New Laws Of Physics: More Heat Equals More Ice! Watch Joe Bastardi’s Latest Video

Updated 23 July 2010, 18:54 MET.

Calamitologist Stefan Rahmstorf once defended his alarmist sea level rise scenarios by saying:

I can’t help it. It’s simply the laws of physics.

The question is: Whose physics?
No science has rewritten the laws of physics like climate science. In climate science, it works like this:

1. Develop a model that shows heating in the future.
2. Then compare the model projections with reality. If there’s a discrepancy:
3. Don’t change the models, instead go and change the measured data so that they agree with the models.

One way to do this is to go back and adjust the historical data, like GISS has done – GISS REWRITES HISTORY!

Another way is to modify your measurement methods and systems so that they put out only data that agree with the models. This involves closing down certain weather stations and then using data from urban-heat-island stations for filling in. GISS has done that too.


You may be able to fool the public this way, but you can’t fool the ice.

Joe Bastardi reports in his latest clip Ice Ice Baby how the Arctic ice simply refuses to melt, although we are told it’s getting warmer and warmer and warmer. Indeed look at total sea ice, north and south pole, here.

There we see a sea ice anomaly of ZERO! Global sea ice is right at normal.
Indeed the ice has been recovering over the last three years – even though we are told that it is getting hotter. This can mean only one thing. When it gets warmer, you get more ice.

We can’t help it, it’s simply the laws of climate physics.

Explore posts in the same categories: Arctic

2 Comments on “New Laws Of Physics: More Heat Equals More Ice! Watch Joe Bastardi’s Latest Video”

  1. DirkH Says:

    More about climatologist physics:
    Explanation of the Kevin-Trenberth Diagram and how it multiplies the backradiation by a factor of 2, a later version even by 3 when they should have divided by 12.

    He links to

    and to
    “So, as Novak shows, even if the ‘up and down’ back radiation effect were plausible under vector rules, NASA should never have doubled the numbers but divided them by twelve.”

  2. Brian H Says:

    Ugh. I’m getting a Pavlovian aversion response to the word combination, “laws” and “climate”. WUWT?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: