights warm more than days

                      Arrhenius 1896

                      Dai et al. 1999

                      Sherwood et al. 2005

                      o Winter warms more than summer

                      Arrhenius 1896

                      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

                      Rind et al. 1989

                      Balling et al. 1999

                      Volodin and Galin 1999

                      Crozier 2003

                      o Polar amplification

                      Arrhenius 1896

                      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

                      Polyakov et al. 2001

                      Holland and Bitz 2003

                      o Arctic warms more than Antarctic

                      Arrhenius 1896

                      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

                      Doran et al. 2002

                      Comisa 2003

                      Turner et al. 2007

                      o Pinatubo effects

                      Hansen et al. 1992

                      Hansen et al. 1996

                      Soden et al. 2002

                      o Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures

                      Rind and Peteet 1985

                      Farreral et al. 1999

                      Melanda et al. 2005

                      o Temperature trend versus UAH results

                      Christy et al. 2003

                      Santer et al. 2003

                      Mears and Wentz 2005

                      Santer et al. 2005

                      Sherwood et al. 2005

                      o Water vapor feedback from ENSO

                      Lau et al. 1996

                      Soden 2000

                      Dessler and Wong 2009

                      o Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds

                      Fyfe et al. 1999

                      Kushner et al. 2001

                      Sexton 2001

                      Thompson and Solomon 2002

                      o Hadley Cells expand

                      Quan et al. 2002

                      Fu et al. 2006

                      Hu and Fu 2007

                      o Storm tracks move poleward

                      Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003

                      Yin 2005

                      o Tropopause and radiating altitude rise

                      Thuburn and Craig 1997

                      Kushner et al. 2001

                      Santer et al. 2003

                      Seidel and Randel 2006

                      o Tropical “super greenhouse effect”

                      Vonder Haar 1986

                      Lubin 1994

                      o Constant average relative humidity

                      Manabe and Wetherall 1967

                      Minschwaner and Dessler 2004

                      Soden et al. 2005

                      Gettelman and Fu 2008

                      ** Full citation list found here (plus much, much more).




                    30. I’ve had actual intelligent conversations with people on the other side that led to changed minds and a fun time had by all. That never happens with chatbots though.

                    31. And none of them started with this is a damning indictment of science and people ought to be going to jail.



                    32. Ah, so we’re moving into the realm where you claim to know my conversations with other people on other servers. That’s graduated into creepy in so many ways.

                    33. “And some older ones … How well did Hansen et al (1988) do?”

                      The annotated graphic from Hansen et al ’88, is misleading in that it highlights Scenario B for comparison to the temperature record.

                      The three Scenarios were characterized by varying future GHG emissions inputs to the model. The posited forcing chosen by Hansen for Scenario A was an “exponential” increase in GHG emissions, 1.5%, which he described as the “Business as Usual” case in his testimony. Hansen thought A unlikely, i.e. human activity would change, and that “Scenario B” was “the most plausible”, a “reduced linear rate of growth”. Scenario C assumed a sharp decline in emissions.

                      What Hansen thought as the most likely of these, i.e. of human activity, is irrelevant; an exponential increase of CO2 is what actually occurred by way of emissions, in fact emissions increased 4%/yr during the period. It is therefore the temperature profile of Scenario A that was predicted from emissions profile Scenario A, which deviated wildly from the actual temperature record 10 years after the paper, and continues to do so today.

                      Apologia made for Hansen ’88 usually attempts a change of the argument to GHG resulting concentration, etc, and that the forcings from these No matter, the predictions of Hansen ’88 were made on *emissions*.

                    34. “Peer-review is the highest standard of working scientists sharing their findings in the peer-reviewed literature. Choose to
                      deny this too if you wish.”

                      Would that it were so.

                      But we know that in climate science, only approved scientists are allowed to publish. The hacked emails proved that this is a rigged game.

                      What are you guys so afraid of?


                    35. Well, one thing that would give me “the good feels” is when you guys finally admit you’ve had it wrong all along. CO2, while affecting the climate, is clearly not driving it.

                      None of you warmists predicted the hiatus. It would be decent if the more honest among you would become substantially more humble.

                      The intelligent people are waiting.

                    36. “You cannot show anything else is driving the current warming.”

                      And that’s what passes for reasoning from you people?


                      Perhaps you’re not aware, but climate has undergone dramatic change even before there were people! That must be news to you.

                      How was it possible?

                      I’ve got no idea where your chart comes from or what you think it proves.

                      And quite frankly, we’ve all learned that you guys cherry pick corrupted data, and abuse statistics something awful. The more honest climatologists are admitting the hiatus challenges their understanding of the settled nature of their models.

                      Apparently you are not amongst this group. Shocker!



                    37. That doesn’t even make sense.

                      And once again, you have nothing interesting or intelligent to say.

                      But now I expect it!

                      In fact, I can translate it: “Holy shit, fustian is on to me. He KNOWS I only spew talking points until somebody that knows anything at all responds at which point I either say something snotty or I string together random words with some obscure internet slang that baffles everybody. If I’m really desperate and in a corner, I accuse the person of being a loInfo. But, really I’m a worthless internet troll without an actual job that would only stop if I could get a real girlfriend, but we all know that won’t ever happen.”



                    38. Let us know when you take personal responsibility and prove me wrong that You cannot show anything else is driving the current warming. Your claim, your burden of proof. Do you have the courage or integrity to take responsibility for your words?



                    39. Said the silly troll!

                      I proved your argument wrong already.

                      Go back and look again, grasshopper.

                      Silly, silly boy!

                      Do you need a clue?

                    40. Still not showing. Cowardice or lack of integrity? Both?

                      Man up. Back your claim. Or slink away like someone who is not brave.



                    41. Still struggling I see.

                      I can’t say I’m surprised.

                      Let’s recap.

                      Your “argument” seems to be that there must be a single cause for climate change. And that if I don’t propose another one besides CO2, that single cause MUST be the one!

                      Firstly, that’s just untrue (not to put too fine a point to it).

                      If we posit for a minute that it is still warming (which it isn’t), climate is so complex there is nothing to say that only a single factor drives it. In fact, that is extremely unlikely. If we just look at greenhouse gases, CO2 is a little nothing compared to water vapor. What is the effect of varying levels of CO2 on water vapor in the atmosphere? Oh, that’s a little problem not well understood yet is it? But yet the science is settled? Ridiculous!

                      So, right out of the gate, you’re simply being silly. I mean, to a fair-minded person, we’re done. You do realize that your contention that if I do not name another reason for something, means that yours has to be true, is just ludicrous? Or do you?

                      But let’s go on, shall we?

                      You say that I cannot show that anything else could be driving the current warming.

                      But I don’t have to.

                      All I really have to do is show that there are factors that can dramatically change the climate that do not involve the human creation of CO2.

                      Which I did!

                      If human generated CO2 is all that drives climate change, then the temperature before we were here must have been constant.

                      But it wasn’t! The climate changed rather dramatically long before humans came onto the scene. So logically, the intelligent mind MUST CONCLUDE that there is a factor or factors that can drive the climate not related to human generation of CO2! (You may not still be with us here since I did say “intelligent mind”.)

                      So, my question to you and to all the warmists is: what’s the temperature supposed to be? When was the right temperature? And how do you know that the forces that changed climate in the past are not active right now?

                      You’re really not good at this thinking stuff are you?

                      And I really don’t expect you to follow the logic here. It’s clearly not your strong suit is it?



                    42. Ah, you didn’t follow.

                      I understand, I expected it, and I’m so sorry for you.

                      All the best,


                    43. You should know its up to you to show it isn’t warming or not because of natural factors. I’ll go with stupidity.

                    44. No need to dishonest. LoInfo made a claim & can’t back it. You can’t hide that, you lack the talent to hide it.



                    45. D–you know what a null hypothesis is and you also should know the null hypothesis for the climate is that any warming or cooling would be natural. So the burden of proof it on YOU.

                    46. LoInfo can’t hide the fact the other LoInfo made a claim & is dissembling away from having to back it. LoInfos lack talent to hide it.



                    47. Burden of proof is that you first must prove the null hypothesis is false before you can put forward your hypothesis. So the burder of proof is on YOU.

                    48. The IPCC was started when in the 1980s we had warming that the climate models of the day couldn’t account. Today we have the same problem in reverse. The current models are missing warming that they call for and are no longer accurate at the 2% confidence level. So in effect, the AGW has been proven wrong.

                    49. and are no longer accurate at the 2% confidence level.

                      The italicized is your claim. Back your claim.



                    50. No, I can back my claim, but I chose not to. I’d like to see you admit what the null hypothesis is today and than disprove it. LOL. Lazy as ever aren’t you D-boy.

                    51. Jim Kutsko (goodspkr’s real name) is a retirement-age motivational speaker, not a scientist. He has been pointed to information which directly contradicts what he writes above, but he continues to ignore it. He also has not explained why a couple of hundred national and international science organizations have endorsed the concept of AGW, while not a single major science organization has come out against AGW – and how he, as a retirement-age motivational speaker, is somehow able to find glaring problems in the science of the matter when they have not. The simplest answer is that they are right, and he, as an amateur, is wrong.

                    52. Right there when you asserted,”You lack talent or integrity to show one byte of anything I typed is a lie.”

                      That is a lie.

                    53. You haven’t shown anything, and you purposely deflect – transparently -to hide your failures instead of showing.



                    54. Al Gore’s book was “peer-reviewed”. So was every document put out by Soviet scientists. That’s only valid if the “peers” are honest.

                    55. “Peer-review is the highest standard of working scientists sharing their findings in the peer-reviewed literature”

                      LOL. Good one D2, good one.

                    56. So far as I understand, the chart’s numbers are available. The relevant question isn’t whether it’s published. The relevant question is whether it is true. The animation raises three questions: 1. Why is there a four year baseline instead of thirty years, 2. Why does everything start at a single point, 3. Why use running 5 year means.

                      This particular chart seems to run with real data from 1983 to 2013, a thirty year period centered around 1998, which is where the pause advocates say is about when something significant changed and we started to get serious divergence of reality from models. That seems to be a reasonable choice in order not to hide a phenomenon that had been happening for a decade and a half at that point. You have have the data after and half the data before. Given the relatively short period that the asserted phenomenon has been happening, a short baseline doesn’t seem too out of place. I’ve seen warmist versions of this chart that made different assumptions and did manage to bring things just back into the envelope where the theory isn’t quite invalidated yet but as time goes on, the assumptions needed to save the theory will shift and become more extreme if the pause advocates are right. To my observation, that process has been playing out as the pause advocates would expect.

                      The second question doesn’t make much sense. You are hindcasting using the same data set on each model run starting from the same time period. If they weren’t starting from a single point, the chart would actually be invalid. This criticism just doesn’t seem to work.

                      Given the vagaries of individual year data, it makes sense to do some sort of smoothing and smoothing is commonly applied using various standards. While there’s an implication that a different value would yield different results, there’s no actual assertion that anything is wrong. Five year smoothing is something that is used in plenty of charts in the field. Any of the popular smoothing values should not a priori raise any questions, so why raise it here?

                    57. No the relevant question is whether it supports or punches holes in the AGW hypothesis. This one basically knocks out the AGW hypothesis so any journal running it would be attacked mercilessly.

                    58. If it could, it would be published. It is merely a shiny object with which to distract LoInfos.



      1. TELL us all about the MAGIC FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH that MAKES sun warmed ROCKS get HOTTER


        than they WERE before they were PUT IN it.

        MAKE it RING OUT like you’re MAKING a SCREENPLAY for Kenneth Branaugh.

        MAKE us all FEEL it when you say ”and THAT’S where the FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH makes the sun warmed rock HOTTER than it was BEFORE it was in the bath, by PUTTING it in the SUN BLOCKING FRIGID REFRIGERATED bath.”


        Make it ring so the THERMODYNAMIC THUNDER rolls like you’re not here for the ”Pot’s Like Heroin” gubmunt school set, but are actually from an institution where graduates are competent.

        1. What is your…”intelligent theory” on what keeps all that heat in the system?

          Is it fairies flying around the world, unfurling blankets?



          1. I already told you. Are you BLIND? You REALLY CAN’T count CAN you.

            You’re just pathetic but hey – it’s YOUR STORY ABOUT the FRIGID, REFRIGERATED, LIGHT BLOCKING BATH,

              1. Do you HAVE something PERTINENT to ATMOSPHERIC THERMODYNAMICS you’d like to SAY,

                in DEFENSE of YOUR CHURCH ? Or NOT. Because I’ve been telling YOU for DAYS I want to HEAR it.

                STEP by SIMPLE, THERMODYNAMIC STEP, from ”FIRST the earth in vacuum, rotating without an atmosphere, lit by the nearby glowing sun, receives 100% available light at that distance.

                THEN upon suspension of a thin reflective atmospheric envelope SCATTERING and ABSORPTION losses are CREATED by VIRTUE of EXISTENCE of the ATMOSPHERE’S existence.
                OXYGEN BLUE SKIES are an EXAMPLE of this MODE of ENERGY LOSS or COOLING,
                comprising a SMALL PART of INITIAL COOLING.


                GREEN HOUSE GAS COOLANTS, which CREATE 17-20% diffraction/scattering mode COOLING.”

                Then when the ATMOSPHERE remains MANY DEGREES COLDER than the SUN WARMED SPHERE

                the INCIDENTAL TURBULENT CONTACT between ALL SPECIES GAS of the ATMOSPHERE creates
                GREEN HOUSE GAS WATER removes MORE per MOLE, COOLING more than ANY other MOLECULE.

                Then on to CONVECTION and a brief DISCUSSION of

                GREEN HOUSE GAS WATER’S UNIQUELY described and defined ACCELERATION of CONDUCTANCE cooling through CONVECTION in which GREEN HOUSE GAS WATER ALONE functions as

                PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT to the SURFACE AND, OTHER ATMOSPHERIC CONSTITUENTS within the atmospheric ensemble.

                ANY WHERE in THERE YOU think you’re MAN ENOUGH to START TALKING, YOU wind up WITH,


                heats the SUN WARMED ROCKY SPHERE of EARTH, till it’s HOTTER than when

                ALL the SUN was WARMING the EARTH and it wasn’t being WASHED by the REFRIGERATED BATH!”


                Be CONCISE and REALLY make us feel the thermodynamic thunder rolling when you tell us all about the hotteristical heaterisms.

                And if you make one single error we’re all gonna know because it’s ONLY a HOT ROCK in a REFRIGERATED BATH of COOLANT.

                There’s GOTTA BE a way it can be making it HOTTER by PUTTING IT INTO the FRIGID LIGHT BLOCKING BATH, you SAID there is. You said it’s SILLY to THINK it isn’t TRUE.

                START barking about your church Magic Gasser and it needs to ring out PURE and CLEAR the way you claim it CAME to you when the people TOLD about it.

                    1. Saying a couple of words didn’t relate anything but belief. You didn’t discuss or relate thermodynamic process that provides a check for your steps.

                      Therefore you hand-waved and testified of a belief. Like all churches you don’t need proof.

                      You say ___________ (Green House Gas, Jesus’ Name) and you’re saved.

                      This isn’t church. And you don’t get a free pass for deep, deep faith, you get a pass when what you say, is delivered in STEP by STEP THERMODYNAMICALLY CORRECT PROCESS.

                      And you’re not capable of that so you discuss your faith. That’s your place here. When you learn enough to know what you’re talking about you can start
                      TELLING US ABOUT what CREATES your BELIEF in your church from the STUDY of SCIENCE.

                      Now start: STEP by THERMODYNAMICALLY VERIFIED STEP: First, my church said….

                      and end UP with ”and the FRIGID BATH made the sunlight WARMED ROCK VERY WARM! Even warmer than BEFORE it was in the FRIGID BATH, and was being WARMED, with MORE SUNLIGHT.
                      YOU can ALL SEE how I EXPLAINED about PUTTING a SUN WARMED ROCK into COLD BATHS,
                      to MAKE them HOTTER,
                      than WHEN THEY AREN’T IN a COLD bath. Ya’LL!”

                      convincing when you say it. OR don’t. But SAY it.

                      We’ll wait.

                    2. let us know when your manuscript is published that tells the entire scientific community there ain’t none of that thar gee-haich-gee.



                    3. Knowing and telling are two different things, young one. Here’s one for ya. Ever heard of D.O.M.A. law? Where the law just told you, that the only GOOD love, is between a straight man and a woman, and theory of right and wrong be damned?

                      Ever heard of ”Pot’s Like Heroin and Worse For ya than Methamphetamine? Ever heard of people being put in jail for the rest of their natural life for trying to get some pot to some people, because the world’s TOP chemistry and medical authorities nearly UNANIMOUSLY AGREE it’s about like heroin, and ”WE got the CRITICAL, UNBIASED PEER REVIEW, to PROVE IT?”

                      Well you should because you’re living under it’s shadows now. DOMA is just INDIVIDUAL numbers of years ago. POT is STILL CLASSED as LIKE HEROIN. It’s STILL WORSE than METH.

                      Really? For 75 YEARS BLACKS and HISPANICS were IMPRISONED for this till they nearly ALL had some kind of brush with the law if they weren’t a lawyer’s son, before it was over?

                      You keep barking your low information voter authority worshipping bullshit. When you get TIRED,

                      YOU TELL THIS FORUM about the OTHER time YOU HEARD of a SUN WARMED ROCK, being made warmer than it was with FULL SUN and NO frigid BATH,


                      ANY TIME you think you’ve got the intellectual CHOPS. WE’ll ALL WAIT while you find the OTHER time YOU HEARD ABOUT THAT GOING ON.


                      SHOW me in a TEXT an instance of A.N.Y. PERSON saying they IMMERSED a WARM object into a

                      FRIGID ATMOSPHERE and the object grew WARMER than when HEATED with more LIGHT in VACUUM

                      and you’re no longer low information public school dross, passing the D.O.M.A./Pot is Heroin/Fire Makes The Sky Hot torch to your kids.

                    5. The all caps is the best part of your Internet Performance Art comedy skit, I must say.



                    6. The BEST part is YOU: LOCKING UP like someone asked you a question about your CHURCH.

                      Explain to an ADULT group who might come by HOPING YOUR CHURCH is TRUE,

                      how a ROTATING SUN WARMED ROCK, in VACUUM of SPACE,

                      had it’s TEMP made HIGHER by PLACING IT into a SUN BLOCKING, REFRIGERATED BATH !

                      This ISN’T DIFFICULT, Dunno. It’s not DIFFICULT AT ALL why DON’T you ANSWER a SIMPLE question,

                      about HOW COLD REFRIGERATED ATMOSPHERES blocking 17% LIGHT to a ROCK

                      make that SUN HEATED ROCK WARMER than BEFORE it was even IN the BATH,

                      receiving MORE ENERGY from the sun HEATING it in the FIRST place.

                      You’re S T A L L I N G.
                      You’re C.R.A.W.F.I.S.H.I.N.G.
                      You’re T.U.R.N.I.N.G. LOW INFORMATION VOTER T.A.I.L.
                      RUNNING like what you ALWAYS were: A FRIGHTENED, SUPERSTITIOUS, PEASANT, told by GUBMUNT MEN that if you use FIRE you’ll make the SKY hot. So you OWE them some MONEY.

                      LoLoLoL you need to go find an ADULT to talk about this because you’ve failed, MISERABLY.

                    7. WEREN’T you TALKING about SAVING the WORLD awhile BACK?

                      START BARKING the STORY of the MAGICAL GAiS and the MIGHdy MIGHdY HEETuR !

                      You can do it. ”The EARTH is a ROTATING SPHERE illuminated by a

                      NEARBY GLOWING ENERGY source.

                      Energy IN is 100% for that DISTANCE.”

                      Then YOU FINISH UP low information one w i t h and THEN CAME uh MIGHTY MIGHTY HOTTERISM, and MADE the FREEZING COLD,

                      make a SUN-WARMED ROCK HOTTER than when it was getting

                      17% MORE ENERGY and WASN’T BEING WASHED by the REFRIGERATED BATH ! yA’LL!

                      Now. CUT BAIT or get off the goofy. Tell people the step by step conversion process YOU WENT THROUGH to have people
                      CONVINCE YOU
                      a SUN WARMED ROCK
                      was HOTTER than NOT in a REFRIGERATED BATH,
                      by BEING IN a REFRIGERATED BATH.

                      Receiving 17-20% LESS energy DUE to the bath.

                      Due to the GREEN HOUSE GAS COOLANTS in the BATH.


                      YOU start BARKING D.A.R.E. class GRADUATE and IT needs to SOUND like YOU have been getting drunk with Einstein himself.

                      NOW YOU bear TESTIMONY or YOU turn tail and RUN LoL !

                    8. And your COMEDIC effort to BARK the world needs to fear a REFRIGERATED BATH heating up the

                      SUN WARMED ROCK it’s BLOCKING LIGHT TO, is as low-information as the rest of them.

                1. And then we have a 20 year pause in warming. But wait, NASA corrected them, meaning they were incompetent for 20 freaking years or they are inventing the new and better Hansen (Bull) Hockey Stick. Wonder why people don’t trust science?

                  1. Indeed. Also Pot is Like Heroin. How long do government employees have to LIE so they can SHOOT KIDS in the head for a THRILL on Saturday afternoon? Do they BELIEVE we all can’t see the f***g LYING going on?
                    Answer? They don’t CARE. They need a JOB, policing YOU. YOU can WORK. THEY have a BETTER idea. YOU pay THEM to F**** with innocent harmless PEOPLE and NOT work.

                    1. Bear testimony of your church please and finish up with ”AND THAT’S how the FRIGID, LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERATING GAS BATH, made the LIGHT WARMED ROCK,


                      Sound convincing.

                    2. Lisa did you find a woman or man to speak for your belief that a SUN WARMED ROCK,
                      had it’s temperature made HIGHER by being in a FRIGID REFRIGERATED ATMOSPHERE,
                      BLOCKING 17-20% SUNLIGHT TO the ROCK, than when it received FULL WARMING SUN,

                      When YOU FIND the TEACHER or PROFESSOR or PERSON YOU THINK that’s got the CHOPS

                      to DO that, YOU send him HERE. Because I’ve got a few questions to ask that clown.

                      And it’s gonna be a LONG thread for HIM when he starts trying to grow the guts to reach up and grab that mouse, and start barking about magical heaters.

                      I’ll wait here,

                      YOU go GET that MAGIC GASSER.

                    3. Oh sweetie, no one wants to talk to you.

                      Play with Dano2, you two deserve each other.

                    4. Obviously there for a second you THOUGHT you DID or you wouldn’t have started RUNNING that

                      LOW information voter TRAP.

                      GO get that magic gasser when you think you know one with the chops. Tell him I said I’ll never crack a book and break him open and we’ll watch the LOW INFORMATION/DARE CLASS graduate in HIM,
                      LEAK out all over these pages.
                      I said pot’s not heroin.
                      I said rubbing peoples’ genitals together isn’t against the law.
                      I said there ain’t no magic gais, what made the sky a mighdy MiGHdY HEETuR.

                      And I SAID you’ve got nothing else to say about that because you’re SCARED.

                      If you’re NOT – go get your magic gas believing BROTHER/LOVER/INTOXICANT imbibing PAL

                      and BRING em here to me. Cause I’ve got the chops, and YOU’VE got a D.A.R.E. sticker.

                    5. LoL. I reply through disqus so I don’t see who’s who so if you’re a regular, and aren’t some

                      Quack-0-Magic Gasser, we prolly won’t cross paths again. If you are, bring a magic gas guru so we can watch him get really really sad, and it’s not gonna be for Gaia

                      LoL Peace

                1. No need to resort to low-wattage deflection to hide your mendacity. Everyone can see you are avoiding the request. You can’t hide it – you haven’t the talent or capacity to hide it.



                  1. I just responded exactly the same way you did. If my deflections are low-wattage, so are yours.

                    Everyone can see that YOU are also avoiding the request can’t they?

                    ROFL…Well if anyone is talented in the “hide crap” category, it is YOU!!

                    1. There is no request for citation. Everyone can see it.

                      Anyway, I already refuted you upthread. Another weak flail from this sockpuppet Belise.



                    2. I didn’t for one. I don’t have to. Burden of proof about your positions is up to you. No citation=just opinion.
                      You refuted nothing.

                      And your sockpuppet accusations are false to. Do you EVER back up anything with actual evidence? Do you know how logic works? You even supported MY argument, not yours, down thread because the EVIDENCE you posted proves ME right instead of you.

                      Yawn. It’s always the same with you. Big talk, little evidence. Probably the same thing you experience with all the other women in your life huh?

                    3. Thanks. You are making sh– up cuz refuted. A half-wit can tell you can’t flap your hands hard enough to make it go away.



                    4. Dear Wile E Coyote;

                      I see you down there hopping up and down with rage on top of your own bomb. Be careful, your traps tend to blow up only when you are near them!

                      Roadrunner…BEEP BEEP!

                    5. Hey, it was your blizzard baby. I just shoveled the driveway.
                      Now, run along and let the grown ups talk sweetie.

                    6. My Gawd. You really are an idiot, aren’t you. You challenge some ones assertions but refuse to provide what you demand of others. You must be a liberal. It’s obvious you are a fool.

                    7. You made this up: refuse to provide what you demand of others.

                      Why? Why make stuff up?



                    8. I posted this to you below a moment ago…what do you say about my Dano2 Principle? Am I onto something?

                      “The ONLY thing I have ever seen Dano2 “tolerate” is people who agree with him. Period. The degree to which one deviates from the Dano2
                      Theory of All Things is directly proportional to the degree in which Dano2 deviates from logic and reason. In fact, Dano2 has left so much
                      empirical evidence on the internet that supports that conclusion, I believe we can form a “consensus” on the matter and have it declared a
                      scientific principle!~”

                    9. You must have overlooked a large %age of my posts on this board to make that assertion. Why would you overlook a large %age of my posts on this board to make that assertion?



                    10. You lack capacity or talent to show how anything I typed is wrong. You can’t show one byte wrong. You lack the capability to show anything.



                  2. Whenever Dano uses the word mendacity, it means you’ve beaten him. He really wants to say” liar, liar pants on fire”, but he’s not sure if the moderator will let him.

                    1. LoInfo lacks the talent to deflect away from the mendacity. LoInfo lacks capacity to hide it.



                  1. No, but Dana has a strange definition of pre-bunking (or debunking, etc). He only thinks he’s done it. He actually hasn’t. (That is me pre-bunking anything you post).

                    1. You haven’t shown links that support the false claims of the commenter above. You made that up.



                    2. Go to Watts Up With That. Every article has Gov websites, university websites ect. You will love it troll!

                    3. You are a low information voter obviously. WUWT has links and graphs in every article. Many go to NASA ,NOAA and other “right wing” sites.

                    4. Go away Troll! Bet you never have been there. As for low information site, that proves you’ve never been there. While you are at it, stop adding life giving CO2 to the atmosphere. Voluntarily quit breathing. You are adding CO2 to your Carbon Footprint.

                    5. Thanks, there is no defense/excuse/reason/sense for disinformation sites.



        1. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

          A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
          ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

          1. It’s not even necessary to follow the money any more. People KNOW they are being lied to when “scientists” claim (like today’s news) that global warming MIGHT cause humans to grow webbed feet, or something equally stupid.

            “Climate Science” has become the “shock tabloid” of the science world. “Future homes threatened with sea level rise….women give birth to DUCKS!” “Bears may no longer hibernate due to winters being too warm!”

            There’s a roughly a dozen or so “climate experts” who think they can win over the public by using clever marketing skills and psychological tactics on them. They openly discuss and come up with widgets and slogans and memes because they think that doing so makes the “message” they want the public to hear more powerful, or recognizable. Well the public DOES recognize something powerfully. And it backfires on the “experts” who think they understand humans SO WELL. What they don’t understand is that some people have an innate sense of when they are being manipulated. They easily identify “word games” “slogans” etc as tools used only by people who want the to BUY something they are “selling”. And seeing “scientists” use marketing tactics is so illogical and irrational to them, they are automatically suspicious.

            Gavin could have the highest IQ on the planet. He might be a brilliant scientist (hes not). But the way he TALKS to people, ABOUT people. The lack of skill and logic and reason in his presentation reads more like “used car saleman” than respectable scientist. James Hansen was the same way. Social science tactics are infecting the hard sciences, and the public can SEE IT.

            And then there’s people like Dano2-who not only “bought” the message, but they signed on to spread that message with even less skill and ability than Gavin and the Gang have.

            1. Precious.

              “scientists” claim (like today’s news) that global warming MIGHT cause humans to grow webbed feet, or something equally stupid.

              The claims are made in Extant Season 2 which premieres tonight on the Syfy Channel.

              The programme challenged University of Kent lecturer Dr Skinner to predict how humans would adapt to future habitat scenarios such as climate change and another Ice Age.

              If an asteroid hit Earth, moisture and dust would overwhelm the atmosphere and block out the sun, causing temperatures and the population to plummet, predicts the programme.

              Syfy(, formerly Sci-Fi Channel) is an American basic cable and satellite television channel that is owned by the NBCUniversal Cable division of NBCUniversal, a subsidiary of Comcast. The channel features adult, supernatural, fantasy, paranormal, wrestling, reality, drama, horror and science fiction programming.

              Dr Matthew Skinner, a paleoanthropologist, believes humans would become fish-like to colonise aquatic communities, or ‘water worlds’, if sea levels rise. To adapt to underwater foraging for food, colonists would develop artificial gills to extract oxygen from the sea to allow them to breathe, and grow a transparent eyelid to see underwater, said Dr Skinner.




              1. Isn’t it though! Because of perfectly mindless little robots like yourself Dano2, society is supposed to worship at the feet of ALL THAT IS SCIENCE. People like you and Gavin insist that scientists are RIGHT and TRUSTWORTHY and “smarter than anyone else” so people should listen to them about climate change/global warming! They KNOW! They would never be wrong about that! Look at all the papers they publish-publishing papers makes them right!

                Well, here’s the rub non-logic boy. IF your arguments about “scientists” are TRUE….then people SHOULD trust them! All of them! Even the wackadoodle nutjobs like Dr Skinner…who is a SCIENTIST!!! And in the article YOU just so perfectly linked to above, it shows us that when challenged by Syfy “to predict how humans would adapt to future habitat scenarios such as climate change and another Ice Age” that SCIENTIST-Dr Skinner “BELIEVES that humans would become FISH LIKE to colonize aquatic communities or water worlds if sea levels rise.”

                So….which is it Dano2? Should we “believe in” and “trust” ALL scientists….because the word “scientist” or “science” makes what they tell us the truth? Do you believe in and trust Dr. Skinner’s theory? Because if you DO NOT TRUST in the THEORY that was presented above by a REAL SCIENTIST, then by the very definition of the term “SCIENCE DENIER” which you have used over and over and over again all over the web you little snake, YOU are ALSO a SCIENCE DENIER!!

                Be very careful about exactly what you say to me. Because if it is not perfectly logical and rational and VALID then I and others will toss your own batcrap crazy, stupid, insipid arguments BACK in your face over and over and over again. If you think they are valid enough to toss at other people, then you should EMBRACE having them tossed back at YOU. Right? Why on earth could you possibly reject having your OWN ARGUMENTS used against you? If they are GOOD arguments for you, then they are GOOD arguments for me!

                It’s so simple for everyone else to see Dano2. You’ve left your muddy little footprints all over the internet with YOUR NAME on them. And when someone like me points out that YOUR SHOES ARE CURRENTLY MUDDY…(your arguments are messy, stupid and slimey) you just sit there and say “No they aren’t, you made that up” . “I’m not stupid and irrational, you made that up!” And every time you do it…it just makes one more muddy footprint on the web….that everyone can see. And when you DENY your own words…people who used logic and reason to determine that you suck at using logic and reason….start to LOGICALLY conclude that you might ALSO be mentally impaired in much, much deeper ways.

                    1. You’re on Morano’s site and he has a widdle story about it today. You were duped. I showed how.



                    2. “Dr Matthew Skinner, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Kent, examined the three scenarios and worked with artist Quentin Devine to help visualise how humans could look in the future.
                      Dr Skinner said some changes – such as webbed feet and hands becoming widespread – could take place very quickly as some humans already have a genetic mutation that produces webbing.”

                      Morano provides links in article.. Are you going to DENY Dr Skinner’s SCIENCE??

                    3. Yes, FOR the LAUNCH of a show on SyFy…that had already been filmed. They asked him what HE believed humans could evolve into. And these are his SERIOUS conclusions. Science Denier!

                    4. No, you cling to tired strawmen, disinformation and yesterday’s beliefs. You have no facts and evidence to support your beliefs or to vaildate your self-identity.

                      Don’t worry – everyone knows. You don’ t have to expend energy to deflect to try and hide it.



                    5. LOL, I’m counting on the fact that what “everyone knows” about you would surprise you Dano2.

                      “strawmen, disinformation, yesterday’s beliefs, fact, evidence”

                      In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, “you keep using these words, I do not think they mean, what you think they mean.”

                    6. You’ve been refuted enough that your typie-typing is empty bluff and bluster, thanks!



                    7. You need a good dictionary. Because you have never refuted me successfully, except in your own mind.

                    8. I can’t decide if it’s tender, or creepy, that you keep our past conversations so close at hand for referral. But I have no fear of anything in them. You opinions again, mean nothing to anyone.

                    9. Busted.

                      If anyone wonders whether this Belise is dishonest, you can follow the links.



      2. If they have any intelligence at all they believe the scientists that evaluate the empirical evidence objectively and if it doesn’t fit the hypothesis they realise according to the scientific method that the hypothesis is WRONG.

        I.e. The skeptical scientists.

        1. That would be devastating if you had actual skeptical scientists with actual skeptical data and actual skeptical testable hypotheses and actual skeptical equations and actual skeptical models and actual skeptical body of work and actual skeptical journal articles and actual skeptical robust work and actual skeptical scribbles on a napkin.

          But you have none of those.



              1. Exactly!

                Glad you’re on board with me here and you’re FINALLY starting to get it.

                That’s progress Dano2. You might even aspire to be a Lo+Info someday. It would be a big step for you!

                Do they hand out talking point sheets at the troll meetings? Surely you’re not coming up with all this nonsense on your own? Copy-paste much?



                1. Weak flail. You LoInfos can’t cough up a single paper that supports your beliefs. Not one testable hypothesis, not one equation , not one journal , not one body of work , not one dataset , not one measurement network , not one model , not one scribble on a napkin. You have nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.



                  1. You need to get out more.

                    If you were actually wider read, you wouldn’t say that.

                    NoInfo strikes again!

                    Does it echo a lot where you are? That would be a clue!

                    1. Google is your friend Dano2.

                      I’m not responsible for your education. All I can do is give you the nudge.

                      Go forth and learn!



                    2. Still can’t cough up a paper. Everyone can see your failure of rhetoric and character.



                    3. You can’t run Google?

                      Can’t say I’m surprised.

                      But, the fact is you can’t handle the truth right now.

                      I could lay it on you, but you’d just scoff. Actual facts don’t make a difference to someone that can only regurgitate approved talking points. I could be the absolute vessel of truth and it would affect you not one whit.

                      You still need to hit rock bottom.

                      Until then it would really be a waste of my time to even point the way.

                      I’ll leave you now to flap around ineffectually begging me to cough up a paper as if you would or even could read one.

                      I hope you know that there are scores of legitimate scientists that do not buy into the warmist line and you should know that even a number of warmists are troubled by the hiatus. You should also know that the 97% consensus figure is simple bunk, and, even worse, it does not include physicists, astrophysicists, engineers or other Earth Scientists not in the climatology departments that have a lot to say about the problem of climate.

                      The simple fact is, despite attempts to stifle debate, climate change is still not well understood. It is not settled science.

                      If you don’t know this, you really should read more widely.

                      In the meantime, go with “still can’t cough up a paper”. It’s pathetic, but it really is the best you’ve got.



      3. The problem isn’t that Texans don’t believe “scientists”. The problem is that some people who claim to be scientists have decided to start preaching their own religion, that isn’t supported by THE FACTS. The facts are that the Earth isn’t warming, or isn’t warming all that much. And it isn’t doing it consistently. There are plenty of people who claim to be scientists on both sides of the “global climate change” story.
        But the side talking about how climate change is such a desperate emergency are using models and projections rather than facts and evidence. And we already know that the projections are flawed and unreliable.

        1. The facts are that the Earth isn’t warming, or isn’t warming all that much

          Hoot! That’s good comedy! I LOLzed!

          we already know that the projections are flawed and unreliable.

          Another one! Yer a laff riot!



      4. Oh I believe in climate change. When has the climate ever remained at an optimal sweet spot? I just don’t think it’s the crises Jewish, atheist, new yorkers say it is.

      5. No, I don’t think people really believe the scientists. Scientists do not have a very exemplary record. The Germans were the most advanced scientists in the world, yet the supported the idea that Jews had “inferior” blood. Scientists supported cigarette smoking until it killed a bunch of them. Are eggs bad for you? Scientists tell us not to eat more than 4 a week. Other scientists tell us that eating eggs with vegetables facilitates the bodies ability to process vitamins and minerals. 37% of scientists support the idea of global warming from one source or another. Where are the other 63%? All over the place. The world of science is a world of argument, unsubstantiated theories, and writing grant proposals. Here is an idea: “accept” science, don’t “believe” it. Belief locks you into a mindset that is immovable in the face of any data that doesn’t support your belief. Deadly stuff.

          1. Not really Dano, by your number of pseudo scientific/political posts you are seen as a shill paid to debunk. You were unable to explain the mechanism for the CO2 being a warming cause. An English Professor has explained in detail however, we parted amicably whilst unable to agree on the thesis.

            You always resort to insults and false claims published by others.

              1. After many months of asking you never did have any explanation of the mechanism, hows that supposed to be fibbing when it’s an accurate statement?

    1. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    2. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

    3. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

    4. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      1. If you point out the truth about muslims you are racist even though muslim/islam isn’t a race. He must be aiming to give the same impression if he feels the need to mention he’s Jewish despite also being an atheist. Apparently he hasn’t been feeling the love of the enlightened class and needed to bolster his bona-fides to prove that indeed he is one of them deserving of their full warm embrace… Or .. In Texas we shorten it to .. What an ill mannered f’n dickhead .. or even shorter .. f’n peckerneck ,, notice he didn’t claim to be gay, even though he’s married, wonder why he’s so homophobic?

    5. “The very real problem demonstrated by the empirical evidence Gavin IS that they don’t believe the scientists.”

      No, Lisa. People have stopped believing the academicians. Those being the academics with a history of support for the State sufficient that their own support by the State is now assured. Andrei Sakharov once held that title in the Soviet Union. Then, his opposition to the State, which was defended by the H-Bombs he built, caused that State’s apparatchiks to remove that title, and its privileges.

      Gavin Schmidt wants to keep his privileges.

  4. Gavin…..

    No….you’re an Arrogant Ethnic Bigot and a Narcissistic Governmental Climate Propagandist……

    Are Jewish West Bank Settlers who burn down Palestinian homes and burn infants to death……

    …..more culturally resonant with your Ethnic/Ideological Background??

    Why don’t you talk to Judith Curry in Georgia?

    She’s as smart or smarter than you……..and she’s a Climate Scientist and a Skeptic…..

    How about John Christy in Alabama?

    He’s as smart or smarter than you as well……and a Climate Scientist and a Skeptic…..

    Texas has several World Class Universities engaged in Modern High Tech/Science Research……

    I’m really trying not to be Anti-Semitic……but, Jews like Schmidt don’t help……..

    1. Calling Israelis on Israeli land “settlers” and parroting “palestinian” propaganda shows you’re not “trying to be anti-semitic.” You simply are.

    2. DUDE…take a breath, Gavin TOLD you he’s a Jewish atheist. He’s telling you that he’s Jewish by birth, but does not practice the Jewish religion.

      To make this simpler-he’s an “ethnic Jew” not an “Ideological” Jew.

  5. Are Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews in NYC considered culturally progressive, evolved, and enlightened??


    The Women are segregated from the Men and the Men control the Women’s Lives…….

    Maybe, Gavin…… should go try to enlighten your own people before you attack Gentiles……

    What Texas Evangelical Denomination or Church is there a Parallel to this Ultra-Orthodox Jewish NYC Phenomenon?

    1. Again….stop with the assumptions or projections from Gavin to anyone else. Its irrational and illogical.

      He’s not a practicing JEW of any kind. He’s an ATHEIST. He does not “believe”.

  6. It is interesting contrast Lord Rutherford, who has been dubbed the father of nuclear physics, with Schmidt.
    One of Rutherford’s sayings was: “If you can’t explain your physics to a barmaid then it probably isn’t very good physics.”
    Schmidt has obviously not made that connection, yet.

  7. The question is what scientists to believe. Once there were very few who believed in Copernicus. At that time vast majority of scientists were opposing Copernicus views.

  8. None of the catastrophic global warming predictions have come true. Most of them have been falsified, like the ice free Arctic by 2013. The predicted desertification has turned out to be completely wrong, in fact, deserts are shrinking. Accelerated sea level rise, another failed prediction as sea rises at the same rate (about 7 inches per 100 years) in this new century. Failed prediction after failed prediction after failed prediction.

    Think about this Gavin. You’re just wrong.

            1. Are you insinuating that “everyone” is as uninformed and irrational as you are? That’s incredibly rude of you.
              Get informed unless you enjoy displaying your “stupidity” where everyone can see it.

              “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” George E.P. Box-1987
              “Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not.” It goes on to recommend that “checklists . . . should be adopted widely, to help guard against the most common research errors. Budding scientists must be taught technical skills, including statistics, and must be imbued with skepticism towards their own results and those of others.”

              “Against this background of declining trust and increasing problems with the reliability of scientific knowledge in the public sphere, the dangers for science become most evident when models—abstracts of more complex real-world problems, generally rendered in mathematical terms—are used as policy tools. Evidence of poor modeling practice and of negative consequences for society abounds.”


              “Abstract-Despite considerable progress in recent years, out-put of both global and regional circulation models is still afflicted with biases to a degree that precludes its direct use, especially in climate change impact studies. This is well known”


              Dano2, have you ever been exposed to training in logic and reasoning/critical thinking?

  9. This is what the regime has reduced science to. The science can’t stand on it’s own so you have to “sell” them on it by finding common ground! Huh….sounds like a used car sales seminar. “hey buddy nice camo jacket. You hunt? Yea me too. Got me a nice buck this winter! Hey let me show this nice Hyundai I got over here…………………

    1. I agree – since the %age of the population that doesn’t believe in the science is in single digits, scientist should just ignore them and move on.



    1. And yet he cannot seem to add 2+2 and get 4! He has to “adjust” both 2’s, run them through a model, and then he’ll tell you that 2+2 TODAY = 4.06!
      Why is it that the people who SHOULD be the most logical, reasonable people on the planet today are so often the most illogical, irrational?

  10. What is the basis for Gavin claiming that HE (or anybody else) can make predictions? Another distraction, hardly worth speaking to, given that neither Gavin nor anyone else can rebute the following claim, namely – There is no empirical evidence, none, not even over geologic periods when co2 level was several TIMES higher than it is now, showing that co2 level has EVER had an impact on the planet’s temperature.

    Dr. Craig Idso states that the prior four interglacial periods (covering the past 340,000 years) were all 2 degrees higher than in our current interglacial – and co2 level is 40% higher than during those four past interglacials. There has obviously been no impact on our current warming (such as it is). With co2 level at its highest, both of our weather satellites show no additional increase in tempeature trend over the past 18+ years. (Since the current EL Nino, a NATURAL warming event will continue into 2016, there may be some impact on that trend in the future, but the alarmist claims are not only implausible, they are contradicted by the DATA.

    The refusal by alarmists to acknowledge that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was global and likely warmer than now completely destroys any possibility that their claims
    are credible. Recognition of this truth neither proves nor disproves that increasing co2 has caused our current warming, so why do they deny it in spite of the overwhelming evidence? That is likely because they recognize their case is so weak that, if they admitted the truth, every person would then ask “If it was warmer 1,000 years ago, and co2 obviously had nothing to do with that, why isn’t our current warming (such as it is) caused by whatever brought on the earlier warming?

    If the alarmists had any viable answer to that reasonable question we’d have already heard about it. Instead their response is, invariably, denial, obfuscation, and/or
    distraction. Perhaps this is because there is NO empirical evidence showing that
    co2 has EVER had any impact on our temperature (even over geologic periods when
    co2 level was several times HIGHER than now). What’s more, the only correlation
    over geologic periods between co2 and temperature shows the OPPOSITE – that temperature variation occurs first, and only 800 to 2800 years later are very similar variations (tracking both up and down trends) then reflected in co2 variation.

    There is therefore no evidence, not even a correlation, which might at least provide some plausibility for their claim. Their dubious hypothesis is entirely based on an old physics experiment within a closed container. The alarmist claim is based on less than 30 years of warming, when temperature began rising in the mid 1970s and expired in 1998.

    Satellites detect heat escaping to space from open atmosphere, and the potential impact of co2 on temperature diminishes as its level increases. Both of our weather satellites (ignored by both NOAA and NASA, for some unknown reason) show no additional warming since 1998 (although this trend could be impacted by our current El Nino, even though it is natural climate variation – and this has been admitted even by NASA.) However, co2 level has been steadily rising since the mid 1800s. Phil Jones, a well-known member of the IPCC cabal, stated that if the MWP was global and as warm, or warmer than now “that’s another ballgame”. That ballgame ended before it even got underway.

    If even one other region remote from Europe showed the MWP trend, any credible scientist would have recognized the possibility that the trend might be global, and would have therefor felt the need to immediately resolve the issue. But instead the alarmists chose to continue denying the existence of all such evidence. However, as it turns out, many other researchers had been interested, and the issue was resolved long ago. Numerous regions remote from Europe display the MWP trend. That investigation
    involved hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the work of numerous researchers and organizations representing 40+ countries. What’s more, continuing confirming research shows up regularly. More than a few of these studies were completed before alarmists even made their initial claims about anthropogenic caused warming. There are links available to all those studies via But, there’s more …. in addition to the 1,000+ studies there is also trend confirming data from 6,000 boreholes distributed around the globe (hence not confined to just ice core extractions.)

    Actually, there were several warming periods BEFORE the MWP, all warmer than the MWP, and each warmer than the more recent periods. The IPCC in past years recognized the global nature of the MWP, but has since drifted away from that, now claiming instead that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with a
    lower (but undefined probability) perhaps also a record for the past 1200 years. However, the IPCC has provided no accompanying evidence for either claim, and made no attempt to even address the earlier periods during this interglacial which were even warmer than the MWP.

    Finally, the Mendenhall glacier in Alaska recently receded sufficiently to expose splintered tree trunks (dated 1,000 years old) preserved in their original upright
    position. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4,000 year-old trees. This demonstrates conclusively that forests were present at latitudes where trees can no longer grow. Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown even today. The alarmists attempts to brush off this solid evidence can best be compared to that Marx Brother quip which directed others to believe them rather than “their own lying eyes”. 12/31

    1. There is no empirical evidence, none, not even over geologic periods when co2 level was several TIMES higher than it is now, showing that co2 level has EVER had an impact on the planet’s temperature.


      Love your Internet Performance Art!



        1. Maybe fill in the backstory on your comedy skit?

          The simple fact for the laughter is that you have been shown a hundred times the italicized is wrong, yet here you are again, thus the reason for the LOLz.



          1. should be easy for such a rabid believer to produce that non existant evidence. Care to give it a try?

            don’t even try to chase readers around the globe looking at links…. in your own words please!

            1. don’t even try to chase readers around the globe looking at links…. in your own words please!

              Nice! I can’t link to evidence!

              Aside from the fact a paper (oops! no link) even went so far as to call CO2 the ‘principal control knob’ on planetary temperature, physics.

              That is: physics from over 100 years ago. Also, too, the recent paper (whoopsie! no link allowed!) that directly measured the forcing over a decade resulting from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.



              1. “physics from over 100 years ago”…. NOT evidence of what happens in the open atmosphere. Also co2 level has basically topped out on whatever influence on temperature that it may have had at lower levels. (Nice! You can’t provide any evidence, not only because there isn’t any, but also because you evidently don’t understand the meaning of “empirical evidence” yourself.)

                The “forcing” you mention is BOGUS. Both of our weather satellites show NO additional warming for the past 18+ years. Even the current El Nino (a natural warming event) shows no sign of forcing through the end of 2015. (But if this El Nino lasts into 2016 long enough it may reduce the period of no additonal warming somewhat.) However, even NASA has admitted that the El Nino is NATURAL – nothing to do with anthropogenic influence.

                Keep digging. You’re in a hole now and getting deeper. Lots of Luck.

                1. The “forcing” you mention is BOGUS. Both of our weather satellites show NO additional warming for the past 18+ years.

                  You continue to buffoon for our entertainment. The forcing is measured at the earth’s surface (in watts), not 1.5 km above the earth’s surface (measured in microwave brightness).

                  An intelligent commenter would discuss the measurement flaws in the paper (that couldn’t be linked to so readers could find out poor hapless Ables is incompetent) instead of hand-waving comically.

                  And this is glorious gibberish: Also co2 level has basically topped out on whatever influence on temperature that it may have had at lower levels.

                  That’s good comedy! I LOLzed!



          1. No. Father Jack, you can’t avoid the issue as easily as that.

            Climategate (the gift that keeps on giving) exposed in their own words the contrast between the naive illusion of the integrity of ‘scientists’ and their own grubby machinations to win power, influence and grants.

            Schmidt – as a loyal lieutenant of his then mentor, Mann – was a key player in this sad scandal.

            Will you have a cup of tea now, Father?

                  1. Totems? No.

                    People’s own words. Wonderful primary source material for historians of the grubby little world of ‘climatology’ and its downfall.

                    And Schmidt a leading grubby player.

                    1. People’s own cherry-picked words. Most of the world understands this concept. As for you…well…who knows? Cognitive dissonance? Self-identity preservation? A mystery.



  11. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  12. “Slap ’em down ag’in, Paw. Slap ’em down a’gin. We don’t want the neighbors
    talkin’ ’bout our kin.” It seems not to matter how many times the 97% meme
    is debunked, the alarmists come right back with it time after time in the
    spirit of Joseph Goebbels.

    The President does not know his rear end from a hole in the ground
    about climate and a host of other subjects, but that never deters him
    from coming out and reading fables and make-believe from his teleprompters.

  13. Explain to me how Gavin can be both a Jew (a religion, not a race or ethnicity) and an atheist.
    That would be the the same as saying i’m an atheist christian.

  14. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  15. The problem is they have not developed the science well enough to predict anything other than their models are flat wrong. I could have told them this years ago when they were working on these things. You cannot model climate and be honest about it without factoring in every variable, which is impossible. They knew this when they produced them and they know this now. When will people wake up and stop giving these frauds a voice and worse off more money to perpetuate the fraud.

  16. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

  17. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

  18. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  19. What is a Jewish Atheist. I thought an atheist cannot belong to a religion. To sum it up: the guy is just a typical putz from New York. God knows we have so many.

  20. If you claim to be a scientist, a believer in the scientific method, then you can’t believe in Global Warming this year or Global Cooling 30 years a go. If you believe in either you are not a scientist.

  21. In addition to being a liberal NY Jew, you are also massively ignorant about how people in Texas and other places behave. Which gives me another reason not to believe what you are saying.

  22. This guy seriously needs some training on presentation skills. That uptone “right?” speaking tic gets old really fast. Plus he constantly waves his arms and hands like he’s shaking a martini.

  23. That’s the thing about liberals–it’s NEVER their fault, they are NEVER wrong or even to be questioned–so someone else must be to blame.
    And then they say that’s “Science.” Feh on all of ’em.

  24. Sorry bud, it’s the message. I fail to see why you want to condemn all of the poor Africans, Indians, etc. to a life of poverty and despair. It is just horrible.

  25. Predictions? Which of them have come true?

    What we have seen is that political BS seems to keep being spread while the predictions are farther and farther away from the real temperature record, plus we have seen an increase in scientific fraud in manipulating that temperature record.

    Unfortunately, it’s tough to argue facts with ideologues. They just change the topic. Instead of global warming we have “climate change”. Something with no measurements or baseline.

  26. Actually Gavin, I know a hell of a lot more about statistics than you do. And I know more about your “models” than you want me to. And I know the science is a hell of a lot less “settled” than you claim it is. And when I know you are lying about the things I know, why the hell would I believe you about the things I don’t know?
    Here’s a hint for you: Statisticians see someone messing with the raw data, they immediately suspect them of hiding something.

  27. I’m going to agree that you probably aren’t the correct messenger. It is hard to inspire people you have such obvious disdain regardless of the topic under discussion. For the record, Texas has more engineers per capita than any other state. They have a world renowned medical center just chock full of scientists (including my own daughter). They have two of the nation’s 10 BSL-4 labs. And they were home to NASA before it’s funding was gutted. But many of the scientists remain as new startups moved in to capitalize on the talent pool. That’s quite a few scientists (most of whom look upon “climate scientists” as somewhere towards the bottom of the table of academic rigor required to obtain a PhD) to give your pitch to. Maybe you should give it a shot. But be prepared to answer some challenging questions.
    I just had a discussion on social media with a person who would have sat front row for one of your talks. He was incredibly articulate and obviously well educated. But he was quite convinced that the problem with burning fossil fuels had to do with the atmospheric carbon trapped in the ground millenia ago. He was convinced that the CO2 that results from burning other organic materials was substantially different. I told him I would share his observations with my neighbors (both geophysicists) and my husband and son (both chemical engineers). All were both appalled but oddly delighted that someone who clearly believed he was squarely on “team science” had such a dismal grasp of chemistry.

    1. “It is hard to inspire people you have such obvious disdain regardless of the topic under discussion.”

      if you don’t think someone is human, they eventually pick up on that ….

  28. Yeah…keep those stereotypes coming. Jews have been a blessing for every nation that has ever welcomed them, virtually every modern Christian believes this to their toenails and if they didn’t a quick peek at the Nobel Prize list (the real one, not the politicized Peace thing) the number of Jewish scientists that have saved lives and free nations would convince you in about two minutes. I’m pretty sure no one cares if you are an atheist. All the Christians I know consider that a challenge. It’s like trying to get a hard core anti-gunner to the range.
    Nope, what bothers us a little bit down here in Texas…banjo playing Texas…with our backward Aerospace industry, and our stogy semiconductor industry, and A&M and UT and oh…what was that other one…oh year…Texas Tech university, founded in the early 20th century to insure Texas would always be a scientific and technical leader…what chuffs us a little bit is the fraud.
    You guys run on grants and government money, and a good crisis brings in the money. That wouldn’t be enough to doubt your scientific scruples, indeed, while it’s about quintuple the pressure to falsify data that, for example, an oil company would feel to try to get around a regulation (the oil company just has to work a little harder, in the absence of grants you guys can’t pay your mortgage). Nope, we figured you for honorable folks, but those emails…
    You remember, the emails that keep coming up showing conspiracies to cook data. I especially like how you cherry-picked data from temperature sensors surrounded by blacktop. Then there are the public academic lynchings of the geologists who say things like “um…we’re in the middle of a glaciation…the natural state of this planet is to have no polar ice at all.” How come we can’t hear from the geologists. I also like how your “solutions” all somehow happen to be the same Marxist Laundry List that is always the answer to every made up crisis that we all point at and laugh. Also, weren’t we all going to die from Global Cooling in 1975? I also thought it was too late to save the Indians from starvation and that irrefutable Malthusian logic said everything would be ten times the cost today as it was in the 1970s (adjusted for inflation of course) and that we would all be struggling to breath fresh air, and nothing could stop that but the Marxist Laundry List.

    Now you want 60 TRILLION dollars to go, not to oral rehydration salts, or malaria abatement, or clean water in the third world, but rather to bureaucrats and academics to waste, and to pay for government agencies to take over industry with endless regulation all to…NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Not one of you had EVER offered a solution. Not one of you has said “do this, and we fix the issue”. Nope, it’s just “give us lots of money to make an immeasurably small change in temperature over 100 years so that we will be dead when you actually notice we were lying.”
    It’s the lies. The endless lies, cooked data, and unaccountability. We don’t dislike you Dr. Schmidt because you are a Jew or an Atheist. We distrust you because you are a liar and a con artist and those of us who care more about facts than being part of the latest social panic fad don’t much care for being lied to. An embezzler doesn’t get to work at banks anymore. The “scientists” who were caught red handed falsifying data are still running your organizations. Also, could we have a little less of your Warmist Religion and Muslim Outreach and maybe a little space flight? Is it too much to ask that NASA might…y’know…do a little space science now and then?

    A proud irreligious Texan Biological Anthropologist-Accountant-Financier finishing a PhD in Business (doing a dissertation…with research that I’m not allowed to just make up).

    1. “Jews have been a blessing for every nation that has ever welcomed them”

      the catholic spaniards that had to undergo 600 years of reconquista might disagree.
      “virtually every modern Christian believes this to their toenails”

      “because you did not recognize the time of your visitation the kingdom of god will be taken from you and given to nations producing the fruits of it.”

  29. If you’re that confused (“I’m jewish and an athiest”), then watch as I pay no attention to your babbling. Because, ignorance walking upright on 2 feet.

    1. oh, he’s not confused at all. atheist and jewish is not a problem. jews are a tribe. judaism is a tribal religion. the tribe is the religion. the religion is the tribe.

  30. >’Because we don’t have any shared values quite frankly.’

    Good freaking Lord. Way to preemptively write off the other half of the country — including a fair chunk of your own state.

  31. We didn’t arrive at E=mc squared via an Excel spreadsheet with fudged data. This isn’t science and the push to pretend this is science is perfectly consistent with dogmatic “Flat Earthers” (the science then was also SETTLED).

    Texans understand the dynamics very, very well.

  32. As a conservative agnostic Texan, I value the EVIDENCE over the lies of “climate scientists”. Since it is demonstrable that TEMPERATURES HAVE NOT RISEN in 20 years and that “rise” is ONE HALF OF ONE DEGREE, I don’t feel the need to go back to living in a cave and cooking my squash over buffalo turds to “save gaia”. And climate alarmists, like gun grabbers, always feel THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. IOW, they are true totalitarians, drunk on their own power and looking to control the rest of mankind.

    1. it is demonstrable that TEMPERATURES HAVE NOT RISEN in 20 years and that “rise” is ONE HALF OF ONE DEGREE

      LOLz! You made me laugh! Thanks for the LOLz!



  33. Yeah, no mention of the private plane flying exhaust spewing elites that poisoned the atmosphere on their way to Paris to fine wine & dine and come up with rules for US?

  34. Graduate school, in Austin, my friends and I attended lectures by John Wheeler. His ideas, delivered 35 years ago, continue to change our intellectual lives. This example is not a singular counter-example to Schmidt’s stupid generalization. Mean and average IQ of New York City vs. Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston? Dunno. I’m a native New Yorker, and find Texas more than rich enough. It’s not New York cultural values we Texans’ need, in the anthropogenic global warming debate; among other things, we need more compelling evidence, more transparency from New York climate-evangelicals, less post hoc re-visions of data from fundamentalists like Schmidt.

  35. So, how is bringing in Mexicans and Syrians going to help when you don’t think Americans will listen to you???
    PS. Don’t blame racism for your inability to explain a lie.

  36. Liberal New Yorkers would never believe a scientist from the south like Dr. Christy at UA Huntsville. This clown is projecting his cohort’s bigotry on to people he regards as “others”.

  37. Whatever happened to the “no such thing as absolutes”, “no such thing as right and wrong” the lefties used to throw at us before they made government their god?

  38. They won’t listen in Texas, not because he is Jewish, from NY or an Atheist but because his science is wrong. I say that as a Jew from NJ who is not an Atheist.

  39. Don’t you remember that great scene from Apollo 13, where Tom Hanks says, “Houston, we have a problem… But you will not be able to understand it because you are a bunch of inbred hayseed hicks…”

    How did NASA go from “The Right Stuff” to “Nothing But Made Up Crap” in 40 short years?

  40. Gavin, I doubt you read comments here, but what some are trying to explain to you diplomatically, is that perhaps its your understanding that is lacking. You resort to moral signaling to demonstrate your affiliation with the audience, and shared belief in your superiority to the people in Texas who presumeably aren’t sophisticated enough to get it.

    If you spent a few minutes looking in the mirror, being honest, you would clear away more of the communication problem, sir.

  41. How about less flagrant data manipulation? How about prosecuting those who’ve done it? How about not labeling people anti-science who rightfully condemn a constant, ongoing perversion of science?

  42. When the doomsday predictions come and go, why would any semi-sentient person pay any attention to the Global Warming hucksters? Global Warming from the get go has been a scam to steal trillions of dollars, restrict prol’s economic and personal freedoms and elevate the ‘right’ people to positions of power they’ve long felt their due.

    1. It’s worth paying attention because the politicians do and they are moving large amounts of money around based on their statements. They are also changing public policy in ways causing excess deaths from cold as energy prices are raised too high for some pensioners in the UK to afford to heat their homes adequately and they simply pass away. Across the developing world, the diversion of massive amounts of the US corn crop to ethanol in a bid to reduce CO2 emissions has led to painful adjustments, riots, and more excess deaths.

      I pay attention when people start dying. I think you should too.

  43. I wonder if I announced myself an atheistic Christian if few would even notice the irony of the statement? But then I forget this is a world that believes a rabble rousing community activist was the beginning of him healing the planet.

  44. How can one trust models coming out of the brain of a person, whose “social model” about Texas is obviously untrue. Conversely one can see from his social model, how climate model notions are put together, by the of sore mensch will power, not science

  45. Gavin, the reason I don’t listen to you is not because you are a Liberal, a Jew, an Atheist, or a New Yorker. I don’t listen to you because you are playing the issue with your politics, religion, regionalism, and race cards for pity, instead of dealing with the fact that there are honest, educated people in the world who may just disagree with you. Your whinging is NOT persuasive.

  46. People will you please not respond to DANO2, this person has over 56,000 post on discuss.
    He is in all probability employed by REDIT to post comments depending on the topic.
    Reddit started out with a noble purpose but has now started to employe persons with the intent on persuading and bulling open forums. They do this by first state or rewrite a list of prewritten talking points then when the talking point are disputed they move on to insults or straw man topics.
    to paraphrase mark twain, don’t argue with an idiot you will only sink to their level, then it will be hard to know who is the idiot.

  47. from what I have read from him, Mr Schmidt is the most rude obnixious person in the CAGW scam

    it seems this idea of debate is to holler obscenities at this opposition and then leave……

    what a moron

  48. True science makes room for competing theories and ideas. It doesn’t attempt to squash dissent; the science should be strong enough to make its own statement. The problem with Global Warming is that it doesn’t stand up on its own. It has become a religion and the acolytes “tweak” their data to support the view of the faithful and to maintain the power of the elite. Global Warming has a pope, bishops, religious tenets, and the “true believers” who do not allow dissent of any kind. That, Gavin, is not science – it is religion. It doesn’t matter if you are a Jewish liberal New Yorker or a Muslim conservative Iraqi, science is based on an evolving set of interpretations. To this moment, nobody knows what gravity is, but we have created a plethora of theories various scientists are working through. Nobody is squashing the theories that gravity is based in the 11th dimension or is composed of gravitons. Is it possible that global warming isn’t occurring or that, if it is, human have nothing to do with it? No? Well, there goes your science.

  49. From a certain perspective, Jews are Atheists because they believe in the Old Law whereas the Christian Church has the Only method of Salvation Now. They think they are obeying the Lord but they are deceived by Satan. The Church is the method of Salvation and the Holy Spirit “Baptises” you into the Church (the Body of Christ). Also, in Gavin’s case, to be a Liberal is not to obey the Lord as well. One of the Tenets of Liberalism is to plunge Economies into Debt to do everything (important) for everyone so they can get re-elected.

    Eventually though, they runout of good things to do for US and come up with Half-baked ideas that do not stand up to Scrutiny. And so we have the Over-Arching “Doctrine” of CAGW and the Trillion’s of Dollars Idea how to Supposedly get rid of it. No matter what we as a world do, we cannot get rid of CAGW because it is NOT going to destroy the Planet. We as a world will go on through the Lord’s return into the so-called “Millennium” because the Lord has written it in His Word. Now that’s a promise we can all trust.

  50. I think Schmidt was trying some self-effacing humor, but I agree it does not come off well. Perhaps it is worth noting that many Texas seem fine Donald Trump, an irreligious New Yorker. This gives me an idea! Scientists need to find their inner Trump:

    “And I tell you, I’m going to make the climate great again! Trust me! I can do it! I will build a wall around America to stop the rising seas! And, I will make China and Mexico pay for it! …” 😉

Leave a Reply