Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months


By: - Climate DepotSeptember 7, 2014 9:57 PM with 258 comments

Special to Climate Depot

Global Temperature Update

No global warming for 17 years 11 months …

… or 19 years, according to a key statistical paper

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.

Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.

This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

1711years

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to August 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 11 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 11 months, or 215 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

monckton2

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to August 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

monckton3

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to August 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña that is one of the excuses for the Pause.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015 . Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

Key facts about global temperature

  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month satellite record.
  • The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
  • The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
  • The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • From 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.
  • Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to August 2014 – just over half the 428-month satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

Other statistical methods might be used. A paper by Professor Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada, published at the end of August 2014, estimated that at that date there had been 19 years without any global warming.


  • Frederick Colbourne

    Warmists are saying, “Yes, but just you wait and see. The trend will resume moving up.”

    A skeptic might answer, “But what if the trend up during the 30 years prior to 1998 was merely the warm phase of ocean oscillations? What if internal variations in the climate system were mistaken for man-made climate change?

    NASA and other scientists have shown that uncertainties in the Earth’s net energy flux exceed the estimated excess energy from CO2 by a factor of ten times. Interannual variations in net radiative flux are twice as big as the estimated heat entering the oceans.

    No wonder coupled ocean-atmosphere models were cited by the IPCC. The instruments aboard satellites and data for net oceanic flux have never been precise enough to confirm global warming.

    The references are here: http://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-emperors-of-climate-alarmism-wear-no-clothes/

    • sirgareth

      The oceans have 100 times the heat content of the air. The atmospheric record is and always has been worthless. I guess now that the jig is up they are dancing a new tune. It will still be fraudulent.

      These globull warming educrats have no talent and no shame

      • dennismcbk

        right you are sirgareth! Thousands of scientists devoting their lives to their studies and they have ‘no talent and no shame’. You do (or should) realize how crazy and arrogant you sound? If not, you should.

        • sirgareth

          Thousands of “scientists” have “devoted” their lives to all manner of nonsense and evil, including their scientific “proof” (the science of “phrenology’ – all the rage in the learned halls of academia at last the century’s turn) that Jews were subhuman and that the most advanced people had skull shapes that closely resembled their own.

          Likewise Al Capone “devoted” his life to bootleg whiskey, prostitution, and the numbers racket that was eventually taken over by the state.

          When “devoting ones life” is the claim, don’t you think it important as to just what they are devoting it to?

          Jihadists “really” do “devote their lives” but.how many of our climate cultists likewise have offered up their own lives in sacrifice to their climate gods?

          No is one killing themselves to “save the planet” are they? But all love their semi-annual trips to 5-star resort venues on a beach to attend climate galas where they dine on succulent caviar and swill the champagne while bemoaning the little people who have their thermostats set to high or low.

          Do you think is merely coincidental that both Hitler and Stalin identified people who objected to their “science” as crazy and stuffed them in Gulags and death camps?

          You have some odd notion that science is somehow sanctimonious and clean; not the filthy corruption as the politicians who pervert science for their own means of subjugating stupid and docile nit-wits such as yourself

          Drop the the “devotion” crap – its another term of religious fervor totally unsuitable for sober and, more importantly, “real” science.

          • CB

            “The oceans have 100 times the heat content of the air”

            That’s true! The oceans do have a higher heat capacity than the air!

            You know the oceans have been steadily warming for the past 17 years and 11 months… right?

          • sirgareth

            No I dont “know” that. I do know that I’ve been “told” that by people who can never explain exactly how they “know” that.

            Put me down as a skeptic. I’m a recalcitrant who never bites on what the politicians tell me. I was one of the “deniers” who didn’t believe that I was going to get a $2400 “rebate” on my government mandated Obama-care that covers all of my abortions.

          • CB

            “Drawing colored squiggly line like yours is a lot of fun”

            The source of the graph is the IPCC AR5, page 264:

            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

            …as clearly stated.

            If you were a true skeptic, you would have already verified that the IPCC has found the climate has been warming for the past 17 years and 11 months and posted the science that gives you reason to believe it hasn’t.

            You have failed to do so, and therefore have zero credibility.

          • sirgareth

            Too funny you cite the IPCC as something other than a group of UN crackpots and frauds with their hands out for more expenses. Not even they are dumb enough to believe their own crap.

            You need to understand that governments lie, not just some of the time, but all of the time.

            And just because something is printed does not make it true.

            Do you have the slightest idea of how to measure the average thermal energy of the entire fluid mass of the Earth’s oceans?

            Do you believe “experts” can do this? I don’t, I instead tell them to show me how they do it. They can’t.

            If I asked them what the temperature was 165.32 miles south of the north pole along 45 degrees and 14.3215 minutes of longitude at a depth of say 3215 meters what could they tell me it was at say 2 hours and 35 minutes past midnight this morning ?

            I know they could say anything and usually do but what would the next person to ask actually say.

            All these frauds collude to their create numbers that are totally meaningless; they are meant for consumption by the same idiots who thought Obama was going to make health insures cheaper for all.

          • CB

            The second time you’ve presented not a single citation to back up your claims.

            Without a citation, you give people no reason to believe you.

            …so why are you posting anything at all?

          • sirgareth

            So if I claimed that dinosaurs roamed the Earth 10,000 years ago and cite some people who agree with me then it must be true? Do they have to have attended a four year college or would some good home tutoring suffice?

            I don’t think you really understand how science is done, I mean real science and not the pseudo religious crap the politicians fund with cash that doesn’t belong to them and for which they have no constitutional authority to spend.

            I do know something about how real science is done having worked in in for 45 years. It has nothing to do with citing others, lawyers do this but real scientists let their work speak for itself. Religion does cite authority: the pope, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc, i think your have these things confused.

            What do you know about the government (fake) science known as the SDI. Ronald Reagan funded it based on no less than Edward Teller telling him it would work. Now Teller was indeed a real scientist having actually discovering something that worked: notably the H-bomb. So this should make him an authority on X-ray lasers pumped by nuclear weapons, right?

            See this is were you leave the track of science and go off into the personality cult. The SDI research required the US to violate the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty because it was worth it. The greatest physicists in the USA worked on it full time at the national labs. and over 100 detonations still pock mark the Nevada test range in live experiments.

            This was great stuff and all of the scientists “saw” lased x-rays being detected by instruments as they themselves were being vaporized into plasma.

            This was now a multi-billion dollar industry and no one at any level dared suggest that instrumentation being vaporized might not actually detect anything other than the remnants of its own destruction .

            The greatness of Edward Teller suggested that young people on the lab staff who hadn’t accomplished anything hadn’t any right to pose obvious questions to such a great man. So the project went on for many years after all of the scientists eventually including Teller know it was all nonsense. It still had to be funded or people would lose their cushy careers at nice salaries and all for producing nothing.

            This is how all government science works – it has a political agenda and is therefore political and religious but not science.

            Greatness is recognized by history books but real science is self-affirming and no theory or position is advanced or denigrated by testimonials. Therefore your demand that I cite authorities has only political-religious significance

          • CB

            Screen diarrhea. No citation.

            Nobody’s reading it.

            Support your claim, please.

          • Joey B

            Ignoring the facts, eh? Not surprised. Anybody who would look to desmogblog (the most laughable propaganda organization on the internet) for information really is delusional.

          • sirgareth

            If I were as obtuse as you are determined to prove you are I would “cite” the logical fallacy called argumentation from authority but to do so would actually require that I cite an authority.

            You can read this in the dim hope it might eventually sink in but at this point I have little hope for you without liberally prescribed medications combined with institutionalized counseling.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

          • Joey B

            Bla bla bla.

          • CB

            Didn’t cite desmog, buddy. Cited the IPCC.

            Let me do you one better. NASA says ice on both poles is rapidly melting:

            “The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

            Did you not realise melting ice is a sign of warming?

          • Joey B

            Citing the IPCC is even more laughable. And you might want to do some digging into your NASA pronouncement. Because it is quite frankly a statistical fraud. In fact, Antarctica is losing about 0.0045% of its ice per decade—about 4.5/10,000ths of a percent per year. At that rate, it will take about 2,200 years for it to lose 1%. And then there is the record growth of the Antarctic sea ice. Oh….and did you know that the Thwaites glacier in Western Antarctica is losing ice not due to “global warming”, but rather from geothermal heat from beneath. Try again.

          • sirgareth

            The quintessential quack of Marxist when they have nothing.

          • Joey B

            The quintessential bilge of a smarmy Marxist.

          • CB

            I love the friendly fire, but what I love even more is that neither of you bother to support your claims with a valid citation.

            If you were telling the truth, why should that be?

            “All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • Joey B

            Well except that it hasn’t. The only way that the fraud artists get to those conclusions is by their constant manipulation of temperature records. Funny that the satellite temperature records show something completely different.
            Guess you missed the word “reconstructions”. Pointing to fraud doesn’t make the lie truthful.

          • Guest

            If I were as obtuse as you are determined to prove you are I would “cite” the logical fallacy called argumentation from authority but to do so would actually require that I cite an authority.

            You can read this in the dim hope it might eventually sink in but at this point I have little hope for you without liberally prescribed medications combined with institutionalized counseling.

            http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html

        • gray_man

          Thousands of “scientists” devoted their lives to getting a paycheck, nothing more.

    • dennismcbk

      Keep that thought Colbourne! Be sure to get back to us in fifty years and we’ll see how you’re doing.

  • Dorian

    Well here we are, 17 years and 11 months, and its September. Another educational year starts. After some 18 years of no global warming, we now have a body of high school students now entering university, and absolutely non of them have experienced global warming in the their entire lives. And yet, they are entering now the major indoctrination phase of their education, where the hysteria of global warming was created. So as these poor, malleable and impressionable minds begin their 101 courses on Geophysics, Meteorology, Climate Science and let’s
    not forget the more important Statistics, Computer Modelling and Data Analysis classes, what questions should a budding new intrepid mind be asking those university idiosyncratic (delusional? too strong?) professors? I’ll start the list, and let the rest of you add more….

    – If there is global warming, why is it that the sea ice extent in Antarctica is at record highs, and that in the Arctic, it is getting larger and at a rapid rate?
    – If global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, why are there glaciers growing, and many others have reversed and are starting to grow again, and why is that new glaciers are forming in places like Scotland, which hasn’t seen glaciers for hundreds of years?
    – Why is the annual rate of sea level rise diminishing, if there is global warming?
    – If global warming is true, why is it now every single computer model that predicts global warming is now outside of their error estimates and are totally wrong?
    – How many years do we need of absolutely no warming, before we accept that there is no warming?
    – Why is anthropogenic data homogenization really needed, and where is the evidence to show that anthropogenic data homogenization really works?
    – If there were warmer periods greater than we have now in our past, why is it that humans are blamed for this warm period when they weren’t even been around during earlier periods (like the Jurassic Age or even the Medieval Warming Period) for warming, and how can we prove that what mechanism existed then is not at play now that affects global warming if it does exist?
    – Why is there no data or research on how much of an affect the Urban Heat Island Effect has on supposedly the global warming data?
    – As far as extreme weather events go, they are getting lesser and lesser, for example, record low hurricanes and tornadoes around the world, how can this be, when global warming predicts the opposite?
    – Here’s a question for the Political Science 101, if global warming is a lie, and government research funding is cut to zero for global warming, what can be done with all those global warming academics since they can not be retrenched because they have tenure?

    That’s enough for a start, if you have others, please reply. I’m sure we can add questions in other fields, like economics, biology, paleontology, and so on. I just hope in another 4 years when these same students are getting their B.S. degrees, that they really get a Bachelor of Science Degree, and not just BS, I think you know what I mean there. Ok, 18 long years gone and an entire K-12 generation wasted. I tremble at the thought of what is going to come out of the universities in the next 4 years, and what crazy new delusions we will have to deal with.

    Lets pray that this global warming nonsense dies out soon, for the sake of the world, its economy and all our socio-economic structures, otherwise, it will not be global warming that ends the world, but the lunatics of the global warming religion flinging us back into the Stone Age. I can see it now, every body rubbing sticks and banging rocks for fire to avoid carbon fuels, using bicycles to transport our wares so we don’t use gasoline, wearing plant material for clothes to avoid making synthetic fabrics, bathing only once a month to conserve water and of course not using soap, dying from malnutrition because we can’t eat meat anymore because of flatulenced methane, ah yes, socialist civilization heaven!

    I can just see those lunatic global warming neanderthals now, walking around in their fig leaf loin cloths, eating berries, reeking of stench, and riding their bikes with wheels made of bark (don’t forget bicycle wheels are made from petroleum too!), and with a coming Ice Age coming! Hmmmm …. come to think of it, this may not be such a bad idea after all.

    • noprops

      Um, well if you don’t believe there were humans around during the medieval warming perhaps that explains your inability to grasp the real science and cite blog myths on sea ice expanding and other unsourced statements (maybe from Lord Monckton or some other ‘climatist’ in the denier ranks.) I’m sure he’s well regarded in the climate hard science fields…but, buy into what you will, brainwashing works like that…

      • sirgareth

        If we put white lab coats on back robed priests and call them “scientists” and then give them endless “study” grants then “real” science somehow emerges…heh heh.

        Barnum and Bailey had you pegged for sure

        • noprops

          And your exposed con man Lord Mock-ton certainly gives your slavish backing of his phony information a whole lot of authority, doesn’t it? No doubt the science is inexact, but certain realities exist – warming is real, and no amount of phony blog looneys is going to change that… what I don’t understand is people who might otherwise be intelligent being brainwashed so easily by the right wing disinformation campaign. I suppose you refuse reality because you feel embarrassed? Dunno.

          • sirgareth

            I do not have a “man” con or otherwise. I do my own thinking. This makes me dangerous to “your cause” I’m likewise not interest in “authorities” when it comes to knowledge. Science is non-authoritarian because “real” science is driven by logic and appeals to authority constitute a rather basic logic fallacy. Being a communist you are too stupid to understand this but logic and communism as as closely related as bats are to climatologists. It is a fraudulent science; Ouija Boards make more accurate predictions of future climate trends

            Yes warming is real, likewise cooling is real. How dense can you get!. You love the idea of the largest assemblage of idiots to ever assemble (politicians) who enfranchised their own priesthood to rape the public because you are stupid enough to believe they will share the loot with you. Vladmir Lenin referred to you as a “useful tool” or “useful idiot” depending on the translation .

            You are entitled to believe in anything you want including the tooth fairy. I wil nto pay the tooth fairy tax because of your fantasies.

            All of the quack predictions of this pseudo-science have not only failed but failed spectacularly and all we have left is dimwits like you and the heavens gate “believers” want to ride their comets into oblivion. Fine be my guest but Im not paying for your rocket ride into insanity. Pay your own freight.

          • PhilM1957

            Actually. It is people like you who are brainwashed. The only reality in any of this is the amount of fraud by those who advance the view. The science does not support it, as this article clearly shows. But I don’t need this article. I have only to take note of the amount of fraud committed by those who advance this idea as a “fact”. You don’t lie about information if the real information supports your view.

          • Guest

            So what about all the sea ice that was supposed to be gone by 2013? Why is it still here? AND GROWING? How do you splain that? I guess the penguins are part of the vast right wing conspiracy too, huh?

          • PhilM1957

            Your comment makes no sense. If you read my comment you would know that I do not believe in man-made global warming. It is people who do that claimed all the ice would be melted. Do you know how to read?

          • dennismcbk

            I ‘splain that’ by suggesting you do some serious studying because you’re incredibly ignorant of the facts.

          • Nick697

            I’m going to do something that is almost certainly futile, and attempt to refute your Monkton Derangement Syndrome by giving you the chance of actually seeing one of his presentations. As I said, it’s almost certainly futile, because to AGW alarmists facts are irrelevant – like any other religion, only faith is needed. It is also probably a futile attempt because, if you are like the typical liberal warmist, your attention span is about 90 seconds. To watch the presentation you need to devote an hour. Horrors! Also, the chances are pretty good that your response will be on the lines of “I didn’t watch that lying right-wing XXXX because I know his lies without having to watch it.”
            .
            Surprise me. Set aside an hour and see if your attention span can stand it.
            .
            One notices how desperate the global warmers are becoming, with every prediction from 25 years ago and more recently turning out to be false.
            No sea level rise. Global sea ice the greatest in 14 years, 3rd. greatest in
            history. AGW scientists stranded in record thick Antarctic ice while on a trip
            to prove that it’s melting. No measurable global temperature rise in 18 years, and that following a tiny increase which itself followed decades of cooling. Total global temperature rise – even admitted by the politically-driven IPCC – 0.8 degrees C in 144 years. Wow.
            .
            Possibly the best presentation, by Lord Christopher Monckton, on how these people buried contrary evidence, faked and selectively chose data like tree rings, bullied journals into not publishing papers refuting their manmade warming claims, tried to hide how they had committed scientific fraud in Climategate and threatened those who showed what they had done, is the link at the bottom of this page. Monckton is not a scientist, but he is a mathematician and statistician, and probably the world’s leading exposer of how the IPCC, and some AGW-supporting scientists, distorted evidence and resorted to actual fraud. He was invited to speak on the myth of global warming before a Congressional committee, and was the leader of the movement in the UK to have a film and booklet produced disproving almost every claim in Algore’s “Inconvenient Truth” which the British government had compelled children to watch.
            .
            Set aside an hour, because Monckton doesn’t just make claims refuting AGW, he gives scientific proof. For example, how a report by IPCC
            scientists, saying that they could not predict any effect by mankind on the
            climate (“the best answer to this is ‘we do not know'”), was changed
            in the Summary for Policymakers, issued by the IPCC bureaucracy to the world’s media, into “The body of evidence now points to a discernible human
            influence on global climate.”
            .
            If you’re more impatient, fast forward to about minute 20:
            .

            also:

          • DNA

            Two things I’ll never forget. First Bird Flu. Scientists were scare mongering all over the planet until they talked governments everywhere into buying $billions of vaccine. Then the apocalyptic ‘pandemic’ somehow disappeared and governments were stuck with $billions of out of date bird flu vaccine which they ended up destroying and the drug companies laughed all the way to the bank rolling in $$$$$.

            Next. In Australia I think last year or a bit before that we had bushfires. Very quickly the UN expert proclaimed that the bushfires were a ‘proof’ that climate change had overtaken Australia. The Prime Minister was quoted as telling her to shut up and that bush fires were normal in Australia. As it turned out the large fire was traced back to an army training day where explosives had been set off causing the fire that got out of control throughout the state!!

            These apocalyptic maniacs are just itching to call anything and everything climate change although that once the UN ended up with public egg all over its face because here was an ‘expert’ not acting on scientific evidence but brashly, emotionally fighting to establish a ‘belief’ in climate change when the bushfire had scientifically been proven to have been caused by military explosions that day.

            There is so much $$$$ involved. So much politics. So many lies, half truths and distortions.

            Humanity has damaged the environment with chemicals and not replacing forests true but that we all have to buy into a new ‘green economy’ is absurd. The people trying to sell this never speak of the millions of children dying of preventable diseases or to stop the wars they just talk of saving humanity ‘some time in the future’. Yes when they’ve fleeced us of billions paying for the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ and are dead and buried and unaccountable. If you’re interested in saving humanity save it now from wars, oppression, poverty, child rape, human trafficking and work for the betterment of humanity NOW not in a 100 years time. There’s millions of suffering people NOW who need help why are these jokers so obsessed with a 100 years from now when it’s NOW we need universal health care, universal education & universal peace?????? Or just don’t they care about the current generation at all or are the financial renumerations just too good to pass up???? Whatever, the environment can’t be fixed until the world works together as one so peace is needed first if we are to succeed. You can’t isolate climate change from world peace because if these guys are sincere then they need the whole world on the same page yet I don’t see any efforts to create world peace which to me means they are insincere as they think $trillions without people will fix everything. That’s what I think is the real issue here – money.

            There is no evidence those pushing the envelope of climate change give two hoots about humanity or its current suffering but are obsessed with its possible ‘future suffering’ very questionable ethics. Don’t forget it was scientists which gave us the nuclear bomb. Not everything scientists want or cause they support is for the good of humanity. There were also those emails which proved tampering with data to make warming look real. Scientists without morals can’t be trusted. Computer models are not God and they’ve been shown to be incorrect so true scientists should accept the facts and not push their beliefs as they should rely on facts and facts state they got stuck in ice trying to prove ice had melted and had to be rescued(exposed)
            no need to say anymore.

          • dennismcbk

            The only thing “this article clearly shows” is the utter insanity of Monckton and those who believe this bull-shit. Yes, bull-shit! Call it what it is. You PhilsM1957 are a bull-shit fraud. In fact let me state without hesitation you disgust me. You’re obviously on the payroll of some extraction industry or think tank supported by the coal/oil/gas industries. You don’t give a damn about humans or about the damage being done to planet earth by the extraction industries. My God you’re disgusting!

          • PhilM1957

            What kind of person says this about someone they don’t even know? I am on no one’s payroll. I work alone and not in this industry. But I do understand how to evaluate data. I do not doubt, and even state that man does thongs to harm the earth. But the global warming industries has one design and only one; to enrich those promoting it. The “facts” do not track unless you are predecided. I was not. I examined the so called evidence and stand by my comments. You may not agree. That is your right. But do not slander me again.

          • pf13

            Funny stuff you seem to add nothing with your comments, congrats in the series of content free posts.

          • WaRottie

            So what about all the sea ice that was supposed to be gone by 2013? Why is it still here? AND GROWING? How do you splain that? I guess the penguins are part of THAT vast right wing conspiracy too, huh?

          • Nick697

            No facts, not data, just childish name calling like “Monck-ton.” The science is not inexact, it’s phony. NASA, NOAA and AGW alarmist “scientists” have been caught out over and over faking their data.

            True-life stories are examples of global
            cooling—from all over the globe:
            -In 2013, the UK had the coldest spring since 1963.
            -In March 2013, Northern Japan received record snowfall–up to 16 ft thick just south of Aomori.
            -In October 2013, the worst frost in more than 80 years hit Chile and damaged 50 million boxes of fruit for export—damages were over $1 billion.
            -Parts of Australia had a record cold June
            -Antarctic just experienced the coldest June on record—an expedition vessel full of Climate Change scientists giong to prove that Antarctic ice is melting away became trapped in Antarctic sea ice 10 feet thick on Christmas Day 2013.

            Evidence either uncovered or chronicled by a Boston-based research firm, Unit Economics, suggests that government and their scientists, together and independently, have been manipulating data (and caught red handed!). The February 28, 2014 research paper by Unit Economics on global cooling goes into pages of detail on how some of the most important—and allegedly impartial—raw climate data has been regularly altered by private and
            public sector members of the scientific community. And that’s really too bad,
            because people working on questions around global temperature have very few datasets to choose from.

            One is the temperature anomaly dataset developed by NOAA (the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). NOAA started
            developing its temperature database in the early 1990s. It was revised once in 1997, and then three times between mid-2011 and the end of 2012.
            NOAA says the revisions dealt with new observations methods, corrected coding errors, and removed unnatural influences from things like changes in how instruments were stationed. In short: lots of revisions, little specific explanation. Not surprisingly, people started accusing NOAA of data tampering (google NOAA data tampering)…and when Unit Economics compared the 2008 NOAA dataset with the most recent version, they
            were significantly different. Overall, the man-made adjustments created an
            additional 2.48°F temperature change over the past 100 years – more than the 1.85°F of total warming the NOAA says has taken place since 1913!

            And when government scientists discover that the whole AGW hypothesis is wrong, they are ruthlessly suppressed, demoted and/or threatened. A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under
            wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill? This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest tax increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made
            to suppress a study shredding supporters’ arguments.

            On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it
            was releasing “an internal study on climate science which was suppressed
            by the Environmental Protection Agency.” In the release, the institute’s
            Richard Morrison said “internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI
            earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its
            author silenced because of pressure to support the administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.”

            Reading the report, available on the CEI Web site, we find this “endangerment analysis” contains such interesting items as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” What the report says is that the EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ Fourth Assessment report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is “at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field” and ignores the latest scientific findings. The IPCC itself is dominated by non-scientist politicians whose agenda appears to be to extract billions of dollars from advanced Western nations, like the USA, and send it to developing
            ones, under the guise of climate protection.

            Besides noting the decline in temperatures as CO2 levels have increased, a
            phenomenon similar to what occurred for 30 years after World War Two (a
            conundrum that Global Warming alarmists refuse to confront), the draft report says that, despite isolated extreme occurrences, the “consensus” on
            storm frequency and intensity is now “much more neutral.” Then there’s one of Al Gore’s grim fairy tales — the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers the size of Tennessee roaming the North Atlantic. “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such processes,” the report says.

            Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July. Scientists have noted frequently the significance of solar activity on earth’s climate and history. This EPA draft report not only confirms this, but also the brazen incompetence of those “experts” that have been prophesying
            planetary apocalypse.

            “A new paper by Scafetta and West,” the report says, “suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.” The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He’s been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.

            Thomas Fuller, environmental writer with the San Francisco Examiner,
            wrote Thursday: “A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.”
            One of the e-mails unearthed, dated March 12, from Al McGartland, director at NCEE, forbid Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.

            Carlin replied on March 16, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s
            Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin points out the peer-reviewed references in his study and points out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been
            collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” For saying the climate change emperors had no clothes, Carlin was told March 17:
            “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” In other words, the Obama administration had their collective minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn’t
            want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth.

            The problem the warm-mongers have is they now are in a position of telling
            the American people, who are you going to believe — us or your own lying eyes? Forget the snow in Malibu, the record cold winters. Forget that temperatures have dropped for a decade and a half. Forget the snow in Cairo for the first time in 122 years.

            President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat
            to ideology are over.” Apparently not, for as he spoke those very words
            his administration was suppressing science to advance a very pernicious
            ideology.

          • noprops

            Have to say it – when you begin to figure out weather (snow in japan, frost in chile) AINT CLIMATE, maybe you’ll begin to understand. These type of extreme weather variations are another sign we’ve screwed up the atmosphere and it will continue to get worse…. I believe trying to show a confirmed denier the facts is useless. They don’t want to be wrong – no matter what. Unteachable.

          • sirgareth

            Would a ten year heat wave and extreme drought be “climate” or “weather?”

            Does the Earth have a “climate?”

            If so, then what kind of “climate” is it?

          • Nick697

            Climate is the collected analysis of global WEATHER. Fortune tellers stare into crystal balls and attempt to foretell the future. The AGW alarmists stare into theirs (they’re called computer monitors) and try to predict future climate, not by actually observing worldwide weather, but by “models.”
            .
            And FYI, every one of their predictions over the past 25 years has been proved false. The globe is not heating up, despite increased CO2 emissions. The polar ice caps are not melting [hey, Algore; how about your prediction 7 years ago that the Arctic ice would all be gone in 7 years?]. Hurricanes are not more frequent or more intense – quite the opposite in fact. We are 9 years into a decade of unusual quiescence (look it up), with the fewest major hurricanes in over 30 years. The last major one to hit the US mainland was in 2005.

          • Spren

            Isn’t it funny how any warming event is climate, and any cooling event is weather. Sandy was AGW. And Katrina wasn’t only climate, but was the direct result of Bush. Why do we even engage with these morons. They are so arrogant in their profound ignorance.

          • Spren

            What a sanctimonious twit you are. All you can do is insult people and their intelligence. You are the denier, fool. And the last words you wrote definitely pertain much more to you true believers. Observations put the lie to everything you say and yet you disregard them. Go jump in the warming oceans and don’t come out.

        • dennismcbk

          I for one am much impressed by your perceptive comment on the nature of snake oil salesmen and con men. You obviously have a firm hand on reality.

          • sirgareth

            I would be most concerned if I impressed either you or my wife’s cat. It isn’t my intention to do so with either of you although impressing the cat is at least less terrifying, if totally unintentional.

          • Spren

            You are just too freaking smart for the rest of us knuckle-draggers. Your astute description of the science has convinced me. How did you become so smart? Was it the frontal lobotomy?

      • PhilM1957

        What an unbelievable argument! I think you overlooked the whole argument of the global warming folks. Try to follow the dots. Were there humans during the medieval warming period. Yes. Were there cars? No. Were there factories? No. Were there any of the things they claim cause global warming? No.

        • Nick697

          The Medieval Warming Period was the warmest 150 years of human history. Ice cores made in the 1980s allowed scientists to analyze the air trapped inside, which showed that the CO2 level in the atmosphere was a small fraction of today’s. Which is just one fact knocking the hypothesis of CO2 causing global warming on the head.
          .
          Another annoying fact to the AGW alarmists is that the fastest increase in manmade CO2 occurred during the period 1940 to 1973 – frantic armament and ship building in WWII, heavy industry turning out steel, concrete etc. for reconstruction after the war, and an explosion in consumer goods like cars and refrigerators in the post-war boom – 95% of this powered by coal-burning generating stations.
          .
          And global temperatures went down for the whole period. Down so much that the predecessors of todays warming alarmists were predicting a New Ice Age, and suggesting such bizarre remedies as coating the poles with soot to absorb more sun heat. The climate “scientists” knew nothing then, and know nothing now.

      • Nick697

        Of course there were humans in the Medieval Warming Period. The Vikings enjoyed it in Greenland 1000 years ago when they named the island for its green
        coastal meadows. They moved in with their cattle, and thrived for 300 years,
        during what we now call the Medieval Warming. Others grew wine grapes in what is now Newfoundland (which they called Vinland.) The Vikings’ mistake was thinking that Greenland and Newfoundland would stay warm, that the Earth’s climate was stable. Greenland was then warmer than today, and the summers were longer. There was ample grass and hay for the Vikings’ dairy cows. The Norse settlement grew to 3000 people.

        Then Greenland’s climate suddenly got colder. The Little Ice Age had begun. Sea ice moved south, and the Vikings’ sailing ships could no longer get through to trade wood for seal furs. Shorter summers produced less hay to feed the Viking cows through longer, colder winters. The last written record found in the abandoned Viking colonies was dated 1408. Our panic-prone scientists seem to have forgotten their own ice cores, drilled deep into the Greenland ice sheet in the 1980s. These ice cores not only show that atmospheric CO2 levels in the Medieval Warming Period were fraction of today’s, they also document a natural 1500-year climate cycle raising temperatures about 2 degrees C above the mean for 750 years or so and then abruptly dropping them 2 degrees C below the mean (at the latitude of northern Europe).

        Man’s climate impacts are puny compared to the million-degree heat of the sun. There’s no evidence that human-emitted CO2 has added much to the current temperatures. Our moderate warming to date 0.8 degree C, virtually all occurred before 1940, and thus before much of the wartime industrial development due to frantic armament and ship building (and a flood of consumer goods in the post-war boom), 96% of it being powered by coal-burning power stations. Note that from 1940 to 1974, global temperatures fell during this, the fastest increase in manmade CO2 in history.

        The myth of an Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now. Seven years after the former US Vice-President’s warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in a row. An area twice the size of Alaska – America’s biggest state – was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice. The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’ Those comments came in 2007 as Mr. Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change. But seven years after his warning, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how youmeasure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

        The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite
        readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded
        by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline –
        last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent
        ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres. This was the highest level recorded
        on that date since 2006, and represents an increase of 1.71 million square
        kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent. Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres. As well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with regions where the ice pack is most dense increasing markedly. Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting.
        Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year. It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’

        The 2007 speech by Gore was apocalyptic. He said that the North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff and could be gone in seven years. And for years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space. However, Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’

        Those who just a few years ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014 included US Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the same bogus prediction in 2009, while Gore has repeated it numerous times – notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty. Gore – whose office yesterday (August 30, 2014) failed to respond to a request for comment – insisted then: ‘There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’ [Note: Gore and Kerry both came close to becoming president!]

        Misleading, and contrary to both historic and present-day evidence, as such forecasts are, some people continue to make them. Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015. Asked about this yesterday, he said: ‘I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us.’

        For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050. Politicians such as Al Gore have often insisted that climate science is ‘settled’ and have accused those who question their forecasts of being climate change ‘deniers’. However, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity. But outside the scientific community, the more pessimistic views have attracted most attention. For example, Prof Wadhams’s forecasts have been cited widely by newspapers and the BBC. But many reject them.

        Yesterday Dr. Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’ Dr. Hawkins said that the apparent shrinkage in 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather, and was intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’. Like many scientists, Dr. Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.

        The apparent recovery in Arctic ice looks like good news for polar bears. If there is more ice at the end of the summer, they can hunt seals more easily. Yet even when the ice reached a low point in 2012, there was no scientific evidence that bear numbers were declining, with their estimated total of 20,000 to 25,000 thought to be higher than in the 1970s, when hunting was first banned. In many Arctic regions, say scientists, they are in robust health and breeding successfully. Computer model predictions of a polar bear decline caused by ice melt have also failed to come true. In 2004, researchers claimed Hudson Bay bear numbers would fall from 900 to fewer than 700 by 2011. In fact, they have risen to over 1,000.

        Update: No global warming for 19 years now: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years

        • noprops

          Doesn’t change your earlier statements about no humans around in medieval warming. And you admit the ling term trend is declining sea ice … When will deniers stop trying to cherry pick bits of this or that, or claiming the article ice is expanding, and get down yo real science instead of some extreme right wing blog concocted to brainwash them?

          • Nick697

            What “earlier statement”? I made no such claim, and challenge you to cut and paste it if you can (of course you can’t.) The only thing I will “admit” about sea ice is that it increases in volume (area X thickness) and decreases in regular cycles, as it has for millions of years before man even appeared, and does so irrespective of CO2 from SUVs or power stations. The same with global temperatures. There are warm periods – sometimes very warm, as in the Medieval Warming Period – and cooling periods, sometimes very cold (Google Maunder Minimum.) Man has no more effect on global temperatures than he does on the tides.
            .
            And I love it when an AGW KoolAid drinker is confronted with unpalatable solid, incontrovertible facts that prove the whole AGW is a myth and a hoax, and try to dismiss them as cherry-picked or “an extreme right-wing blog.” Pathetic. When will you loons admit that it’s all bogus? After 20 years of no global warming? 30? 50?
            .
            P.S. What is an “article ice”? Some kind of sundae?

          • dennismcbk

            Hi again nick…. Sorry about my earlier comment. I didn’t realize you were writing from Happy Acres. Hope everything is going well for you. Say hello to the other folk and be sure to take your meds on time.

          • Nick697

            Again, no attempt to refute or rebut (you probably don’t know the difference – Google them) my facts and data; just make silly childish comments. Enjoy the Algore KoolAid.

          • sirgareth

            What a shmuck.

          • Pfc. Parts

            “What is an “article ice”?”

            I think it’s similar to “yo real science”.

        • dennismcbk

          Hi Nick697, Lots of words and little information of merit. You could have compressed your comment into a small number of words and have accomplished the same thing. It you insist on making a public display of your stupidity all you have to do is say “Boy am I stupid and here are a few words to prove it”. Why the hell write paragraph after paragraph saying the same thing?

          • Nick697

            An absolutely typical response from someone who can’t refute facts but just resorts to ad hominem attacks. You probably didn’t learn Latin in school, so Google the phrase. I imagine your attention span is limited, like liberals in general, to catch phrases and slogans, like “denialist!” so I quite understand why you probably quit by the second paragraph. And I’m sorry that there were so many multi-syllable words that you couldn’t understand (better Google multi-syllable, too.)

          • Been warm b4, will be again

            Uhh, is anything he said untrue? New here, reading the comments and shaking my head that the global warming acolytes (I’m an originalist, no much into revisionist history, what can I say?) comments are all bark, no bite. As we used to say back in the day when asked about global warming…. blame BOB (big orange ball), he’s the only constant in this endeavor.

          • Cody Harper

            Yeah, practically everything. As in, Greenland has never been “green” since humans have been around. It has always been covered in ice. Iceland, is where the Vikings set up at, Greenland, was their scapegoat for others to believe that is where they were.

          • CRC60

            Cody… I suggest you help edit the Wikipedia article about the History of Greenland…
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#Norse_settlement
            …as they clearly need your help.

          • William Ripskull

            Yeah, how crazy is that, writing all those facts. Let’s all ignore them and keep the climate faith.

        • Cody Harper

          Lol, this is so hilarious, that you got the most basic fact of this wrong. Greenland, is covered in ice, always has been even back in the Viking days. They specifically named it Greenland, so that people would go there instead of where they really set up at, Iceland. They named Greenland “Greenland” so that people would believe it was the nice place to go, so that no one would come to their real home, Iceland, which was in fact, the land that was covered in green plants. They switched the names purposely to keep others away from their beautiful Iceland. Look it up. Iceland has always been green, and Greenland has always been covered in ice, or at least since humans have been there. F*ing morons. Instead of purporting misinformation that you have made up, why don’t you read a book sometime with, oh, what’s it called, FACTS.

          • Nick697

            What a load of ignorant tosh. Yes, most of Greenland is covered in ice, and always has been. But during the MWP the global temperature soared so much that the COASTAL areas became fertile, and the Vikings settled there for 300 years. Yes, they named it Greenland to try to encourage other Norse people from back home to settle. So no, it wasn’t “covered in ice … back in the Viking days.” Because they only settled on a coastal area, your reasoning is like saying nobody can live in Australia because 90% of it is barren, arid wasteland.
            .
            And I notice how you carefully skirt the other Vikings growing grapes in Newfoundland.
            .
            Another thing for you to ponder. There is no – zero – empirical evidence that increased CO2 levels, whether natural or man-made, have any effect on global climate. In fact, all the scientific evidence points in the opposite direction. Humans now control Earth’s climate, James Hansen
            of NASA told CBS’ “60 Minutes” recently. His evidence: the edges of
            the Greenland ice sheet are melting rapidly. Hansen says the speed of this
            melting proves that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible. Sorry, Dr. Hansen, but the melting edges of the Greenland ice sheet don’t prove your point. Melting around the edges is exactly what the Vikings saw on Greenland 1000 years ago.
            .
            Our panic-prone scientists seem to have forgotten their own ice cores, drilled deep into the Greenland ice sheet in the 1980s. These not only show by chemical analysis of their trapped air bubbles, that atmospheric CO2 then was a fraction of today’s. They also document a natural,
            sudden-but-moderate 1500-year global warming cycle. This natural 1500-year climate cycle raises temperatures about 2 degrees C above the mean for 750 years or so and then abruptly drops the temperatures 2 degrees C below the mean (in the northern hemisphere). Many has nothing to do with this, and can have no effect on it.
            .
            Man’s climate impacts are puny compared to the million-degree heat of the sun. There’s no evidence that human-emitted CO2 has added much, if anything, to the current temperatures. Our moderate warming to date 0.8 degree C, virtually all occurred before 1940, and thus before the
            majority of industrial development. Speaking of 1940, the fastest and greatest increase in man-caused atmospheric CO2 occurred from 1940 until the early 1970s, due to frantic armament-making in WWII, and an equally frenetic post-war rebuilding and production of consumer durables like cars and refrigerators in the post-war boom. Almost all of this was made possible by coal-fired electrical generating plants.
            .
            And global temperatures went down during the entire period.
            .
            Down so much that the predecessors to today’s global warming alarmists were predicting, just as confidently, a New Ice Age, and suggesting
            such bizarre remedies as covering the poles with soot to absorb more sun’s heat.

          • Cody Harper

            Really? Aren’t you forgetting the fact that almost every extinction on planet Earth has been preceded by increasing CO2 levels that lead to global warming, that then lead to massive methane release, which lead to massively more CO2 that then lead to exponentially more global warming? Just like we are seeing now. So yeah, CO2 has been proven, with empirical evidence as you put it, does in fact, have a HUGE affect on global climate, as technically that is exactly what has caused the majority of extinctions on our planets, as in like, the dinosaurs. Since you obviously don’t know how this went I will explain. K2 Meteor hits, caused dust and other particles to rise into the atmosphere, this traps in heat, the heat leads to warmer oceans and land, which leads to massive Volcano eruptions and the melting of both the polar caps, and deep sea ice, which low and behold, release massive amounts of Methane gas into the atmosphere at catastrophic rates, which in turns creates more CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turns causes the atmosphere to hold more heat. If you are still having trouble understanding, I will try and make it preschool simple for you. Mass = Energy. So, obviously, the larger the mass of an atom, the more energy it can hold. Energy = heat, in some forms, as in the one we are currently talking about. Carbon Dioxide, has a larger mass than Oxygen, as in Carbon is one atom then 2 atoms of Oxygen. So, do the math here, let me make sure, 1 atom vs 3, hmmm, this could get a little tricky. So, this is where it gets really simple. Adding larger amounts of gases to the atmosphere that contain more mass, means the atmosphere will in turn hold in more heat from the sun, leading to an increase in the global temperature of the planet, and eventually leading to yet another, extinction, just like it has happened before, it will happen again.

          • Nick697

            OMG. When I first read this I thought you were joking, and I was about to thank you for the best laugh of the week. Then I realized that you were serious.
            .
            Where do you get this ludicrous junk from? Some lunatic anthropogenic global warming site – or do you make it up? You’re so typical of the incredibly gullible, non-science educated mob that Obama and the rest of the AGW alarmists depend on. Let’s look at your nonsense bit by bit.
            .
            Let’s start with your nonsensical claim that “almost every extinction on planet Earth has been preceded by increasing CO2 levels.” What is your source for that claim, other than your imagination? Cite the scientific paper by a recognized paleontologist. There is no such thing. True, most scientists believe that a giant meteorite, or comet, caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and some 70% of all creatures, at the end of the cretaceous era. It is widely agreed that such an object — 10 kilometers across — struck just off the coast of the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago. That is the only part of your unintentionally humorous post that is correct
            .
            For months, scientists conclude, dense clouds of dust blocked the sun’s rays, darkening and chilling Earth to deadly levels for most plants and, in turn, many animals. It didn’t trap in heat, in fact quite the opposite. Only later, when the dust finally settled, greenhouse gases created by the impact caused temperatures to skyrocket above pre-impact levels. Read that again: greenhouse gases – methane, sulfur dioxide and trioxide, nitrogen oxides and CO2 – not just CO2. In just a few years, according to this hypothesis, these alternating frigid and sweltering climatic extremes caused the extinction of not just the dinosaurs, but of up to 70 percent of all plants and animals living at the time.
            .
            In any case, what relevance does this have to today? Zero. Atmospheric CO2 is a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere. The latest report by the government’s NOAA shows the average in August 2013 to be 395 parts per million, and 397 ppm in August 2014. When you increase an infinitesimal fraction by an even more infinitesimal fraction, you still have an infinitesimal fraction. Gee: an increase of 0.002 ppm (0.000000002)! We’re all doomed! Let’s put it another way. Again per the NOAA: CO2 is one ten thousandth more concentrated in the atmosphere than it was in 1750. And science shows that when CO2 levels rise, nature responds by increasingly luxuriant [stop me if I’m using too big words for you] vegetation.
            .
            Water vapor is hundreds of times more concentrated in the atmosphere, and many times more potent as a greenhouse gas. But recent NASA satellite data show that atmospheric water vapor has been decreasing steadily from 1990, causing a cooling effect 16 times greater than the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Additional NASA satellite data from 2011 shows much more of earth’s heat being radiated out into space than previously thought, putting another nail in the coffin of the AGW alarmists’ creed.
            .
            Your “which leads to massive volcano eruptions” is more unscientific rubbish. Volcanoes erupt when the pressure of magma below the earth’s crust becomes too great for it to hold back. Global temperatures and greenhouse gases have absolutely no effect on this process. So is your “mass=energy.” That’s like saying electricity=heat. Mass and energy are interchangeable, not equal.
            .
            And to reiterate, since you obviously didn’t understand it before, in the Medieval Warming Period, the warmest time in history, CO2 level – as shown by analysis of trapped air bubbles in ice-core drilling – was a fraction of today’s. And the fastest increase of man-made CO2, from 1940 to the early 1970s, was accompanied by global cooling.
            .
            Finally, before you talk about making anything “preschool simple,” I suggest that you get a 6th-grade English book, or have someone not so illiterate check your work before posting it. Example: “does in fact have a HUGE affect.” The word is effect [noun: anything brought about by a cause or agent], not affect. Next: the words volcano, methane, oxygen, carbon and dioxide are not proper nouns, and do not require a first capital letter. Also, the phrase is “lo and behold,” not “low and behold.”

          • Cody Harper

            Regardless of anything that could be considered speculation as obviously none of us were alive millions of years ago. It could be claimed either way on the extinction, as it was, as you even mentioned yourself. caused by the increase of greenhouse gases such as CO2. Anyways, beyond that point. Very basic physics. Mass = Energy. Energy = Heat. As such, if you increase the mass in the atmosphere, by say adding CO2, you increase the heat the atmosphere is capable of retaining from the sun. There is no denying that as it is the very basic laws of phsysics. You can choose not to believe it, but that’s the great thing about facts, doesn’t matter if you believe it or not.

          • Cody Harper

            And, just as you claim I made up this info, here is some more proof for you that almost all extinctions were in fact preceeded by an increase in CO2. The chart shows that all 8 extinction periods listed have more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do now. 7 out of 8, are showing 5 times more CO2 than we have now. Believe whatever you want. Still, almost all extinctions were preceeded by a huge increase in global CO2.
            https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/21477/area14mp/m3yvn6tq-1363748743.jpg

          • Cody Harper

            Another article from a very well respected college, MIT. Shows that the Triassic period, just before the Jurassic period, ended because 76% of all life went extinct due to an increase in CO2 levels.

            http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/volcanic-eruptions-triggered-end-triassic-extinction-0321

          • Cody Harper

            And another from Berkley showing that in fact, the Jurassic extinction was preceded by a sharp increase in CO2 levels.

            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mcelwain_06

          • Cody Harper

            From the National Academy of Sciences in the USA. Another study showing the Triassic extinction, the largest our planet has seen, was caused by CO2.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4172.full?sid=ea41d3e3-d5e2-48da-9e88-51be76f790e4

          • Cody Harper

            Another from NAS of USA, showing the Permian extinction as well being cause by a sharp increase in CO2, and even states, these findings are consistent with almost all other extinctions.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/107/19/8543.full?sid=ea41d3e3-d5e2-48da-9e88-51be76f790e4

          • Cody Harper

            And finally, a report about the Cretaceous period extinction that we speak of. Some quotes, “Noncalcifying phytoplankton (dinoflagellates, diatoms, haptophytes) did not suffer severe faunal turnover, suggesting that darkness may have contributed, but may not have been the most important cause of extinction, in agreement with arguments that not sufficient fine dust was generated by the impact to cause prolonged, severe darkness” showing that the darkness created by the impact was not enough to cause the mass extinction. “possibly because the impact occurred during southern hemisphere winter when photosynthesizers would have been hibernating because of seasonal darkness.” explains the reason why the darkness, even if it had been worse, would not have really affected the life during that time. Although, I will admit it did contain this nugget, which does not support my point, but it still does show there were in fact high CO2 levels at the time, but they postulate it was the Nitric acid that actually led to the acidification of the oceans which lead to the extinction, “We speculate that rapid ocean acidification could have been a major causal factor (2, 3). Acidification probably was not caused by high atmospheric CO2 levels (38), but nitric acid may have been generated by N2-oxidation due to heating of the atmosphere by the impactor”. And, just to point out, it says due to the heating of the atmosphere from the impact, not the cooling that happened.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/728.full?sid=ea41d3e3-d5e2-48da-9e88-51be76f790e4

          • pf13

            Thanks for the links all the papers listed, they describe their research as ‘speculative and hypothesis. IOW trying to create scenarios to fit the current political situation. I would also note the the presumed CO2 levels were >5x current levels.

            How bout the empirical satellite measurements that show that the bio mass of the planet has increased as a result of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

          • Cody Harper

            Of course it is speculative and hypothesis, as all information about millions of years ago is, considering no humans were alive then to record the events. Their speculations are based on evidence that can be observed. Of course, we could find that the CO2 level increases were actually caused by the extinctions and not vice versa if the extinction timelines were off just a bit, but statistically that is much less likely as the Carbon cycle of our planet doesn’t fit that portrait. If that were the case, we would already be extinct as CO2 is already increasing. But there is always a minute chance that the evidence we have actually suggests something else. It’s like the saying goes, when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras. It doesn’t mean it couldn’t be something else, it just means statistically, it is much more likely that the evidence does in fact point to a correlation of a drastic increase in CO2 levels just before every mass extinction. I’m not saying there is no absolute chance that their hypothesis is wrong, I’m just saying it’s very unlikely. Just like, there is always the chance that time could be reversed and we just don’t know enough to do it, but, statistically speaking, the laws of physics don’t allow this to happen. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, it’s just extremely, astronomically, improbable.

          • sirgareth

            Who funds these babies ?

          • sirgareth

            Well if its accepted in Berkley what else is there? Flowers in our hair?

            You seem to be overly impressed with academia..the permanent home of underachievers.

          • sirgareth

            Wheres does “respect” fit in the scientific method?

          • sirgareth

            What?

            Pictures with dots are not proof of anything. If I offer you pictures with dots will you accept them as proof too?

          • sirgareth

            Who loaded your head with this trash….don’t take candy from them

      • Doug Wakeman

        You may mock and deride people of common-sense all day, but the fact remains – there is no warming. That you would cling to this cultish faith long past the time when its predictions have proven utterly false only exposes you as an pathetic automaton blinded by a religious fanaticism.

    • dennismcbk

      Sorry Dorian, but on every point you are wrong. I think your problem lies in the literature you’re reading. You have to make an effort to stop reading comic books. You’ll find little scientific knowledge in the comics. Then again if you’re happy it really doesn’t make any difference to the rest of humanity what you read or think. It’s not for me to be judgmental when being a dumb-ass makes you happy. Go for it!

      • Dazzeetrader1980

        Dennis, no offense but youre a waste of spaace. The game was rigged and now it’s over There is nowhere for you to go in your raith baseed argument. Us data people just call your type on its BS. Find another cause son…..I jut ordered my new V12 BENZ.

      • Daniel Dow

        Wow Dennis, I would LOVE to see some actual data from you! Please site some sources for your proof that this data is wrong. Or have you been smoking mushrooms? It is either that or you are hopelessly stupid. As an engineer I am used to looking at data sets, and analyzing them to make sure it is not being used fraudulently. I’m sick and tired of morons like you pushing bullshit “science” when you understand nothing.

        • rps462

          I’d like to point out that smoking mushrooms didn’t do anything for me. I tried it, no effect. Of course I had eaten a bunch of them earlier so .. not really a good judge I suppose.

      • Dorian

        I read scientific journals, and evaluate with my own competence, I do have the scientific, engineering training and experience, accompanied with a publishing record which includes years of service as a technical paper reviewer. Interesting how my background in physics, mathematics and engineering makes me an automatic ‘dumb-ass’ as you put it. Ignorance is indeed bliss, but alas, it doesn’t absolve you from responsibility, and in your case dennismcbk, its reckless and doltishly gauche. Its shows you are ill-educated, the usually result of a socialist education system, I dare say. I should feel sorry for you, but I don’t. This world needs stupid people, for if there weren’t any, how could the rest us call anyone stupid! It would indeed be a boring world, if every body had at least some common sense.

        Oh for the record, I have never read a comic book in my life. I find them to boring and too simplistic, however you seem to display an understanding of them, good for you. Its better to read something, no matter what level it is, than nothing at all. Keep it up dennismcbk, one day, you will start reading books with out pictures in them, and then you will discover something incredible, its call abstract thought, you’ll find it will help you to understand more difficult concepts, especially in science. I look forward to your educational development, I wish you well, and one day we may have a conversation of greater mutual intellectual equivalence. I look forward to that day!

        Fear not dennismcbk, you can do it! Keep trying, I know its difficult, but you will see the merit one day! Its there for all those who have suffered at the hands of the socialist educational systems.

      • Denis Ables

        Amazing. These climatge alarmists are beyond DENYing facts. They merely want you to believe them rather than your own eyes!

    • Steve Zissou

      Dorian, if you are an engineer, then I highly doubt that you are either practicing or in a field related to atmospherics or climate change, and if you’re an engineer, then I’m ashamed to count you as a colleague.

      To begin with, you have allowed this post to completely omit the oceanic component of global warming that we know comprises more than 75% of the heat in the Earth’s heat system (https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/20580/width668/gvzj8y37-1361767576.jpg). You then promote talking points that have been refuted through science on several occasions and, in some cases, many years ago.

      Let’s destroy your argument piece by piece using science and engineering.

      1.) “If there is global warming, why is it that the sea ice extent in Antarctica is at record highs, and that in the Arctic, it is getting larger and at a rapid rate?”

      Increased numbers of polynas due to greater wind, less stratification between the salt and fresh water (also enhanced by the melting of the Western Ice Sheet), and the hole in the ozone layer.
      http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

      As for arctic sea ice, that’s a volume vs extent comparison. You are using a two dimensional measure to qualify a three dimensional problem. Consult Rayner’s work from 2004 for your evidence (you’re an engineer, you have access to journal articles, right? Hit up your Alma Mater if you need to.)

      2.)”If global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, why are there glaciers growing, and many others have reversed and are starting to grow again, and why is that new glaciers are forming in places like Scotland, which hasn’t seen glaciers for hundreds of years?”

      Glacial volume fluctuation is based on both air temperature and precipitation changes. This means that there are situations where glaciers may grow despite the fact that the air temperature may be greater than historically observed at that location. Also, there is no evidence of modern glaciation in Scotland. What you have are reports of neves forming. These are simply the precursors to glaciers and do not represent glaciation events themselves.

      Here’s a simple glacier mass balance that demonstrates that the state of glaciers globally is in die straits:
      http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/global-data-sets/GLACIER_cogley_arithmetic.txt

      3.)”Why is the annual rate of sea level rise diminishing, if there is global warming?”

      Sea level rise has slowed as of late, it’s true, but this can be explained by the ENSO index and changes in land-based rainfall patterns for the Amazon, Congo and Australia. Additionally, your misleading wording of diminishing demonstrates an even greater ignorance of this topic than I suspected. To start with, the rate has gone from 3.3mm/a over a ten year period to 2.4mm/a over a ten year period. There have been significant differences in land-based rainfall patterns in the latter decade.

      4.)”If global warming is true, why is it now every single computer model that predicts global warming is now outside of their error estimates and are totally wrong?”

      This is categorically false and represents your obvious desire to believe against the facts. In fact, many models are only wrong because they have underestimated the amount of warming to be expected (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/sea_ice_prediction_med.jpg).
      http://www.businessinsider.com.au/major-science-review-finds-the-global-warming-models-were-right-all-along-2014-7

      5.) “How many years do we need of absolutely no warming, before we accept that there is no warming?”

      30.

      However, you would need to understand what warming is in order to understand that we haven’t seen 1 year without warming. The oceans have been warming during this supposed hiatus. (Temperature vs Heat. As an engineer, you should know the difference).

      http://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-global-warming-paused-12439

      6.) “Why is anthropogenic data homogenization really needed, and where is the evidence to show that anthropogenic data homogenization really works?”

      Because of the urban heat island effect and stations being relocated. You answered your own question two questions later…

      7.) “If there were warmer periods greater than we have now in our past, why is it that humans are blamed for this warm period when they weren’t even been around during earlier periods (like the Jurassic Age or even the Medieval Warming Period) for warming, and how can we prove that what mechanism existed then is not at play now that affects global warming if it does exist?”

      What? That’s a good example of how we know that carbon is culprit. Deniers dismiss the evidence we provide to demonstrate the climatic effects of previous warming events and then demand evidence. Rampant climate change has been the single greatest destroyer of life on our planet, and in the majority of cases, it’s been caused by greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

      8.) “Why is there no data or research on how much of an affect the Urban Heat Island Effect has on supposedly the global warming data?”

      Because the data demonstrates otherwise? The greatest changes in temperature for long term averages are Russia, Northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland. In the Southern Hemisphere, the greatest change in temperature occurs on the Antarctic peninsula near South America. These are not metropolitan locales. Additionally, this is where homogenisation of the data comes into play to ensure that outliers are not recorded.

      9.) “As far as extreme weather events go, they are getting lesser and lesser, for example, record low hurricanes and tornadoes around the world, how can this be, when global warming predicts the opposite?”

      Despite what Forbes would have you believe, they aren’t getting lesser and lesser. What is happening is that the definition of extreme weather events is being warped by those with a need to have the narrative fit their business model. Extreme weather events are any weather event that is an extreme version of that event. Australia is seeing unparalleled numbers of bushfires, heatwaves and droughts. Individual high temperature days are also on the rise in Australia.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig7.png

      10.) “Here’s a question for the Political Science 101, if global warming is a lie, and government research funding is cut to zero for global warming, what can be done with all those global warming academics since they can not be retrenched because they have tenure?”

      Again, with the strawman argument. There are no “global warming” academics. There are climatologists and atmospheric scientists. What happens when mineral values go down and geologists need to be retrenched?

      If you’re an engineer, then I pray you’ve not been involved in two many public works, because your approach to this model smacks of incompetence and failure to do due diligence.

      Gotta love your little tantrum rabout educating our children towards conserving fossil fuels for when they are really needed. lol

      Always great to read a grown man have a small breakdown when attempting to reconcile reality against his core beliefs and a need to be vindicated in the face of overwhelming evidence. You’re going to need a ladder for some of your cherry picking soon, though, slim.

      • Nick697

        1) You cite a 2004 study to attempt to bolster your contention that the polar sea ice is decreasing? A 10-year-old study :) Pity you weren’t on the Ship of Fools that sailed to the Antarctic some months ago to prove that the sea ice was disappearing – and got stuck in ice so extensive and deep that the world’s most powerful ice breakers couldn’t reach it. Try this for size: “Arctic sea ice continued to expand throughout the month of October [2013]. Antarctic sea ice … is now within two standard deviations of the long-term average.” (National Snow and Ice Data Center.)
        .
        Or: “Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high in 35 years with 2.1 million sq. km. more than is usual for the time of the year.” “The level of Antarctic sea last week hit an all-time high, confounding computer models that say it should be in decline. It is by far the highest since satellite observations, on which the figures are dependent, began in 1979. It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.” Source: IPCC 5th Assessment Report, July 2014. Also: “There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of observed increase in the extent of Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979 due to incomplete and competing explanations for the causes of change.”
        .
        Translation: All the taxpayer-funded drones sitting at their computers have no more idea of what’s going to happen – or has happened – in global climate than Poor Richard’s Almanac did. Probably less. Your $42 billion at work. AGW climatologists base their gloom-laden predictions not on Earth’s history but on computer simulations. These have long been subject to ridicule because their stunning failure to predict the nearly 18-year slight cooling instead of their forecast warming.
        .
        2) Glaciers are indeed expanding in some areas. In Norway there are at least seven (Alforbreen Glacier, Briksdalsgreen Glacier (growing by over 7″ per year), Engabreen Glacier (second largest in Norway) and others.) Canada: Helm Glacier, Place Glacier and others. Canada’s tallest mountain, Mount Logan, is growing taller because of a growth spurt of its glaciers. France: Mont Blanc Glacier has almost doubled in size. Equador: Antizana 15 Glacier. Italy: Glaciers are growing on Mount Canin and Mount Montasio.Chile: Pio XI, the largest glacier in South America, grows 50 meters in height, length and density every day. New Zealand: All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year. Check also Switzerland, Kirghiztan, Russia, Greenland (Berlingske Glacier has grown for the past 100 years), Argentinia, the US and Spain.
        .
        3) But the computer “models” forecast at least a 2″ or even a 3″ rise by now (remember Algore’s lying slide show with vast coastal areas inundated.) Of course the sea level rises. And falls. As is has done for billions of years. Man has as much effect on this as he does on the tides.
        .
        4) Every prediction by the AGW industry’s computer models over the past quarter century has been proved false. The sea is not rising (other than tiny, natural, fluctuations); The global temperature has not risen; in fact this year was 1.06 degrees cooler than in 1998, and 2.10 degrees cooler than in 1934. Hurricanes are not more frequent or more violent; in fact, we are nine years into the most quiescent decade in over 30 years. The last major storm to his the US mainland was in 2005.
        .
        5) So after no warming for 30 years (where did you pull that out of, your hat?) you AGW alarmists will finally admit it’s all a hoax. By then you’ll all be off on another similar myth; maybe that man is causing the observed shift in the geomagnetic North Pole. (There is in fact a bunch of similar tinfoil hat loons that are blaming it on man mining too much iron ore.)
        .
        6) You really should ask someone to check your stuff before posting it, because here you defeat and contradict your own case. Much of the integrity and confidence in global temperature recording has been destroyed over the past years due to continual discovery of faked and false data. NASA’s Prof. Hansen, one of the AGW world’s favorites, was found a few years ago to have substituted a September temperature figure into a multi-year data set of OCTOBER records, in order to “prove” warming. Canada used to have some 6,000 temperature recording stations, but over the past years have reduced this to less than 1,000. Guess which ones were removed (those showing lower temperatures). Guess which kept: Hint; urban heat islands.
        .
        A few days ago it was discovered that as much as 40% of temperature data in the US are not from real thermometric stations, but from stations that have been long closed. Rather than eliminating these “zombie stations” from the data sets, the authorities have “estimated” temperatures from them. Also, it has emerged that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been faking its data to conform to the Obama administration’s need to prove AGW. It does this by either using estimates when actual data is available, or by “Adjusting” actual collected figures to represent a warmer present and cooler past.
        .
        7) If it’s possible, this one is maybe the most foolish and unintelligible/unintelligent one of your claims. What on earth did you means by “carbon is culprit”? Carbon is a part of every living thing. Did you mean carbon dioxide? The warmest time in history, the Medieval Warming Period about 1,000 years ago, occurred when man had zero industry and was producing virtually zero greenhouse gases. Ice-core drillings in the 1980s even showed, by analyzing trapped air bubbles, that atmospheric CO2 was a fraction of today’s. And the fastest growth in atm. CO2, from 1940 to the early 1970s (frantic armament production in WWII, high output of steel etc. for rebuilding and consumer durables post-war, 95% produced using coal-fired power plants) … and global temperatures went down for the entire 30+ time.
        .
        8) Already answered.
        .
        9) Already answered.
        .
        Finally, how about this: “In climate research and modeling we should recognize that we are dealing with a non-linear and chaotic state, and therefore long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible.” (A dissent by a large group of IPCC climatologists, to be found on P 174, Section 14.2.2 of the 2001 IPCC report.)

        • Steve Zissou

          I moved house and had no internet. Just saw your reply when I logged into Diqus.

          1) This, straight out the gate, demonstrates that you are more interested in dishonesty than honest debate. I didn’t say that Antarctic sea ice wasn’t growing in extent. I offered explanations of what could potentially be causing it. Here’s an expert’s take on Antarctic sea ice:

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/clarity-on-antarctic-sea-ice/

          I made the argument of ARCTIC sea ice volume decreasing. I referenced a 2004 study because it contained a particular graph. Here’s more recent stuff for you, slim:
          http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

          Ruh roh! Looks like you don’t know what you’re talking about, Nick.

          2) I’ve climbed the Helm Glacier. It’s had mass balance surveys done on it since 1967. From area alone, Helm has lost almost 78% of its expanse. From 4.3 sq.km in 1928 to 0.92 sq.km in 2014. With that in mind, here’s the cumulative glacial mass balance for North America Note that Helm is on there):
          https://glacierchange.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/nam-ba-2013.jpg?w=812&h=553

          Most of the points of “growth” you’re discussing are one off events, or just interpretations by the denial campaign to suit their argument (for example, Mount Logan growing because it has greater glacial volume as opposed to increased snow pack and ice accumulation – not the same thing).

          At any rate, I already pointed out that individual glacial volume change is not exclusively a result of air temperature, however, the total glacial volume globally is decreasing and has been decreasing for some time.

          3) Which models are you referencing, Nick? You’re reaching at straws and hoping you won’t get called on it, but I’m calling you out. At any rate, satellite altimetry is showing an approximate 40mm increase since 2004, and an approximate 80mm increase since 1993. In case you were wondering, 80mm is 3”.
          http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

          4) This is what you believe, it is not reality (Hurricane Sandy hit the mainland in 2012). See above for your sea level change. There is more work to be done in our development of predictions for hurricanes and increased sea surface temperatures, that’s true. The rest of your commentary on this point is bullshit. 1934 is globally the 49th warmest year on record. Cherry picking your data is deeply dishonest, Nick. It throws all of your unsubstantiated claims immediately into the trash bin. It’s also why this will be the only reply that you’ll get from me.

          5) 30 years is the classical period of climate defined by the World Meteorological Organisation. You should know that as a basic starting point if you want to debate this topic with any credibility, Nick.

          6) The only reason you perceive a contradiction here is that you don’t understand the topic – it’s becoming glaringly obvious as I work down these points. Homogenisation REDUCES the temperature bias of the urban heat island effect. We LOWER the temperatures, Nick.

          All of your conspiracy theorist bullshit amounts to less than a fart in a fan factory here. Hansen was never found to have manipulated data, that’s just an out and out lie that you want to believe.

          7) I’m sorry, I used carbon as shorthand for CO2, and CO2 is shorthand for carbon dioxide equivalent, which is shorthand for all greenhouse gases measured against their relative carbon dioxide equivalent. Again, I’m sorry for assuming that you knew what the fuck we were talking about.

          Are you reduced to arguing semantics, or are you really trying to say that you’re able to debunk Svante Arrhenius’s work from the 19th century that demonstrated the greenhouse effect? If so, you’re going to need more than just your hearsay approach to debate, and, if you can do it, you’ll probably win a Nobel Prize.

          If we’re arguing semantics, then the Medieval Warming Period wasn’t the warmest time in history, Nick. It wasn’t even the warmest time on record, and we are currently in a warmer period:
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

          Even if it was warmer, your logically destitute argument doesn’t hold water. Just because more people were killed by the black plague than the bombing of Hiroshima doesn’t mean that their deaths are a normal event. Do you truly not get that?

          Almost all of the things you’ve written on here are lies. This is why you can’t produce any evidence of your statements. You’ve gone to WattsUp and now you think you’re able to debate with the experts. You’re not. Your opinion does not serve as a substitute to a professional qualification on this subject, and Google for sites that agree with your opinion is not equivalent to genuine study. You need to understand that. You are not qualified to be making the assumptions and statements that you are.

          Also, if you’re going to criticise me for posting a 2004 reference, you shouldn’t post a 2001 reference, Nick, and you’d better do so in complete context without cherry picking again. There is no dissent in the quote you’ve provided. Instead, it is a point to highlight the need to dedicate greater computer resources to the development of models. Here’s the rest of the quote:

          From 14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles

          “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

          Replying to your post was like pulling teeth for me, don’t expect me to do so again.

          • Nick697

            It’s almost amusing to see you AGW alarmists twist and squirm in an attempt to prove something that becomes more patently false every year. Almost, because the squandering of tens of billions of tax money in pursuit of the chimera of AGW, and the steady attack by the extremists at the EPA on US industry, are going to cause untold harm to this country for decades to come. And it’s all based on phony data, manipulated figures, and unsupported suppositions.
            .
            When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records
            – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the
            temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

            .

            This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognized by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official
            surface-temperature record. Homewood
            checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
            .
            Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic,
            between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way “adjustments” have been made, to show
            warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of
            extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy. Other underhand methods are to simply omit data from weather stations that are showing cooling.
            .
            One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical – and highly profitable – climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years. More eidence of Hansen’s duplicity was found while he was still in charge at Giss. He used that year’s SEPTEMBER temperatures in a graph of a succession of OCTOBER records, in order to prove his pre-announced global warming. Caught out by McIntyre and others, NASA claimed an unintentional error.
            .
            Disappearing acrctic ice and the supposed threat to polar bears has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us
            that we are threatened by runaway warming. According to alarmists, polar bears are dying because their natural ice-covered seal hunting ground is disappearing. But the actual numbers show that polar bears are thriving and increasing after curbs were put on hunting, and naturalists point out that they conventionally swim up to 60 or more miles in search of food. And the part of the arctic shown in so many time-lapse videos by Algore and others is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even farther than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
            .
            Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the
            official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly
            explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
            .
            As for warming and carbon dioxide, and the continual fiction that rising CO2 causes global warming; note that the fastest growth in atmospheric CO2 was from 1940 to the early 1970s (armament production, post-war consumer goods, rebuilding etc., 95% powered by coal-fired electric plants), and global temperatures …. fell, for the entire 30+ years. Fell so much that the predecessors of today’s warming alarmists were predicting a New Ice Age, and recommending increasing the greenhouse layer and even covering the poles with soot to absorb more sun heat.
            .
            in fact, slight global warming and more atmospheric CO2 would be beneficial to the world’s population. The 2 or 3 degree temperature rise that the AGW alarmist industry keeps babbling about (well, they were babbling about it 18 years ago; not so much now) would open up hundreds of thousands of square miles of currently frozen tundra to acgriculture.
            .
            Eight years after the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
            (IPCC) warned of mass starvation from global warming caused by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), emissions of the greenhouse gas are at record levels. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which was edited by then-chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and released in 2007, predicted with “virtual certainty” that crop yields would plummet in some areas unless industrialized nations immediately adopted stricter limits on CO2, which the IPCC said was causing
            “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. By 2020, in some
            countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%,” the report predicted.
            .
            But last year, even a record level of atmospheric CO2 did not keep farmers from reaping record-breaking harvests worldwide. In fact, 2014 signified an all-time record grain production. Oops. According to a report also
            released in November by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, “world cereal production in 2014 is forecast at a new record of 2,532 million tonnes… 7 million tonnes above last year’s peak.” That includes a record level of wheat production worldwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
            study stated that the CO2 “fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process” and has created “a greening of the globe over recent decades.” That greening effect includes a growth spurt among redwoods and giant sequoias in California.
            .
            Claims that global warming and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are harming crop production are simply preposterous, and they’re proven preposterous by the real-world, objective data. We know that in recent decades, we’ve seen an actual tripling of production of the most important staple crops:
            corn, wheat, and rice. There’s been a record production of wheat in the past year in the United States, in India, in much of Africa, and throughout the world where the wheat harvest is important. Instead of diminishing crop yields, high levels of CO2 actually help to increase them.
            .
            As we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it can be expected that that’s going to benefit crop production because carbon dioxide is aerial plant fertilizer. That’s what horticulturalists pump into greenhouses to facilitate plant growth. Just as people have demonstrated in greenhouses, where plants that are artificially fed more CO2 grow more rapidly and are more productive – such has been the case also in the natural environment when we’ve had more atmospheric carbon dioxide. The the link between high levels of CO2 and record crop yields worldwide was
            never discussed at the UN’s climate change conference in Lima last month (I wonder why). To the extent that crop production was discussed at the United Nation meetings, it was in continuing the claim that global warming is wreaking havoc on crops. And that’s simply not the case. [Side note: The same IPCC chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, on his appointment, issued an order to IPCC scientists to cease researching geological proof of previous natural global warming, and concentrate only on anthropogenic causes. Biased? Nah.]
            .
            What people have to understand is that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a group contolled and funded by governments, who have already concluded that AGW is true and a threat. These are government appointees. Some of them are scientists, but most are non-scientist bureacrats. The Summary for Policy-Makers they issue are often at odds with the actual scientists’ papers. For example: the conclusion of five groups of IPCC climatologists was “We cannot find any anthropogenic or human signal in the climate record. It is having no effect on global temperatures, as far as we can determine … no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change to anthropogenic causes.”
            .
            What was the IPCC bureaucrat management’s Summary for Policy-Makers conclusion? “The body of evidence now points to a descernible human influence on global climate.” (Just as the governments who pay their salaries, grants and vacations – I mean conferences – in exotic locations, required. As the old aphorism goes, the one who pays the piper calls the tune.)
            .
            And even those who are actual IPCC scientists tend to work for environmental activist groups such as The Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace,
            World Wildlife Fund, etc. They have an agenda to push. It’s very little objective science. It’s 99 percent politics from an environmental activist agenda. (They have even included papers from such groups, verbatim, in their reports.) Unfortunately, in that environment, the facts simply don’t come out if people aren’t doing their own research. If we’re just listening and reading the UN press releases, we’re going to believe that a world exists that is exactly opposite from what the real world really is.
            .
            CNSNews just asked Jamie Henn, director of strategy and communications at 350.org,
            to explain his group’s desire to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in light of 2014’s record-breaking harvests worldwide. “The disastrous aspects of climate change are well-documented by scientists, including those at the IPCC. That’s the reason why people are very concerned about it. No doubt climate
            change has some positive impacts on the whole, but it’s disastrous in the long run,” Henn replied. (Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.) It’s the same old “never mind 18 years and 4 months of global cooling – just you wait, it’ll all come back to runaway heating. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life” (to the tume As Time Goes By.)
            .
            P.S. “Henn.” What a perfect name for one of the Chicken Littles creaming that the sky is
            falling.
            .
            The AGW industry has thousands of drones sitting at their crystal balls – sorry, I mean computer monitors – attempting to predict future climate changes. And every one of them for the past quarter century have been wrong. The seas have not risen dramatically; no more than the slight fluctuation that occurs naturally. Arctic ice is not disappearing [remember that bloated hypocrite Algore confidently predicting in 2007 that it would ALL be gone by 2014]. It increased by 60% 2012-13. Hurricanes have not become more powerful or frequent – in fact we have had the most quiescent decade in over 30 years; the last major storm to hit the US mainland was in 2005.
            .
            Climate alarmists, faced with no descrnible warming for the better part of two decades and counting, have now switched (even the IPCC) to “climate disruption” or “climate change,” posing the fatuous notion that the climate has not change, dramatically, since the planet was formed. One day, people like you will recognize common sense: Earth’s temperature has gone up and down, often to extremes (Medieval Warm Period, Maunder Minimum, etc.) usually when mankind could not possibly have had any influence at all.
            .
            AGW is a fraud, a hoax – albeit a very profitable one to people like Gore, Hansen and Obama.

      • AndrewLB

        On the topic of the earths oceans warming, especially at great depth… your claims are utter nonsense and were intentionally fabricated by those looking for an explanation why global land/air temperatures have not risen in almost two decades.

        Don’t agree with me? How bout NASA? http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

        And i’m tired of you global warming zealots pointing toward the northern pacific as proof because it’s abundantly clear that the current warming in the region off north America is due to an El Nino event like we saw in 1997-1998, 1982-1983, and go as far back as the 1700, with some scientists having proof of them as far back as 10,000 years ago during the holocene epoch.

    • Stalingrad

  • Ulysses Gaze

    Climate Depot? Should have been called Senator-Jim-Inhofe’s-Used-Toilet-Paper-Depot. This “report” is pure caca and epitomizes of partisan junk science manufactured by raptor polluters for the consumption of Koch suckers.

    • The Queen of England

      So you prefer the data of a failed Presidential candidate with a bogus Nobel Peace Prize and a Power=point presentation?
      You, sir, are a schmuck!

    • sirgareth

      Do you “believe” in science or do you “deny” the faith?

    • Doug Wakeman

      Your naked hatred and spittle-flecked invective betrays fear and horror that your idiotic hoax is collapsing all around you. How much of your self-image as a decent person and a savior of the Earth is invested in this scam? Who will you be when it is over? Will you have a reason to go on? Don’t’ worry, child, the Left has hundreds of schemes to wreak destruction on humanity and they’re always on the lookout for useful idiots coming down from the high of one of their previous projects.

      • Ulysses Gaze

        Will you just look at what the Koch madrassas are turning out these days? The horror…

        • Milty

          You mean those evil brothers who employ tens of thousands allowing them to earn a good living and make the many goods and provide the many services that millions depend on? Those guys? It really must be bliss living in the delusional little world that exists between your ears.

          • dennismcbk

            Milty, Actually we’re talking about those evil brothers who steal their excessive wealth from their workers, and from their playing in the casino called Wall Street. Men who are interested only in the expansion of their wealth by destroying any government oversight of their criminal ways, and who don’t give a damn about ordinary hard-working Americans. Those evil brothers who are anti-American, anti-Constitution, pro-oligarchy, and pro-elitist aristocracy. The Koch brothers vision of the Unites States is a nation owned and managed by the few for the benefit of the few, with the vast majority living their lives as debtors to the few. We assume you’re a goose-stepping marcher in the Koch brothers army of neo-fascists.

          • Milty

            It’s really scary knowing that little ignorant communist morons like you are running around.

          • Nick697

            Hmm. And the billionaires that fund the socialist – sorry, I mean Democrat – party and not people “who steal their excessive wealth from their workers, and from their playing in the casino called Wall Street. Men who are interested only in the expansion of their wealth by destroying any government oversight of their criminal ways, and who don’t give a damn about ordinary hard-working Americans.” You’re a loony left-wing loon.

            However, I have a slogan that I’m sure you will use now I’ve given it to you: “From each, according to his means. To each, according to his needs.” (Marx, and I don’t mean Groucho.) After all, look how well this worked in China, N. Korea, Vietnam, the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela etc.
            .
            Take away “Koch brothers” “Bush” and “Capitalist” and you liberal twats would be lost for word.

        • sirgareth

          Are these the same Koch brothers that drive you to work, the grocery stores, and your bicycle trails where you can pretend you are a “naturalist?”

          Are these the same Koch brothers that fuel the fleets of government VIP jumbo jets for our self importantly but otherwise utterly worthless senior Apparatchiks and even to Moochelle Obungle’s and her poodle’s own private jets?

          Yes turn your heaters off in Minnesota where record colds are being registered. YOU (not they) simply use too much of their fuel. Better for “the planet” that you freeze to death.

          Environmentalism is a form of modern day insanity

      • dennismcbk

        Doug, You seem a bit excessive in your criticisms. You might think about seeing a therapist (any therapist will do), or maybe smoke some pot, or get laid. Anything that negates your intense craziness. Your intensity will lead to an early stroke.

  • rlhailssrpe

    This data is the basis for the US EPA’s policies and regulations which have destroyed our coal combustion based industries. Yet the scientific analyses appears to be flawed. The purpose of science (which means “to know”) is to faithfully predict future phenomena, e.g. airfoils permit lift and manned flight. Here, there is a question of whether short term effects are weather, or climate. We track hurricanes for two weeks today; we predict mild or severe winters or summers, but no one predicts temperature for many years, or decades except climatologists. They appear to be wrong, their computer models grossly fail to match reality.

    To continue to ignore facts in policy formulations is professionally unethical.

    • sirgareth

      You are correct; There appears to be no scientific basis for long range climate forecast. Therefore the science does not exist. Alchemy doesn’t appear to work either, but maybe if we sink a trillion dollars into alchemy “research” then “scientists” might “see something” the rest of us cant: “Yes that lead has a tinge of gold in it but only our computers can see it”

      Give us a trillion dollars a year from here on and we ‘might’ be able to turn lead into gold in another 1000 years ….maybe.

      Wow now that real science…think of all the alchemy journals and the “peer reviewed” alchemy “studies”

      • rlhailssrpe

        I spent years developing analytical software, on much simpler problems and can appreciate the complexities of climate predictions. Much of my work involved nuclear power plants in which guessing is not allowed. There is a stern requirement that every branch within a complex code be bench marked against either measurements, data sets or other accepted codes. Dr. Monckton and his colleagues appear to demonstrated that this does not exist in climatology as related to human carbon combustion vs. long term temperature gradients.

        Without resolution to this rudimentary issue: are the codes valid over a 17 year period, that is can they replicate reality? If this proof does not exist, there is no basis for establishing extremely harmful energy policy on any nation. At best it is erroneous management, at worst it is criminal. The same management process occurred in the BP well blow out: take a chance to meet schedule.

        It is unethical to respond with guesses, the scientists must know, after $100 Bn and decades have been spent on this topic (which is far more than what the US spent to develop the atomic bomb.) People deserve honest answers, from scientists and from government leaders. There is a whiff of scientific fraud in the air.

        • noprops

          Some arguments (not typical screwball rankings) deserve examination of the ongoing evidence and variations. The global warming trend especially in the past century, is indisputable. Your cost comparison however is apples to oranges when more than 50 years apart of course, 1945 dollars to 2014… IF 100 billion can be substantiated. At least you know how to make salient arguments, not weirdo troll talk.

          • rlhailssrpe

            Over time, I have found that people demand to be spoon fed facts which are readily available on the web. So I do not honor their lazy requests. I make a one time exception because people must educate themselves about facts, it they wish to stay alive.
            I use round numbers because I have found no accurate ones in the estimates; there is a range.

            From Einstein’s letter to FDR through Nagasaki, in mid 1945, the US spent some $4 Bn on the Manhattan Project. Bring that number to 2014 yields a little over $50 Bn. (Find the conversion factors on the web.)

            AS reported by Forbes, the GAO estimates the US has spent $107 Bn through 2010 on climate change and states, “no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.” (Readily found on the web.) The Manhattan Project was exquisitely focused because Germany knew the science and who ever lost the race was dead.

            The Manhattan Project changed human history. If climate change is not important this is largely wasted resources.

            In mid century (roughly) the US converted from ground based or balloon based thermometers to electronic detection of global temperature. There are sources of error within and between the two data sets. Monckton uses the more robust and more accurate date base in his analyses. He, and others, find that human activity may be a factor but if so, is drowned by other dominant variables.

            These technical issues are worthy of debate among scientists. The pronouncements of politicians and us amateurs are worthless. But demagogues, throughout history, have screamed the end of the world will happen soon if you do not give me god like power. I demur.

          • Nick697

            “The global warming trend especially in the past century, is indisputable.” Really? The accepted figure, EVEN BY THE WARMING ALARMISTS, is that the globe has warmed by 0.8 degrees in the past 145 years. Help! We’re all going to burn!

  • docdave88

    Lord Monckton, you probably should go into hiding.

    You do realize, do you not, that we are not dealing with science at all on the topic of global warming. This is a religion complete with scripture (Silent Spring, The Population Bomb and, of course, The China Syndrome), prophets (Michael Mann and the world’s most famous divinity school flunk-out and green billionaire, Albert Arnold Gore Junior) and churches (any newspaper office you care to name).

    When dealing with zealots you need to be fearful. Remember, they would like nothing more than to burn you at the stake.

    • dennismcbk

      Yes, I would if I could. Lord Monckton apparently looks in the mirror each morning and promises to be as utterly dumb during the day as he can be, and is succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, claiming new recruits to his stupidity such as docdave88.

      • docdave88

        Okay you of many brain cells. Explain to me how it is that of a couple of dozen “models” (and let’s not forget that the entire pseudo-science of global warming is nothing but a set of models) anticipated the past 17 years. And to be clear, NOT ONE of them.

        So let’s start with THAT inconvenient truth before you start accusing ANYBODY of stupidity.

        • ThisNameInUse

          Learn what a model is, including what noise is and what confidence intervals mean, and then try again to say something intelligent docdave. The models have actually been quite good at what they were designed to do: track the SIGNAL in the presence of noise.

          You people live a lie from the moment you get up to the moment you go to bed each night. Do you not have any clue what this is doing to your brains?

          • docdave88

            So many words, so many insults, so little content.

            Tell me which of the models predicted the fact, and I repeat, the FACT, and just to make it clear, the observed FACT that for slightly over half of the totality of reliable MEASURED data there has been no measurable, let alone significant, warming. And by reliable and measured I mean the data from the satellite system.

            “2014 THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER!!!!!!!!!” the headlines shrieked.

            Let’s accept, for the sake of this discussion, that this is true, and I accept it ONLY for the sake of this discussion until I see what “adjustments” were made, we are talking about an average global temperature that was .02 degrees higher than the previous high reading. And the stated margin of error in these readings is 1 degree. In other words, the “warming” is a tiny fraction of the margin of error. And for this you want to spend billions of dollars to fix a problem when you know, if you’ll think about it, that the Chinese program of a coal-fired power plant a week, will dwarf all of that money you want to spend and all of the dislocations you want to impose.

            I live no lie clown. I actually pay attention to what’s going on.

            So go watch Algore’s opus again. Read yourself to sleep with Silent Spring or The Population Bomb. Have some kool aid.

            But do, by all means, let me know which of your precious models accounts for the past 18 years of temperature measurements. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Medieval Warm Period. Or the end of the last major Ice Age. I guess those wandering cave men were burning WAY too much coal huh?

            I get it. There has to be a crisis. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” according to Hizzoner Rahm Emmanuel.

            But seriously, can’t you find something that makes sense?

            y’all have a wonderful Friday now, y’hear

      • Boon Vickerson is out there

        Oh you nasty little troll. I have been watching your creepy little statist diatribe for a while. I must say you are an awful human being.
        I recognize you from a variety of blogs and website you consistantly post on. Always the same hateful and disruptive comments. Who is it you represent I wonder? Are you employed by the Obama administration? A federal government agency? Regardless It is clear your job is to disrupt conversation deemed unsuitable or contrary to the powers that be.
        Discount this person everyone. It or he or whatever is Astro Turf. Everytime it shows up we all should call out Troll!
        I call you out Troll!

        • Dennis

          The brain dead don’t need sponsors. They are infected with self-righteous pseudo knowledge that exhibit parrot like tendencies. Superficial knowledge and the Marxist Ideological propensity born out of Leftist educational institutions that have been infecting our centers for higher learning since about the turn of the century are the culprit.

          Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis are two shining examples of the Communist
          implants, one from Yale and the other from Harvard. Check them out in WIKI for
          a cursory view of why our system is failing from within. Frankfurter was funded
          at a position bought by Jacob Schiff his father was a broker for the Rothschild’s.

          This is not fantasy or theory this is historical fact. The Commerce Clause
          expanded by the FDR administration, who incidentally nominated Frankfurter to
          the Court (both men were justices on the Supreme Court) did so without a
          constitutional amendment which is prohibited. Hard to mount a defense when the
          people are going hungry and pushing their representatives for relief… Of
          course we know that the contraction of the money supply by the Fed cause the
          depression and the failure of so many banks. FDR’s executive order making gold
          illegal to hold, confiscating it and then inflating the price by 75% was no
          accident. His uncle was on the board of governors. Again this is history and
          fact not theory.

          The Commerce Clause has been used to insinuate central government control over every means of production, See Communist Manifesto and the planks. Lenin’s concept was that if you destroy the value of money then the only value is the labor of the people. He used the inflationary process to do just that. When
          they move us to a cashless society the trap will be closed.

          Interesting note here the proponents of communism, socialism and any variant
          cry equality…. except for themselves of course. After all they are the elite.

          The global warming scam is just another Marxist ploy to control industry and
          reduce the population to a subsistence economy. People will bend to and master
          when they are hungry and the government is the only means of provision. It is
          to reduce us to a status of dependency upon the central government.

          The Beast has many heads and the modes and avenues of attack are varied and
          constant, See Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals.

          “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
          their future Security.”
          Declaration of Independence

          All the apparent chaos we see in this administration is not chaos. The core object is socialism and the reduction of the population to mere wards of the state that they can control. Just as it states in the Declaration, the long train of abuses and usurpations are pursuing, invariably the same object, Despotism.

          I do not advocate the overthrow of a lawful government. Perhaps Lincoln stated it best:
          — We must prevent these things being done, by either congresses or courts — The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —”
          Abraham Lincoln, Campaign speech in Ohio and Kansas, 1859.

          Tyranny is tyranny no matter what cloak it tries on.

      • Denis Ables

        Amazing. Since you are obviously a skeptic, at least insofar as Monckton’s analysis, you have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal, but instead all you are capable of providing is a mindless rant.

        The only relevant question which comes to my mind is that I thought an earlier similar analysis by Monckton had established a flat temperature for over 18 years and this more recent calculation has dropped the “hiatus” to 17+ years. Of course, that’s still a considerably longer no-additional-warming than the duration of the earlier warming which brought out all the alarmists.

        Also, why are NASA and some other government agencies declaring that 2014 is the “hottest” year, when it is well known that the difference between recent warm years is a matter of a few hundredths of a degree, and, whether “up” or “down” is well within the error band, and hence there has been no additional warming? What’s more these federal agencies have made their claim on less accurate and obviously incomplete 2014 land-based temperature stations, presumably to influence the current climate “negotiations” in Peru. NASA itself has long since admitted that satellite data is more accurate, so what is going on?

        The real “scientists” at these government agencies need to STOP at the next mirror they encounter and deal honestly with their reflection. They MUST step forward and either (1) provide evidence to back up their claims, or rebuttals, based on SCIENCE, or (2) declare that their own government PR folks’ declarations are merely lip-synching the Obama administration position and have nothing to do with SCIENCE.

        What is particularly distressing is that the major news media is no longer holding our government accountable. It is preaching the same dogma as our failed administration and neither are likely to recover their credibility.

    • robert

      NAH….NEVER met a liberal,who wasn’t a pussycat minus the cat.

      • docdave88

        Well, there IS that. What’s funny is that so many of them are so proud of the time they spend in karate dojos. I’ve met lots. And the thing is, hit them once and they whine like babies.

      • ThisNameInUse

        I guess if you’ve lost on the science and been called threats to your country’s national security by the Pentagon with your disinformation crusade, you can always resort to seventh grade level playground taunts. So, there’s that.

  • Steve Rogers

    Man-made global-warming is a myth.

  • Richard McCargar

    If China’s coal-burning is stopping the increase, we should burn more coal…except that we don’t need cooling, warming is better for humans.

    • dennismcbk

      ????????????????????????????

      • Richard McCargar

        It’s called irony. Which part didn’t you understand?

  • rebman

    Will the tree huggers try to get a refund on their Priuses since they were duped?

    • sirgareth

      Hey nothing wrong with a Prius. I like the 50 Mpg and I love it when the price of gas goes up since I have about $250,000 in oil and gas exploration and refining

      Keep drillin..and keep those hummers humming…”:ca-ching” goes my cash register

      • Nick697

        And when you have to lay out $5,000 or more for a new battery? And disposing of the hundreds of thousands of old ones will pose a problem due to the harmful elements they contain? So much for ecology.

        • sirgareth

          I put aside my prejudices (I loath greenies) and took a serious look at the economics. For the record I own a Camry Hybrid but it uses essentially the same drive train as a Prius.

          Battery life, of course, is a concern, but the anticipated 10 year battery life projected for the 200 volt nickle-hydride battery has proven to be far too conservative. Batteries may indeed normally last the life of the car. In any case the 5000 dollar figure is probably to high.

          There is not one rubber belt, no transmissions, no slip clutches, no “shifting” gears. The power steering, air-conditioning are all sealed electrically driven systems not prone to seal leakage. I have had nothing at all go wrong in the first 50,000 miles and I get 44 mpg instead of the EPA estimate of 39 for my 55 mph rural driving in hilly/mountainous country. This means that for the first 100,000 miles there will be no vehicle maintenance costs outside of gas/oil/tires. I doubt that I will ever need to have a brake job since they are standard brakes and are used 90% less than with standard vehicles.

          At 100,000 the coolant, planetary ring case oil will need to be replaced.

          The acceleration is smooth at all speeds with 0-60 in 7 seconds.

          Even “IF” i should have to eventually replace the battery the saving in costs per mile will far exceed the standard drive train Camry.

          If I remove the Hybrid logo from my car you would never know is it one, so I never get confused with an ignorant leftist who makes purchases based on emotion rather than analysis.

          • Nick697

            I drive a regular Camry. I looked at trading it a couple of years ago for a hybrid one, expecting that performance with the combined push of the gas engine and battery motor would be breathtaking. But when I road-tested it I was surprised to note that acceleration felt slightly worse than with my regular dino-fuelled one. Looking into this, I found that the engine in the hybrid, for some unfathomable reason, is down-tuned to give less hp and torque, and with the added weight of the battery the 0-60mph time, according to Hemmings, was 10% slower!
            .
            Another consideration is that if most of your driving is on freeways and Interstates, as mine is, you get no benefit at all from the hybrid. It’s only in stop and go driving that you benefit from regenerative charging of the battery when you coast or brake. Various tests in highway driving show that hybrids get worse mpg than the equivalent diesel-engine car, so why bother?

          • sirgareth

            The Hybrid Camry uses an Atkinson cycle engine. This type of engine delivers very high fuel economy but insufficient torque for traditional piston-only cars.

            “The goal of the modern Atkinson cycle is to allow the pressure in the combustion chamber at the end of the power stroke to be equal to atmospheric pressure; when this occurs, all the available energy has been obtained from the combustion process. For any given portion of air, the greater expansion ratio allows more energy to be converted from heat to useful mechanical energy meaning the engine is more efficient.”

            “The disadvantage of the four-stroke Atkinson cycle engine versus the more common Otto cycle engine is reduced power density. Due to a smaller portion of the compression stroke being devoted to compressing the intake air, an Atkinson cycle engine does not take in as much air as would a similarly designed and sized Otto cycle engine.”

            Toyota did their homework on this and selected the right engine for their purpose. The hybrid engine torque is supplemented by the electric MG and associated planetary gear set. It delivers even acceleration which will beat the traditional Camry drive without all the transmission jerks.

            If my driving was primarily freeway driving at 70+ I would not buy a hybrid. However it’s perfect for my driving which is 45-55 mph, semi-rural, and hilly.

            The physics of the hybrid are complex but the mechanical implementation of the physics are dead simple compared with a traditional drive train.

          • Nick697

            Thanks for the information. The technical aspect was new to me.

          • dennismcbk

            sirgareth, I to put aside my prejudices (I loath those like yourself who think the destruction of planet earth is a fiction) and take a serious look at science. What I find is you’re a first-rate dumb-ass much impressed by his/her own stupidity and probably on the payroll of some other dumb-ass who makes a profit off the destruction of planet earth.

          • sirgareth

            Oh I do think “your” planet is prime for destruction, but that hardly concerns me. I live on a planet governed by rational discourse and respect of logic. You appear to be trapped in some odd parallel universe where the planet is ruled by hyperbole, panic, and dementia.

            I’m sorry to say their is no bridge between these universes so good luck. Remember and take solace in the fact that all existence must come to an end one day, even the crazy one you inhabit.

          • Nick697

            The word is loathe, not loath. Loathe: Dislike. Loath: Unwilling, reluctant.

          • sirgareth

            Thanks, I loathe being corrected. From now on, as loath as I am to accept such criticism, I’ll remember the difference.

          • Nick697

            Spoken like a gentleman.

    • dennismcbk

      rebman, If you’re going to be cute at least work at it. There’s no need to publish a stupid comment and claim your witty when with some effort you might actually write something witty.

      • Nick697

        There’s no need to publish a criticism if you’re going to be illiterate, like “claim your witty.” The abbreviation of “you are” is you’re, not your. Your means “belonging to you.”
        .
        Google: Those in glass houses.

  • NMEofTheState

    Looks like Algore finally got something right – The debate is over.

  • Mike Kelly

    This sounds like a pretty amazing discovery. Why don’t you submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

  • Dorian

    I don’t normally follow up with another comment, once having already commented, but I have to make an interesting observation.

    Those, obviously, leftists, socialists, and social engineers (or lets call a spade a spade, the communists), seem to always do what communists always do when they can’t argue constructively or honestly, revert to name calling and baseless opinions and lies (and when that doesn’t work…nastier things happen as history has proven, no?). Instead of neurotic vitriol, why don’t you communists deal with reality, honesty, science and how about celebrating how Man has brought you electricity, modern shelter, the most useful clothing in history and the greatest diversity of foods ever!

    If the left doesn’t like technology or advanced science (N.B. Wind Mills are not advanced science, and neither is using Solar Energy, been around for 10,000’s of years; just because you can make a better more advanced mouse trap, doesn’t make it advanced science, that’s called advanced engineering), or modern industries, well then move to some place in Africa, where they don’t have modern medicine, or modern economies. You might be happier in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

    Before I get attacked for the obvious, perverted reference that could be concluded from the above statement, which no doubt a looney leftist would quickly pick up on. I wish to make whole heartedly known I have the utmost respect for the people’s of those countries, and that I was only suggesting that those obvious backward communists in the West might offer exchanging their positions in the West to a person from those above countries.

    Personally, I look forward to the advancement and industrialization of all of Africa, and look forward that Africa and Africans join the rest of advanced society with all its full benefits, that including, wearing clothes made from synthetic fibers, transport based upon fossil fuels, starting fire from natural gas using piezoelectric starters, eating meat for protein on gas burners and growing big and strong, and of course learning how to do real science and technology!

    If the leftists are so keen on solar, wind and other renewables, and so against modern society’s use of fossil fuels, go back to the jungle or the deserted islands, where you can revisit your savage and cannibalistic primordial past, it might just teach you something about advancing into the future…. if you want to get to the Space Age you have to pass through the Nuclear Age, the only other path is that one back into the Stone Age. Time you leftists understood that.

    Bring the Nuclear Age and Space Age on! Lets leave the Stone Age for the Communists!

    • Dorian

      Oh, I forgot one important other thing, pardon me.

      Also you can add to that celebrating list of Man’s accomplishments…

      Soap, and daily bathing!

      I don’t know why, but leftists (or as I refer to them all, communists, since they all think they can decide for the rest of us what and how we should live like), don’t wash very often. From experience, I live in a country, namely Italy, where there are many communists, and a very large majority of Italians, don’t bathe often, and people here smell badly! Italians have been so corrupted by the incompetent State, they don’t use water like most Westerns do anymore, every body is conserving everything, including showering. Its terrible, how they use the Green concept, and take to such and extreme that turns Italy into a backward, smelling Nation reeling towards the Stone Age.

      If you want to see the future when the looney left gets into power, come to Italy. Its disgraceful.

      • dennismcbk

        Hi Again Dorian, I’m sure this matter of soap and bathing is important to you, but it’s hard to see how bathing and soap (or lack thereof) relates to the science of global warming. Of course I’m assuming you’re not insane, an assumption I shouldn’t be making.

    • dennismcbk

      Dear Dorian, Glad to hear your getting along so well at Happy Acres. Be sure to say hello to the other folks and please take your meds on time.

      • Nick697

        The abbreviation of “you are” is you’re, not your. Your means “belonging to you.” As in “your illiteracy.”

  • troy

    Monckton’s a “journalist” and Prof Mckitrick is an “economist” (according to their Wiki pages) so while they COULD be right don’t assume either is a climate scientist.

    • monckton

      Monckton and McKitrick are also the authors of several papers in the scientific literature. And science is not done by ad-hominem sneers and smears: it is done by challenging scientific arguments. Our argument is that the rate of global warming since 1990 is half what the IPCC then predicted, and that on the RSS satellite global-temperature dataset there has been no global warming at all for just about 18 years. If the furtively pseudonymous “troy” is unable to refute these data and the statistical conclusions drawn therefrom, it is wasting its time by trying to shoot the messenger.

      • dennismcbk

        monckton: There is no argument about global warming. It is an established, proven fact, understood and agreed upon by the vast, vast majority of the scientific community. There is no longer any reason for discussing the validity of the facts of global warming except by those who are seeking to continue profiting by the destruction of planet earth. At least have the guts to step up and admit your goal and your deceit. In other words get some balls!

        • monckton

          The furtively anonymous “dennismcbk”, like so many communists, cowers behind a pseudonym and hurls cheap insults. Elementary considerations establish that the Earth’s surface is about 33 K warmer today than it would be if it retained its current albedo but had no atmosphere. From this one can infer that the greenhouse effect, which has also been measured in the laboratory, is real and substantial. But that is not the point at issue. Among the unresolved questions are these: a) how much of the greenhouse effect is attributable to CO2; b) what is the radiative forcing from CO2; c) what is the magnitude of the temperature feedbacks; d) what is the evolutionary profile of temperature feedbacks over time; e) how, in the presence of the strongly net-positive feedbacks assumed by current models, could the climate have remained near-perfectly thermostatic for at least 810,000 years; f) why does the IPCC use the Bode system-gain relation when that relation was derived for electronic circuitry and manifestly does not apply to the climate, where strongly net-positive feedbacks are expected to cause warming, not the cooling predicted by the Bode relation; g) why do the models assume the possibility of very large temperature responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, when those responses are derived from a singularity in the Bode relation that is manifestly inapplicable to the climate object; h) why do the models make no allowance for the fact that in electronic circuits the voltage change is a bare output in response to a forcing, while in the climate the temperature change is not merely a bare output but the instrument of the climate’s equilibration; i) what is the point of mitigating global warming when the cost of mitigation exceeds that of adaptation to its consequences 10-100 times over?

          My reviewed papers in the literature address issues such as these, which are legitimate issues for discussion in the climatological community, whether the climate communists like it or not. This is not a simple matter, which is why the complex models utterly failed to predict the 18 years without global warming now measured by the satellites whose data are processed by Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. It is also an undeniable fact that the rate of global warming since 1990 has proven to be half that which the models had then predicted with what the IPCC mistakenly described as “substantial confidence”, whereas my own first published prediction, in 2006, that there would be some warming as a result of our activities but, on balance, not very much has proven accurate. I do not do science by adopting some climate-communist party line, as so many haters of the West and of capitalism do: I sweat the numbers, do the math and, from time to time, publish in the learned journals. That – and not childish comments by cowardly climate communists – is how true science is done these days.

          • Nick697

            There is no – zero – empirical proof that increased atmospheric CO2 plays any part in global warming, or global anything (except encouraging plant life.) In fact, all the evidence points to the opposite.
            .
            The warmest period in history occurred in the Medieval Warming Period (c. 940 to 1090 AD). Ice cores drilled in the 1980s show that the air bubbles trapped during that period proved that the CO2 level was a fraction of today’s.
            .
            The fastest increase in MANMADE CO2 was during the period from 1940 to the early 1970s, as heavy industry worldwide frantically produced armaments, ships etc. in WWII, and masses of steel for rebuilding later and consumer durables like cars and refrigerators in the post-war boom. And the Earth’s temperature went down for the entire period. Down to the extent that the predecessors of today’s global warming alarmists were predicting a New Ice Age to rival the Maunder Minimum (when most of the northern hemisphere suffered brutal cold for decades, with major rivers like the Thames and Seine frozen so solid that fairs, ox roasts etc. were held on them. So cold that trees exploded due to their internal sap and moisture freezing.)
            .
            Some bizarre remedies were suggested in the mid-1970s, like covering the poles with soot to attract more sun’s heat. Of course, Earth warmed up again, continuing the natural cycle that has gone on for millions of years before man even appeared. The Global Cooling alarmists knew no more than their Global Warming successors do today.
            .
            Guess who wrote this: “In climate research and modeling we should recognize that we are dealing with a non-linear and chaotic function, and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Some “denialist”? A coal/oil/gas spokesman? The Koch Brothers? Actually, it was part of the IPCC report for 2001 (Page 174, Section 14.2.2. if you want to look it up.) That was back in the day when the IPCC’s scientists were actually allowed to be independent and report what they had found. Today, if they want to keep their salaries or grant money, they better say what the IPCC, and their government sponsors, require them to say.

          • Pfc. Parts

            Nick, the 600 year old ice cores you refer to are probably OK but I’d be careful about using some of the really old data that’s been passed around claiming to measure CO2 from cores that are supposed to be over 100,000 years old. CO2 is water soluble and gas trapped in ice for a hundred thousand years is going to diffuse. There are a couple of decent papers on it, I can give you titles if you’re interested. A lot of the “paleo” climate record is horribly imprecise, something that’s not openly discussed in a lot of the high level literature produced by the IPCC and the scientists it supports. In the case of the Vostock (Antarctic) cores, the temporal error may be as large as 6000 years and the error in gas fraction as much s 50 ppm. This may be the best case BTW, it’s only recently (2008 or so) folks have started to realize CO2 dissolves in water and that should be accounted for.

            So it’s possible the gas fractions from the Greenland Viking period were really a bit higher than the 1980 paper suggests, maybe lower. Maybe not much, but still different than what was measured. Those proxies aren’t really direct measures but few people understand that. They’re estimates based on gasses trapped in frozen water, which, though “frozen”, aren’t frozen in time. Ice is dynamic, just a little slower.

            This is my beef with the whole “paleo-climeatology” team; they don’t bother to quote the errors in their proxy estimates very often if at all. Sometimes I’m not certain they understand the error even exists. We have the IPCC and CMIP folks telling us they can predict changes in temps of a degree C over 100 years due to a 100 ppm difference in atmospheric CO2, then point to paleo records that might be accurate to +/- 25 C with a temporal resolution of +/- 3000 years to suggest what will happen if the fraction goes above 400 ppm. It’s not good science. Monckton’s analysis aside, you have to wonder how accurate models based on data like these can possibly be?

        • Nick697

          An those same “scientists” who predicted 2 to 3 degrees of global warming, sea level rising by a foot, the polar ice melting away and hurricanes becoming more frequent and more violent have been proved wrong. There has been no a level rise (other than the fractional rise and fall that occurs in nature, and always has even millions of years before man appeared); Arctic ice has increased in area by 60% since 2012 and Antarctic ice is the greatest ever on record; we are 9 years into a decade of extraordinary quiescence in hurricane activity – the least in 31 years. Katrina was down to a Category 2 by the time it his Louisiana and Texas, and Sandy was not even a Cat. 1. The last major storm to hit the US mainland was in 2005.
          .
          Scientists have been wrong many, many times in history. To give one example:
          For generations, scientists [at least 97%!!] taught that the “noble” gases (helium, argon, krypton, neon, xenon, radon) could not enter into chemical reactions. Students were taught that this was because elements combine by donating, receiving or sharing an electron, so as to be able to achieve what was called a “stable state” in their outer electron shell, and as the noble, or inert, gases already had a stable, fully satisfied outer shell they could not combine with other elements. It was an accepted part of chemistry and the atomic theory. Millions of students up to the PhD level were taught this. It was, in the language of the global warming alarmists like Algore and Obozo, “a scientific consensus,” or “settled science.”
          .
          When I was in graduate school in June, 1962, we were called into the auditorium to be told by the senior chemistry prof. to forget the whole idea of the inertness of the noble gases. Neil Bartlett, at the U. of Ca., Berkeley, had heated xenon with fluorine and a platinum catalyst and produced xenon hexafluorplatinate. Soon after, he produced xenon hexafluoride and others. So, the prof. said, this reinforced what we had been told over and over again, that the very essence of science is that nothing is ever settled. The top scientific minds were forced to go back to the atomic drawing board, and come up with a new theory.
          .
          There have been multiple other instances, such as the Australian scientists who exploded the hypothesis, held by 97% (or more!) of doctors for centuries, that gastric ulcers are caused by smoking, alcohol, spicy food, stress, or any combination thereof. They postulated that the culprit is actually a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, that some people have living in their stomachs. They proved it by one of them drinking a beaker full of a culture of H. pylori and soon after getting a gastric ulcer. Today, doctors cure it by the use of antibiotics.
          .
          Then there was the lone geologist who suggested that earthquakes were caused by movement of tectonic plates, and was laughed to scorn by 97% (or more!) of the world’s geologists.
          .
          As year after year passes with no discernible global warming (unless you call 0.8 degrees in 144 years and 0.1 degrees since 1996 “warming”) and none of their dire warnings of catastrophic climate events has proved right, in time they will join the ones cite above. But meanwhile, the gullible like you, and those using phony science to forward a political ideology, like Obozo & Co., will have sent hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to 3rd world countries, ostensibly to help them reduce their “carbon footprint,” most of the dough ending up in the Swiss bank accounts of those countries’ dictators. And with the extremists in the EPA weighing American industry down with useless and unnecessary rules, putting the final nail in our country’s economic coffin.

        • Dorian

          And all because dennismcbk said so, so it must be! How godlike of you … as for me, I’ll follow the scientific method, I can’t help myself, its how I was trained in physics.

          Global warming a “proven fact”, bwahahahaha!

          You need serious help dennismcbck, your condition is well known in medical circles, its Depersonalization Disorder, its a kind of Dissociative Disorder. Seek help immediately, your a danger to yourself and to others.

          You poor sod. I pity you.

      • Pfc. Parts

        Chris, since you’re closer to the modeling world than I am I wanted ask what you know about how the paleo records are used in their development, if at all? After reading Mann’s 1998 paper I started digging through the data he references and found it was mostly drawn from dendroclimatology for temperature estimates and boron isotope decay in fossil foraminifera for CO2 estimates, but I couldn’t find anything that discussed the errors in those proxies. Over the years I’ve learned more and in some cases the errors are huge.

        Do you folks use any of these data for model construction or, as I sort of guess from your discussion below, do you just depend on theoretical physics?

        • monckton

          Pfc. Parts raises a good question. I have not studied the errors in dendrochronological reconstructions, for an a priori reason: tree-rings have been shown to be ineffective as a method of reconstructing pre-instrumental temperatures, by the simple method of comparing the tree-ring with the instrumental record during the post-1850 period of overlap. The attempts by Dr Mann and others to “hide the decline” in a tree-ring dataset at a time when instrumental temperatures were rising show that they, too, were aware of the deficiencies in the use of dendrochronology for temperature reconstruction. Indeed, the widths of tree-rings increase not only in warmer years but also in wetter years or in years where there is more CO2 in the air. They are valueless for temperature reconstruction, and the IPCC itself used to give warnings against their use for this purpose – until they saw how useful the hokey-stick graph was for their propaganda campaign.

          • Pfc. Parts

            Thanks very much. I was aware of the confounding relationships between temperature, precipitation and CO2 and had been led by Dr. Mann’s paper to think there had been corrections made to account for it. As a statistician myself I became concerned about the combined error of estimate introduced by that techniques and couldn’t find any literature that either described it, or demonstrated corrections with the expected error bars.

            It sounds as if the IPCC has essentially “outlawed” use of these proxies, which makes me feel a bit better, however there’s never been a public retraction of their use that would make the folks on the sidelines of the debate aware of the issue, which is unfortunate in my opinion.

            Thanks again for your attention.

            Best Regards,
            Scott.

  • Call em as I see em

    How does the author reconcile his writing with the below information? Something ain’t Kosher.

    The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since
    records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface
    temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th
    consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was
    above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was
    0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years
    in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

    For 351 months in a row, or more than 29 years, global temperatures have
    been warmer than average. May 2014 was the 351st month in that
    uninterrupted series. The record-setting May came in with an average
    temperature 1.33°F above the 20th century average for the month
    (58.6°F), according to figures released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/could-2014-become-warmest-year-record-20140624

    • Walpurgis

      Because no matter how you screw with the data, if you keep screwing with it the same way, the real trends will return.

    • A Pleb

      Warmer than what average?, from, a no doubt “leftivised” wikepedia entry.

      “global mean surface temperatures over the last 25 years have been
      higher than any comparable period since AD 1600, and probably since AD
      900”

      The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old the last few centuries are completely meaningless in looking at what causes the earth to constantly warm up and cool down.

      What average are we talking about here and what caused the temperatures to be higher in AD 899, because, as far as I know the internal combustion engine was not being used back then!!

      Once you can tell me what caused the warmer temperatures before AD 900 I will continue to believe that our climate has always changed, and always will, despite what mankind, dinosaurs, cows etc do to it.

      • Call em as I see em

        Why do you think that the earth’s natural trends are mutually exclusive of man made activity? Can’t the earth be subject to natural cycles as well as be affected by the activity of 6,000,000,000+ people? So do you believe that 6,000,000,000 people burning, driving, cutting, harvesting, producing have no effect on the environment? Even a pebble tossed into the Atlantic has an effect.

        You obviously didn’t click on the links with your Leftist comment. The two websites I linked to were the NOAA and Weather.com. But I can tell by your comment that your opinion is shaped by your politics. Ideology over science.

        • A Pleb

          err right then you tout two left leaning organizations are your proof that the science is good.

          1. Weather.com is The Weather Channel which is mainly owned by American TV Network NBC/Comcast who are left leaning supporters and major donors of Obama’s and who also own the rabidly left leaning and failing MNSBC…

          2. NOAA is a US Government Agency headed by an Obama appointee who according to her profile has been “promoting climate science and delivering quality climate products” (in other words joining Al Gore in making billions out of sloppy science)…

          Meanwhile Obama, supported by the EPA, NOAA, IPC and every left leaning millionaire/billionaire who have invested vast wealth in the “humans are changing the climate” theory being correct…is continuing to decimate the USA economy based on all this unproven claptrap.

          Please don’t accuse people of political bias without getting your facts straight first…I know that comes difficult to the left who must always be right because they say so!!

          • Call em as I see em

            How about answering whether you think 6,000,000,000+ people have an effect on their environment?
            I have no idea why the temperature was what it was 1,000 years ago. I believe that the earth does have natural cycles. I also think that we have an effect on our environment the same as I have to change the water in an aquarium because the fish mess it up.
            I know you can’t possibly be using the fact that there was a warm period 1,000 year ago to prove that we don’t have an effect on our habitat. Is that what you are trying to prove – the earth warmed 1,000 years ago > there were no combustion engines > therefore combustion can’t be causing warming today. Yeah, did the fact that I was up before sunrise today cause the sun to rise. Come on man >>> Causation.
            You see politics and divide everything into left and right. You were the one who interjected “lefitivised Wikipedia”. You’re the one who feels comfortable discounting 140 years of data because Obama is the root of all evil, and seemingly according to you, pulls all of the strings everywhere all of the time. BTW I didn’t vote for Obama either time. I didn’t like him then, after Rev. Wright fiasco and I don’t like him now.

          • A Pleb

            Obama is the current mouthpiece for the Al Gore “f’ you plebs you must stop using airlines because I need my private jet and fleet of limo’s” brigade. Climate science has been hijacked by the left to give credence to their anti fossil fuel platform while all the time investing vast sums into companies that depend on “man made climate change” to keep them in existence.

            Do I think pollution needs to be drastically reduced, our rivers and oceans cleaned up and all man made pollution eventually eliminated – yes I do, but this has nothing to do with climate change.

            As I said above I believe that the current “climate change” is nothing new and has happened throughout the time the earth has been in existence and that the current change is no different to that of the past.

            Unless of course you can PROVE different, btw your 140 years of data is equal to 0.0000031% of the time the earths climate has been changing…..hardy a statistical sample

          • Call em as I see em

            The question posed wasn’t one of reducing pollution. Thank you for agreeing that pollution needs to be reduced. Have you heard of greenhouse gases?

            If 140 years isn’t long enough look at 800,000 years of climate history in the ice core samples. Funny you’d complain about a 140 year sample when the article above crows about 20 years.

          • A Pleb

            1. No you don’t say
            2. Yes, you mean the naturally occurring CO2 that plants need to survive…and is exhaled in huge quantities by the Global Freezing oh wait Warming oh wait Climate Changing brigade

            3. The above article merely states that the globe has not warmed over the last 20 years, it is not attempting to extrapolate that data to make it mean anything, unlike your 140 yrs.
            4. While we are on about the 140 yrs, that too is bogus because it is only 40 years ago that we were all being warned that we would be freezing to death in a rapidly approaching Ice Age…

          • monckton

            Yes, the seven billion people on the planet have some effect on it: but little effect on its temperature.

          • Call em as I see em

            So what effects do humans have on their environment then? How does the burning of fossil fuels effect the planet in ways other than temperature?

          • monckton

            Aside from the production of a small quantity of particulate aerosols (in the West, at any rate, the output of soot and pollutants is now well under control), burning fossil fuels has no adverse effect on the planet, but has the highly beneficial effect of increasing the concentration of CO2, which is plant food. Plants and trees evolved during eras when CO2 concentration was much higher than the present, and they thrive and flourish more easily as CO2 concentration increases.

            One should not miss the main point. The sole real reason why it is pretended that CO2 is harmful is the increase in global temperatures that it is supposed to produce. However, the warming that has occurred over the past quarter of a century is half what was predicted, and is not only harmless but beneficial.

          • Call em as I see em

            “burning fossil fuels has no adverse effect on the planet” = priceless. Do you have any idea how many standard deviations from the center of the curve your opinion is? What do you think happens to the Billions of tons of emissions every year?

          • monckton

            Science is not done by head-count, but by the application of existing theory to observation. The only significant by-product of fossil-fuel combustion that lingers in the atmosphere is CO2, and it has had no measurable influence on global temperature for close to two decades. Particulates tend to be washed out by precipitation, leaving largely harmless trace quantities behind (in Western countries, at any rate).

            And emotional language about “billions of tons” is eschewed by scientists, who would reasonably ask “How many billions of tons”, and “how many billions of tons is the atmosphere” and “what fraction of the latter is represented by the former”? In round numbers, at least 30% of the atmosphere was CO2 in the Neoproterozoic era; now that is down to 0.04%, up from 0.03% since 1750. In short, we have altered the composition of the atmosphere by little more than one part in 10,000 over the past quarter of a millennium, and, despite our best efforts, to the nearest tenth of a percentage point there is no CO2 in the atmosphere at all. Which is a shame, because it is plant food, and the more of it we can release back into the atmosphere from which it originally came the better the world’s flora will like it. CO2 is what greens the planet.

            It is necessary to keep a due sense of quantitative as well as qualitative proportion, and not simply to adopt the climate-communist party line, which is being proven more and more wrong with every additional month in which the gaping gap between prediction and reality continues inexorably to widen.

          • Call em as I see em

            Which is an increase of 30%+. All of it coming over the past 100 years or so since we began burning fossil fuels en mass. The levels are the highest they’ve been in 800,000 years. The fact based science says that CO2 holds and transmits heat.

            Last year, humanity spewed some 36 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, up from 35 billion the year before.
            http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/05/09/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-reaches-prehistoric-levels/

            You go right ahead and keep believing that the burning of fossil fuels only has a beneficial impact upon the planet, at your own peril.

            And once again, like most of the other commenters you show your cards with your comment “climate communist party line.” Which leads me to believe that ideology, not science, shapes your opinion.

          • monckton

            The climate communist party line is shaped by ideology, not science. Let’s do the science. First, CO2 does not “hold” heat. Its heat capacity, like that of most gases, is minimal in comparison to water, say. Nor is it a particularly efficient “transmitter” of heat. However, in the principal absorption wavebands of CO2 it interacts with photons of incoming or outgoing long-wave radiation and oscillates at the quantum level, emitting heat directly as though a radiator had been turned on.

            Using phrases like “spewed 26 billion metric tons” are not scientific. Emotive words like “spewed” should be avoided, and there is no point in talking about billions of metric tons emitted unless one also talks about the size of the reservoir into which the billions of metric tons are being emitted. The language used by the climate communists is designed to whip up fear, so as to justify the establishment of a totalitarian regime of taxation, regulation and control, rather than to shed light on the science.

            To date, combustion of fossil fuels has had a manifestly beneficial effect on the planet’s flora, whose gross mass is growing at 2% per decade according to satellite measurements. The “net primary productivity” of trees and plants is greatly benefited by CO2, which not only accelerates their growth but also reduces their dependence on water and thus enhances their resistance to drought. Crop yields will, therefore, increase provided that we continue to emit CO2.

            It is now self-evident to all but a few ideologues that the IPCC’s original exaggerated predictions of global warming in response to atmospheric CO2 concentration change were exaggerated. Continuing to spout the emotive phrases of the lavishly-funded climate-communist lobby, therefore, is increasingly pointless and is just beginning to do what will eventually be grave and perhaps terminal damage to the hard Left worldwide. Anyone who, unlike the climate communists, is willing to put science before politics must now accept that the supposed climate “problem” is not a problem at all, and that it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to pay the cost of adapting to any adverse consequences that may in future arise from unchecked manmade global warming than to squander future generations’ inheritance on daft and environmentally damaging schemes, however piously intended, that are designed to make non-existent global warming go away.

          • Call em as I see em

            You have an issue with Scientific America using the word “spew”. Yet, you yourself use language like “climate communist”, “totalitarian regime”, “daft” and “hard Left”.

            You whine about the “lavishly-funded” climate lobby, but ignore the corporate funded CFACT.

            Yet the hypocrisy and irony are lost on you. I’m not surprised though because anyone who can claim that the “burning fossil fuels has no adverse effect on the planet” is living in some alternate reality.

            As for climate change it’s a reality for governments, insurance companies and other businesses even if it’s not a reality in your alternate universe.

        • A Pleb

          Oh and in addition to the below, can you supply me with an answer to what did cause the previous climate change before the lefty “all humans are evil and therefore must be to blame for everything” theories came to light.

    • monckton

      The furtively pseudonymous “call ’em as I see ’em” has failed to appreciate that the rate of global warming since 1990 is half what the UN then predicted. At that time it said it would be necessary to halve the rate of global warming. It has been halved, by mother Nature. Problem solved.

    • sirgareth

      Did “global records” begin in 1880? Who was taking the records for the Souix Nation? What were they for Thule Greenland or Timbuktu in Chad?

      How did they take the temperature in Thule, did they have some Eskimo write it down minute by minute 24 hours a day and average it all up? What calibration standards were used. Sines the oceans hold 100 times the heat content of the atmosphere how were they figured in? How many temperature recording stations per cubic mile of ocean ans were they all evenly spatially distributed?

      Never mind, sing the sheeple manta instead
      its less confusing for the idiots

      • Call em as I see em

        You display your ignorance for the world to see. Putting that aside for the moment though, the ice cores go back 800,000 years. You should Google ice core and CO2.

        • sirgareth

          The only thing noted “for the world to see” is that your mouth flatulence was completely unresponsive to the issues you actually raised.

          I’m not sure who is crazier at this point ISSA or you climate jihadists.

          Correct me if I am wrong, but in your disconnected state with the real world may I remind you that the subject you raised was the complete temperature record for the planet earth from 1880 onwards (at least according to you)

          So what are you talking about now?

          Are you claiming Ice cores from 800,000 years ago could reveal the exact temperature on the dusty streets of Tamanrasset Algeria at 3:15 am on say the morning of April 1 1881?

          The reason I picked the place is because it is a relatively cool city (doesn’t get over 115 F very often) but it is surround 3.6 million square miles of largely uninhabitable intense Sahara heat. That’s about half the size of the continental US. How many temperature readings do you need to get the exact average temperature of the Sahara today? How many in 1881? How do I get these readings from a 800,000 year old ice Antarctic core.

          Am I skeptical in coming to the conclusion that you don’t know what your are talking about? That would hardly recommend you as a guide to the people who say they do know what they are talking about wouldn’t it?

          The hummingbirds on my deck are less flighty that your feeble mind. Try to keep to a single subject if you can.

          Remember it was the exact “average” temperature of the planet earth from 1880 on, right?

          • Call em as I see em

            You once again display your ignorance. It would take you no more than three minutes to do your own research to learn how global temps are measured, but you’re either too lazy or somehow think that by firing off a bunch of asinine questions about the Souix, Chad and Greenland that it supports your argument. If you have questions about ice cores or the collection of global temps do your own homework! You get an F because you asked questions which you could answer yourself if you had the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity.

            I’ll give you another hint – Google GISTEMP and HADCRUT4.

            The use of your nasty language (mouth flatulence, climate jihadist, feeble minded, gullible fool, batty) also shows that you’re not only ignorant and lazy, but also a nasty person. And yet you don’t see the absurdity of your argument, ‘but for taking measurements from every millimeter for every split second the data is inaccurate.’

          • sirgareth

            I know I could “read” but reading and verifying are two different things aren’t they. You appear to be a gullible fool who “believes” whatever government apparatchiks who call themselves “scientists” tell you.

            Your also appear to be unstable and possibly insane. Are you even trained in any discipline of science or mathematics?

            Again what do 800,000 year old ice core samples have to do with collections of data purported to represent the “average” temperature of the earth in 1880?

            What parts of the earth are included in this “average” and what percentage of the earths atmosphere and to what altitudes were sampled in 1880?

            Since the oceans hold 100 times the heat content of the atmosphere what percentage of the oceanic area and to what depth was it measured in 1880?

            Does it matter if all of the temperature samples are taken in a few small regions (if so how many and where should they be taken)

            Does it matter if we drop and add or move the places we record the temperature data what if we moved several hundred from Siberia to the Sahara? How would changing the number and locations effect this uniform “average”

            You cannot answer any of this so what don’t you yak on about ice cores which have absolutely nothing to do with any of this

          • Call em as I see em

            You could find answers to all of your questions if you had the intellectual curiosity or stamina to perform the most perfunctory research. But you don’t. Even after I provided additional information so that it would make it easy for you to do the research you failed to do so.You would rather create a school of red herrings. Even after I provided additional information so that it would make it easy for you to do the research you failed to do so.

            You also fail to even recognize the double standard that you have foisted upon yourself. The data that you anti-science, flat earth folks rely upon, including the above author, is no better than that which I rely on, cited to and directed you to.

            As for insane, it is you who calls strangers communists, fools and jihadists. That’s unbalanced. Most three year olds would know better. Frankly, this exchange reminds me of similar discussions that I’ve had with Holocaust deniers.

          • sirgareth

            Yes indeed and you can find all the answers in the Quran as to why Muhammad is the true prophet of Allah provided you have complete faith. I have never had faith in bureaucracies since I have dealt with their stupidity for almost 50 years. ergo I do not believe in their religion of human induced global warming.

            I have read all of their dissertations and not one of them stands up to logical scrutiny.

            Equating lack of faith in useless bureaucrats is not the same as denying the Earth is a spherical or that the Holocaust occurred.

            The fact that you would equate verifiable recent history and verifiable physical fact with belief in the bureaucrats’ wet dreams again simply illustrates a mind that has been freed from the confines of rudimentary logic. in the vernacular we call this nuttiness.

            This is your proposition: A does not believe in B existence, Therefore he must deny the existence of C and D???

            WTF???

            The naked fact is the climatology fails a science for the same reason alchemy science, phrenology science, and phlogiston science all fail. their theories do not predict actual results.

            The theory that a trace gas called carbon dioxide modulates the the climate or even that a “greenhouse effect” exists at all are both un-provable fancies that do not ever predict actual results, in fact there is not one such global warming theory but dozens of them and they do not agree with each other. All fail, so the faithful but completely stupid bureaucrats “average” their incorrect results and tell us the average of the dozens of incorrect results must be a correct result.

            The number of people of who “believe” in them is irrelevant, there are 1.6 Muslims in the world and that must mean that the “belief” that Muhammad is the true prophet of Allah must be correct and all others must admit to their “error” and submit.

            This is not science.

          • Call em as I see em

            No, it was the method of your argumentation, the birthing of a school of red herrings, which is similar to the method of Holocaust deniers that I’ve had the displeasure of speaking with. Your methods are the same. I also read your nasty name calling as weakness in argument.

            You >> who took the temperature on 4/1/1891? How about the temperature in Mexico on 1/5/1932? The bottom of the ocean on 5/8/1945? How did they take the temperature of the Sahara? How about Greenland in March of 1963? Who trained the Eskimos? How about the Souix Nation?

            Medicine, meteorology, finance, astronomy and economics, as examples, all fail as science according to your definition for their lack of ability to predict outcomes. Stating what the temperature is of my swimming pool or the steak that I just cooked also fails according to you because I didn’t take the temperature from every millimeter of either. You might as well also discount most of what we know about history – man made or natural – because you are also unable to personally verify the age of the earth, the temperature of any of the planets in our solar system, whether Columbus sailed the ocean blue, what really happened during the Dark Ages or quantum physics.

            However, because of your biases you choose what data to believe, like the author above, and what to discount, like the millions of temperature readings taken over more than a century, from thousands of stations all over the globe.

            Due to your investments in extraction industries I would expect no different from you. If you look at my original post it asked how the author reconciles conflicting data sets. Your response was basically, ‘well one data set is BS because of the communists, the Jihadists and government bureaucrats.’ Then of course you throw in a bunch of red herrings about camels and Eskimos. And close with I’m nutty. From our interaction I know more about you than you can imagine. I’m sure you often think that you’re the smartest, white, divorced male in the room despite your lack of friends and difficulty in forming close bonds with others.

          • sirgareth

            It is not a red herring to observe that:

            a) The world is not and never has been instrumented to record an “average” global surface temperate. Surely you are not so dense to understand that only a tiny percentage of the Earth’s (less than 1%) of the earth was instrumented for accurate temperature readings in 1880 and improperly instrumented even today

            b) The “record” has been corrupted by massive changes to the instrumentation siting, spacial distribution of sites, maintenance of sites, calibration of sites, urbanization of sites, methods of record keeping , etc over the past 134 years. There is no way to fudge the numbers to make them accurate. If we move 100 instrumentation cites from Siberia to the Sahara the record will incorrectly indicate slight “warming” It is impossibly difficult to measure an abstractions called the “global temperature” Even the vaunted satellite data taken only from the late 1970s of upper atmosphere IR soundings (which indicate virtually no warming trend to the present date) present their own massive technical problems as well.

            c) The surface record is completely irrelevant, the oceans whose temperature memory goes back as much as 1000 years dominate the earths surface climate bay a factor of 100 to 1 and almost nothing is known about their legions of cyclical phenomenon.

            d) Even in the face of all this your climate cult has been hung on its own petard since even their own corrupt “data” is now betraying their cause. Now they offer new theories to explain why there old ones fail – all easily illustrated to be nothing but nonsense.

            RE: “Medicine, meteorology, finance, astronomy and economics, as examples, all fail as science according to your definition for their lack of ability to predict outcomes.”

            You are completely wrong here, do not try to coattail the religious cult of climatology to real science:

            With the exception of economics which is not science, (some) medicine does work, its methods predictably save lives over non-interventions, meteorology beats the dart board as to guessing tomorrows weather. Astronomy is quasi-science and I have taken two full semesters of it and am informed as to the strengths and weaknesses of some of its theories. In any case there is nothing to be gained by knowing (or not knowing) the distance to a neighboring galaxy as well as know way of determining whether it is correct as stated. “Belief” in unsubstantiated figures makes them completely speculative.

            Now lets compare this with the fraudulent claim that climatology can predict anything in the short term of 30 years or less , in long term of more than 30 years, and lastly the after all of us alive are dead term, of course is merely rank superstition. How do we verity that the seas will rise by n inches 100 years from now?

            Moreover science and history are not the same. Science concerns the future and history concerns the past. Archaeology etc may use the tools of science but it is not science. Official history as taught in schools is governed by the surviving power structure and is used to re-enforce statist myth. Yes, I have faith that World War II occurred but I am also completely aware that the Japanese version of it is compelely different from our own and also that had the Nazis prevailed our own History would read completely different.

          • Nick697

            Good treatise, but if I might be so bold I would make a few comments. Let me start by correcting your statement that economics is not science. It is indeed defined as “the science that deals with the production, distribution and consumption of wealth … ” While we’re at it, medicine is classified as an art, not a science (although it involves the use of vast amounts of scientific methods and research.)
            .
            Small point, but the adage is not “hung on its own petard.” The correct form is “hoist [i.e. blown up] by his own petard [bomb, or mine.]”
            .
            On the positive side: re. paragraph b) – Canada, for example, reduced its recording weather stations from nearly 6,000 to fewer than 1,000. Guess where most of the deleted ones were sited.
            .
            Also, regarding climatology not being able to predict; guess who said this: “In climate research and modeling we should recognize that we are dealing with a non-linear and chaotic function, and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Some right-wing denier devoid of scientific education? A paid spokesman for the coal/oil/gas industry?
            Nope. It was actually the summary of several internal reports by IPCC climate scientists, and can be found on Page 174, Section 14.2.2 of the 2001 IPCC report. That was back in the day, of course, when the IPCC’s scientists were allowed to be independent, and cl it as they saw it. Today they conform or lose their salaried positions and get black-balled regarding future employment. The IPCC wants only the predetermined result required by its government paymasters.

          • sirgareth

            Continued:

            RE: “Due to your investments in extraction industries”

            This is a logic fallacy.

            First may I assume that you utilize literally all of the materials provided by “the extraction industries”

            If not, just what materials don’t you utilize from the “extraction industries” either directly or indirectly?

            If you do utilize any of the materials that I may or may not invest in, your argument goes up in smoke and your rant is reduced to the socialist vs capitalist nonsense. I can easily determine which side you of the climate cult reside in: The side wherein usefulness and human liberty are of no value.

          • Call em as I see em

            But they are red herrings to ask about Eskimos, camels, the Sahara, some street in Africa at 315AM, specific dates/times of readings and the bottom of the ocean.

            You’re also wrong about science concerning the future. Science is just as much about explaining the past. Science is drawing conclusions based upon observation and attempting to predict outcomes.

            Your juvenile name calling doesn’t make you as bright as you think you are. Despite your overly large, unjustified ego and lofty hubris you are not the great arbiter of what is, or is not, science.

            Medicine does work >> speak with some folks who took FDA approved drugs that were later recalled.
            Meteorology beats the dart board >> and monkeys sometimes beat paid CFAs at picking investments. For that matter the predictions of climatologists may also beat the dart board and be right 50% of the time too.
            Astronomy >> I trust that the Sun is warmer than Pluto, and I assume that you do too, but yet how is the temperature of each measured and why are we, or you in particular, comfortable with that conclusion based upon your premise that unless a temperature is constantly measured from every square millimeter of the subject the data must be ignored?

            How do you verify the behavior of subatomic particles? You might as well ignore every computer model ever coded. I’m not surprised as you take issue with some data sets, but yet seem to accept the above author’s. If the above author can rely on RSS data, which you apparently have no issue with, then my posting of a conflicting data set and asking for a reconciliation logically follows.

            You called my opinion that I can predict your behavior/arguments based upon your investments in extraction a logical fallacy. Than prove it so. You can’t. It’s more smoke that you’re blowing. Go ahead and prove my opinion a fallacy.

            I question how you come to the conclusion that because I use oil my opinion that I would expect no different opinion/argument/conclusion from you “goes up in smoke.” Can you please connect the dots for me that my opinion goes up in smoke because I use oil?

            Your conclusion is as faulty as your opinion that you know which side of the “cult” I stand on and that I have the opinion that “usefulness and human liberty are of no value.” As we have never discussed usefulness or human liberty it’s more infantile demagoguery in order to prop up your argument.

            To me your nastiness towards strangers and inability to have a polite dialogue means that you are quite dissatisfied with your life. You are unhappy in your relationships or your work. You think you’re smarter than your boss and your facial expressions often disclose your contempt for others. You aren’t where you hoped you would be professionally, financially or personally. You’ve seen other people take the opportunities that you felt you deserved. You think a lot of yourself and expected more from your life than what you have. You’re not where you thought you would be. Perhaps you find yourself biting your tongue and thinking to yourself how stupid others are. You attempt to correct the dissonance and conflict that you face by demonstrating to the world how smart you are by putting others down. You should see a therapist. During your first visit you should be truthful and disclose that you call strangers communists, dim, dense, demented, feeble, flighty, unstable, insane, Jihadists, unbalanced, batty, gullible and fools. Whatever deep black hole you have inside of you is never going to be filled through the degradation of others. I feel badly that you are in such conflict and so dissatisfied. I pity you and those around you who have to put up with your unhappiness.

          • sirgareth

            If not Eskimos, just who was taking the temperature of 850,000 square miles of Greenland in 1880? In contrast, how many thermometers were needed to take the “average” temperature of Massachusetts with its measly 10,000 square miles in 1880?.

            Lets assume that each of Massachusetts 300+ communities kept accurate accurate weather records in 1880 and further assume that if we were very lucky Greenland had even just one weather station in 1880. (doubtful).

            Now in 1880, if Greenland had just one weather station per 850,000 square miles and Massachusetts had one weather station per 35 square miles how would you take the “average” temperature of Massachusetts and Greenland combined. How about Massachusetts and the rest of the world combined?.

            Unless you are even dimmer than I think you are you might begin to perceive a spacial distribution problem that is quite insurmountable. Lets keep it simple for you and suppose you tell me how the temperature data is combined for Massachusetts and Greenland and tell me what the margin of error for the “average” temperature for the two areas combined might be calculated.

            Real science does not explain, history explains, science predicts. The accuracy of explanations is completely subjective while the predictions of (real) science is objectively calculated. Climate cultists feel the need to cloud this completely salient difference with more of their bullshit. Lots of things in fact, most things called “science” aren’t science i.e. “political science,” “environmental science,” et al)

            Your snit over the issue concerning “extraction industries” is non-responsive. If you consume alcohol it is assumed that you approve of its production. The issue of whether any else decides to make if for you means they approve of alcohol consumption as well. On the other hand, if you consumed alcohol (or extracted minerals) while condemning those who provide it for you it makes your argument fraudulent and you nothing but a hypocrite.

            As to whether or not you are a socialist/communist/fascist (all the same) or a liberty loving capitalist there is no doubt. You employ the worn out rhetoric of the statist which is the generic term for all people who love to control others through force; ie busybodies and thieves.

            I’m never nasty to people of good will, successful people never are and I count myself successful by any objective measure. I am several years retired from 50+ years of productive work and can afford to waste my time with dullards. I do it as a hobby.

            Your responses never engage the issues raised but offer only snide but otherwise meaningless rejoinder. This is in fact the only weapon in your skinny and sparse quiver.
            I have yet to meet a climate cultist who will directly confront the issues raised; this is why I have such a dim view of both your intellect and your motives

          • Call em as I see em

            As you’re just too lazy to find the answers to your own questions I’ll ignore all of your red herrings. You’d prefer to remain ignorant because you think that advances your argument. If you want to know how many stations and readings there were in 1880 look it up. I’m not biting at your red herrings.

            And you basic premise that in the absence of perfect information we must ignore what data we have tells me how immature and inexperienced you are. I’ve worked in many different capacities. I can’t think of a single instance when I’ve had all of the information I would have liked in order to guide a decision. We make decisions with the best information available to us at that time.

            You seem to have no logical or reasoning ability. I’d guess and say that you’re an engineer. The fact that someone consumes a product does not mean that they approve of its production. I’ll use a basic example to illustrate for you. Let’s assume that someone doesn’t like the way oil revenues fund certain governments. In other words he does not approve of its production methods. That person may decide to purchase a hybrid, take a bus, ride a bike or set his thermostat low to minimize his use of oil. He is using the product, but because he does not approve of its production methods he tries to minimize his use of it. I see no hypocrisy. If you don’t follow please let me know and I’ll make it more simple.

            I also never condemned you for your investments. I wrote that based upon your choice of investments I would know which side of the argument you stood.

            If you weren’t too lazy to educate yourself before spouting off you’d also know that there are fundamental differences between Socialism, Communism and Fascism. I’ve found that those who whine loudest, such as yourself, about the Evahl Communism are often those who have their hand stuck deepest into the public coffers. Did the company you worked for have any government contracts? If you’re over 65 do you receive Medicare? How do you like the special tax treatment for your extraction investments? Is your mortgage Fannie/Freddie guaranteed? Student loans? Crow all you want about the Wicked Socialism, but scoop up every benefit government you can. I use a metaphor; Capitalism is when government gives you a benefit; Socialism is when government gives your neighbor a benefit and Communism is when government gives a stranger a benefit.

            That you like spending your retirement years being nasty to strangers confirms what I wrote about your unhappiness and dissatisfaction. It’s sad really that you attempt to externalize your unhappiness onto others. It’s an odd way to find fulfillment.

            BTW I’m pro-nuclear, pro-death penalty, a gun owner, a small business owners and didn’t vote for Obama either time. I’m happy to hear you don’t like busy bodies that control others. Are you like me and support the legalization of drugs, gambling and prostitution? Or do you get to decide what free will to provide to others?

          • sirgareth

            Moreover,

            RE: “I trust that the Sun is warmer than Pluto, and I assume that you do too, but yet how is the temperature of each measured and why are we, or you in particular, comfortable with that conclusion based upon your premise that unless a temperature is constantly measured from every square millimeter of the subject the data must be ignored?”

            One of the marks of an educated man is the ability to detect meaningful distinctions, all is not the same. The somewhat variable electromagnetic (and particle) emmission of the Sun can be generally observed from the earth and the inverse square law always works precisely at least for electromagnetic radiation. Therefore it is quite probable that it’s irradiance falling on Pluto is an easy calculation. On the other hand the mechanisms of atmospheric physics are incalculably complex and completely beyond anyone’s understanding despite the fact several broad generalization can be inferred. People like yourself do not understand the limits of current science because you are completely illiterate in the field. You are in fact an easy mark.

            The entire field of science is littered with the multitudinous grave sites of its formerly universally accepted accepted truth and nothing has changed that paradigm.

            RE: How do you verify the behavior of subatomic particles? You might as well ignore every computer model ever coded. I’m not surprised as you take issue with some data sets, but yet seem to accept the above author’s. If the above author can rely on RSS data, which you apparently have no issue with, then my posting of a conflicting data set and asking for a reconciliation logically follows.

            RE: “How do you verify the behavior of subatomic particles? You might as well ignore every computer model ever coded. I’m not surprised as you take issue with some data sets, but yet seem to accept the above author’s. If the above author can rely on RSS data, which you apparently have no issue with, then my posting of a conflicting data set and asking for a reconciliation logically follows.”

            The answer her is quite simple, if the model works better than the model it replaced then is is scientific but this does not in any way imply it is correct. In fact quantum theory supports the entire field of modern chemistry and modern physics but no one who actually understand it would dare tell you it is correct. Its merit lies only in its utility. It could be and most likely is completely incorrect; not by just some nuanced wrong but dead wrong. You probably do not know that phlogiston science served us well for many years. You could determine just how far a steamship or steam locomotive could go by the consulting fairly precise phlogiston tables for the various fuels used to propel them.

            The climate cult is a fraud and its priests, like most priests, want you to infer that they know more than they do, which in fact is next to nothing. Because you are so ill equipped to deal with the faults and fallacies of their artless bunk you again are an easy mark.

  • Allen Barclay Allen

    Thanks Lord Christopher Monckton

    I see the Idiot MONBAT scoffers like docdave88 are here.

    Global Warming Hokum !! South Castel is 120 feet from the 6 foot shore on the Draftsmen drawing for King Henry the 8th. The water has receded since then 1544. 120 feet from the shore.

    The fruit industry in the US once extended across all the southern states from Georgia across Texas to mexico. Those grooves are no longer there since 1903 when we began the majority of fossil fuel burning. It is too cold for that industry to survive there any more.

    There was snow on the ground in Israel the entire time a Global warming Conference was there last year. No doubt the Nobel idiot laureate Al Gore the inventor of the internet scheduled it. Funny I thought Steve Jobs Family still own the international patent with Xerox of Japan for the Internet??

    A global warming Expedition from Australia, Looking for Ozone Depletion in Antarctic, was trapped in Summer Ice last year. Funny Wasn’t there three ships caught in the ice??? How did that happen in an Antarctic Summer time ?? Their Scientist just recorded the lowest temperature in history there last winter. they will be lucky if they make it back to civilization !!

    BUT HERE IS A QUESTION FOR ALL REAL SCIENTIST TO ANSWER !!!!

    A Question for every Scientist to answer!!

    When all emissions from fossil fuel will wind up in our atmosphere any way at the burning of Tectonic Plate Subduction Zone, Why are we forbidden to use it??

    And why are we forbidden to use it by false science, UN Agenda 21 Questioning the sovereignty of the United States peoples Dominion to use What God Gave us to use ???

    Subject: Time And man’s Dominion to use the things of Earth, God’s willed for man use. Dominion his Gift to all of us !!! not just a FEW !!

    Reason with Me for a Moment in time. Why not use this fuel, that will eventually fill our atmosphere with emissions, after its burned any way, in its final Tectonic plate Subduction zone?? Who are the idiots preventing us from using God’s gift to man here??

    Where’s the logic !!!! What will happen if we don’t use it now???

    Will we not destroy ourselves by listening to UN’s Agenda 21?????

    Dominion belonging to Christ

    1 Peter 4

    10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another , as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak , let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister , let him do it as of the ability which God giveth : that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise anddominion for ever and ever. Amen.

    Time calculation by God threw Peter= 8 But,beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Peters Time Calculation Revealed to him

    2 Peter 3

    1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets,and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying , Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep , all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of , that by the word of God the heavens were of old,and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished : 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store , reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But,beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish , but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat , the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

    Creation time till now =

    Though I may have got it wrong here, please understand how do you put Infinity together with Mans concept of time? Their Diametrically opposed Completely different. Imagine Infinity a circle drawn with a pencil line, Imagine our time revolves around that line, of that circle, Imagine our life line begins from that line, circling around it till we die, and winding up completing to that line, when we die.

    One lord day= 1,000 times, 7 = 7,000 time, 365 days=2555000 time, 1,000= 2,555,000,000 since creation age, in Man years since creation age 2,555 million years old. thats 2,555 Million since Genesis and Big Bang Plasma theory. God’s Vocal cords speaking, Matter and Antimatter, vibrating together voice Creation of the Universe. Jesus is that Voice, by which the Universe is made from.

    Not using Fossil Fuel a Huge Logical Mistake

    Now that I have said that, since water was separated, from dry land and Fossil fuel producing Plants began, in Pangea, named after Pelag Fifth Generation Son from Noah, When the Continental Tectonic Plates began, to separate, to their Subduction zones, after Noah’s time a huge deposit of fuel, from that life is deposited in the length of each Tectonic Plate.

    Should man for some reason, choose to not use these massive deposits of fuel, deposited from the 2nd day of creation, till now, along the length of the tectonic plates, from its formation from magma, to the Subduction zone, that has just now begun to burn, those deposits; should we decide not to use it; will it not destroy our Atmosphere in time, by not using it now, its massive build up beginning to burn?? Craig Rucker, If we don’t use by Burning for energy this build up of lifes fuel, when it finally reaches its Eventual Subduction Zone burning point, will it not SUFFOCATE WORLD populations with these same emissions, Global Warming are worried about????

    Destructive Behavior rendered by the view at the suffering of many

    I see this same behavior played out every year, in California Because they refuse, to use Common sense, with Controlled Burning, during safe wet times of the year. Their refusal to do so is to prevent CO2 pollution producing Lung Distress in a few sensitive people, causing a build up of under brush that eventually catches the top of the forest on fire, releasing massive emissions that now during dry season will hert normal lungs.

    Reasoning by the Few, at the suffering of many, is the UN Agenda 21 Global Warming/ Climate Change, failure to humanity !!!

    Mans old enemy Satan is at work, taking Dominion away, given to man by God !!!

  • Allen Barclay Allen

    By the Way Sulfur Dioxide does Deplete Ozone, But it definitely doesn’t mean it will get warmer, Obviously. The Expedition to the Antarctic Must have been an reenactment of the Fishing Trip on ” One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”. Ha !! The Scientist all looked the same to me !!!! Incidentally Sulfur Dioxide Blocks out the sun !!! Our last Ice Age Produced a record amount of CO2 with that Sulfur Dioxide 1200 PPM compared to now 388 PPM. But the whole earth froze with that 1200 PPM CO2.

  • Allen Barclay Allen

    What science, could replace the natural History of an Orange Trees growth pattern. What science, could replace the obvious history of a Castle built on the water, as a defencive position in 1544. What science is this Global Warming, when a Subduction zone of a Tectonic Plate BURN IT ALL INTO THE ATMOSPHERE ANY WAY. What kind of Scientific IDIOT thinks that by not using Fossil Fuel now that it will be better. What kind of idiot Scientist would believe that any nation would have the financial resources, to dig all the Fossil Fuel up, and send it to the SUN for a bunch of people that can’t get away from the preprimer “Chicken Little” in education.
    Did Marze make this World ending conclusion that Fossil Fuel is EVIL???? Did that, civilisation come to this world ending conclusion, and now it is a dead planet ??? Did they have the impossible financial resources, to shoot it all toward the Sun, the only obvious but impossible conclusion of Global Warming. The truth is our Planet depends on this fossil fuel to make an atmosphere, and there is no way we could possibly use it all up now, even at today’s Consumption rate. Letting it all go down a Subduction Plate is Foolishness, at the whim of people that just want power. Power of the few, over the many, slavery of the many.
    So what happens if we don’t find a way, to use all the massive Methane Sulphate, deposit at all of our Continental shelf, in our oceans surrounding every continent ?? One large earthquake away from filling our oceans with methane ??? Methane, and the Microbes, that work with it that Purify our Aquifers, and Oceans. Who would prevent us from using it responsibly, but a bunch of IDIOTS that just want slavery control on all of us, which is their only motive for this stupidity.

  • Call em as I see em

    It’s beyond bizarre. We have A Pleb who has to be in some state of cognitive dissonance if he believes on one hand that pollution is bad enough that it should be cleaned up, but yet the billions of tons of emissions do not affect the world around us. Then we have the purported author of the article, Monckton, who writes “the output of soot and pollutants is now well under control), burning fossil fuels has no adverse effect on the planet” apparently totally unaware of what is going on in China.

  • Xsaunder

    The models used by the UN were based on a lie. The world has been enthralled by a fantasy that is fed by grant money and guv’ment’s reach for more power

    • ThisNameInUse

      Yep, you’re a raving right winger. You’ve flashed your ID card unequivocally. No science for you, thanks.

  • planet8788

    I love the stupid little Hiroshima bombs of heat counter on Warmists websites….
    The world consumes what… 80 million barrels per day of oil? How many Hiroshima bombs are being added to the Earths energy budget from burning that much oil… That’s more likely to be the source of the warming more than this mythical CO2 crap.

  • William Ripskull

    Those pesky facts. Its not getting warmer, there are fewer storms, they’re less severe, the Antarctic ice is growing, the Arctic ice is growing, seas are not rising (although I’m sure that’s because Obama willed it in his inauguration speech), all the “believers” models are year after year completely wrong and predict nothing, and on top of that we’ve seen repeated attempts by the GW/CC crowd to cover up all this “inconvenient truth” data. Even the global warming-ists had to rebrand their ideology to “Climate Change” because calling it global warming was becoming embarrassing. I think all these “scientists” would better serve mankind if they could find a way to stop continental drift. Or maybe the sun from shining.

    • ThisNameInUse

      Wow. Alternate universe, eh? Spock with a beard and everything. You’ve covered most of the obligatory customary lies of the denial crowd there in one post.

      Both Arctic and Antarctic ice is tanking faster than the Titanic:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/18/arctic-sea-ice-has-not-recovered-in-7-visuals/

      http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/less-ice-or-more-what-you-need-know-about-antarcticas-n265646

      The earth has accelerated its warming over the past 10/15/whatever cherry picked interval you liars choose – unless somehow you’ve transported our oceans to another planet.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

      Sea level rise has been steady. And your sad childish “global warming was re-branded climate change cuz somethingorother” chant for good measure. That one is so tired, and just helps remind everyone never to trust your crowd with anything of importance.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

      • William Ripskull

        Yeah, and the “believer” crowd just published that we had the hottest year on record, of course with only a 38 percent confidence level. That is the “science” behind climate change… get a headline, get some grant money, fly around the world to posh resorts on someone else s dime to discuss why people need to stop flying around the world, repeat. I have an idea, why don’t you come up with some facts that you can state with a 98% confidence level, then demonstrate, then accurately predict. Your same crowd was predicting doomsday global cooling only a few decades ago.

        So answer this Einstein… is it getting warmer or is it getting colder, and if it truly is getting warmer, why did the “believers” feel the need to re-brand their “science” as climate change? And while you’re at it, explain a single period in earth’s 4 billion years that the climate wasn’t changing, and then maybe explain what happened to multiple ice ages that disappeared long before real human relevance. And while you’re explaining that, explain why, if CO2 is the singular influence that triggers global warming (er, I mean climate change), there have been warmer periods with lower levels of CO2 and cooler periods with higher levels of CO2. Then maybe explain the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming periods that climate “scientists” conveniently left out of their charts and numbers, which of course they denied, but was later proven with the hacked emails from Climate-gate. Then please explain to me how the “science” can be settled when the climate “scientist” community cannot even agree among themselves why all their findings, models, and predictions have been so grossly wrong (there are literally dozens of theories). Then finally, explain to me, what is the “ideal” temperature? So in the 4 billion years of earth’s existence, this temperature is just the right temperature for everyone on the planet, or is it really just good for you, which is all you really care about anyway, right.

        Global Warming = Science for Non-Scientists

  • Ed Millerski

    “The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months
    from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month
    satellite record.”

    Yet on October 1996 the overall (1/1979 – 10/1996) average RSS temperature anomaly stood at -0.04 and somehow increased to 0.10 by August 2014. So during a period of “no global warming at all”, the average temperature calculated from the RSS dataset went up. The globe still got hotter.

  • AlliCANsayisWOW

    Where do you all get your data? NOAA has the most reliable satellites to measure things like sea ice thickness, sea level and air temperature. While the IPCC has changed their predictions some but their lower error bound has never been wrong. All the northern countries are gearing up for a new arctic, no one said next year or any specific year, I have heard that by 2025 there will be a northern summer shipping route. That is still a long time for conservatives who can not comprehend long complex scientific processes and yearn for the quick look its snowing outside I guess global warming is BS. We are taking CO2 that was sequestered for millions of years and burning it all at once…..something is going to happen. Scientist study these reactions, chemists, physicists, and other all want to know what it going to happen and when a bunch of different teams all make models they then report them to the IPCC who then takes an average of all of them. All the data confirms that the arctic is warming faster than the rest as models all predict. Sea level is still going up and northern hemisphere summer ice coverage is going way down for both land and sea ice. Just look at old pictures of glaciers if you don’t believe numbers.

  • AL KELLEY

    what a fucking nut…………………think the record ocean temps are what’s fueling record landfall monsoons, typhoons. chubascos? CO2, whether atmospherically or dissolved in ocean tends to hold on to heat really well; if it didn’t, the 40% remaining ocean coral reefs wouldn’t be so diminished!

  • Cody Harper

    This is obviously incorrect at it’s very core. When looking at the most basic of data that would support this or prove it wrong, as in the actual temperature of the planet, using historical data out of the last 150 years, 13 of the 14 hottest years, occurred since the year 2000. Obviously if climate change had stopped, then why is the Earth still getting hotter?

  • 12345

    Where are your sources? Give me scientific articles.

  • Syd Baumel

    Clearly the IPCC hasn’t a clue when it comes to modelling global warming. As Lord Monckton notes: “The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century.” But one only has to look at the actual RSS satellite record, as his Lordship diligently, if selectively, does, to see that between May 1992 and September 1998 the lower troposphere actually warmed at a statistically significant (95% certainty) rate of over 10 degrees per century, even after averaging the RSS trend with John Christy and Roy Spencer’s UAH dataset. Clearly, the IPCC has been underestimating the warming trend.

    • ThisNameInUse

      Awesome. I’m sure that the IPCC-bashing don Quixotes here at CD will want to jump on this embarrassment and broadcast it all over the denialosphere — RIGHT GUYS?

      “UN Hoaxsters underestimate global warming by order of magnitude!”. And then David Rose at the UK Daily Mail will have to fit in a screaming piece in between the pictures of scantily clad women in the sidebars. “Global warming MUCH worse than soft-pedaling UN says it is” and so forth.

      This is your cue, “contrarians”. Be contrary. The IPCC says this is a dire situation but they are UNDERPLAYING it based on this cherry picked interval. And you ALL know how representative cherry picking is, don’t you?

      • Syd Baumel

        Hey, don’t sully this discussion with David Rose. He ignored the only
        legitimate, untampered-with datasets – the RSS and UAH, based on the
        unimpeachable satellite record – and instead used that
        Climategate-riddled Hadley CRU instrumental record-based dataset as the
        basis for his famous story (and viral graphic) about the total lack of warming “from the
        beginning of 1997 until August 2012”
        (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html).
        Meanwhile, that very same fake dataset feigns a
        statistically significant warming trend during virtually the same period – from 1996 thru September 2010 – of
        (get this!) over 1.5 degrees C per century.

        Bottom line: don’t trust climate data unless you carefully cherry-pick it yourself. We owe a great debt to the likes of Lord Mocnkton, Ross McKitrick and Marc Morano for this important scientific lesson.

  • ernisc@cableone.net

    Interesting comments, with a clear trend between those I take to be in the liberal, Obama, UN, Al Gore, NOAA etc. camp, and those that take the conservative, the 2008 Climate Summit scientific papers (20-some plus) that refuted the CO2-leads Temperature theory beyond reasonable doubt, satellite data over time (objective, direct measurement calibrated and cross-checked actual instrumentation), etc.. The first set gets personal and never offers links to back up claims, the second set comes back with “where’s the data you refer to…” and often cites specific arguments for the lack of real objective proof. I have had a technical and science-based interest since well before the 2008 climate summit where I pulled 20 of 25 papers (all peer reviewed) and began to understand how wrong the Al Gore and now the UN, Obama (a complete non-tech “anything”) crowd really is.
    To cite a few surface (no pun intended) points:
    ***No Scientist on this planet has proven (not even close) that CO2 (1 % of the atmosphere by volume) drives temperature. Also note that only 3% of the 1% is traceable to mankind. Understand that CO2 is but a shadow of the major GREEN HOUSE GAS, “WATER VAPOR at 95% of the atmosphere by volume. Have you noted the “climate change between a cloudy morning and the difference when the Sun appears. That is a major change sometimes in minutes…not years. CO2 in the late Ordovician Period (ICE AGE) yet had CO2 concentrations 12 times higher than today-~4400 ppm! Vostok Ice Core studies proved beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 trailed Temperature increases sometimes by as much as 800 years. I could go on but let me make it even more simple.
    ***If you regularly watch weather reports on TV from a good station, take a look at those that SHOW THE RECORD HIGH AND RECORD LOW FOR THAT DAY/DATE! You will find (frequently) that the record HIGH Temperature for that day was made in the late 1800’s or the FIRST HALF of the 1900’s!
    If my trend above is correct the first group will stop looking after a few days…if they look at all. The second group will look to see if I am correct. Look for a station that often gives the records for that day/date with some regularity or you can search for a data base of record high’s and lows but you’ll need to specify “for what area or maybe country.
    Guess which group likes this. Best regards to all. – E Harper, CSP, DABFE, DABFET, CFC

    • Syd Baumel

      Reality-check (one of many possible): Since your chosen gold standard is temperature records, and since the subject is global warming, do you belong to the group that thinks it might be a good idea to check the global annual temperature records to see if there’s been any trend for warmest to be recent and coolest to be not so much? You could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

      • ernisc@cableone.net

        Syd, why do you say my Gold Standard? Invented for effect maybe! I hope you understand that the subject is that mankind causes GW and you may or may not know that TEMPERATURE and CARBON DIOXIDE TRACK EACH OTHER. Furthermore we know scientifically that when Temperature increases over time, CO2 eventually follows. This happened in all known GW cycles over hundreds of thousands of years.
        I may have made it too simple for you in the 1880-2014 records that High Temperature records are still frequent long before GW was a topic to speak of in the modern area. Of course those of us who research for hard data look at trends annually and over more than the last I year as you seem to have.
        If 2014 was so warm it set a 134 year record then all other years MUST HAVE BEEN COOLER!
        If you are going to debate me Mr. Baumel, at least come up with something to challenge me and others who present facts for our position while not personally disrespecting others in the process.
        Good day to you. Feel free to continue the debate but try to take notes first.
        Ernie

        • Syd Baumel

          You start by complaining that people like me don’t deal with facts and data. I counter your own “factual” argument (that we should be skeptical of the science of global warming because local daily heat records, it seems to you, so often date back to the late 1800s or early 20th century) by referring you to the annual global instrumental record, in which heat records are continuously being preponderantly in the present than in that fairly distant past. You reply: “I may have made it too simple for you in the 1880-2014 records that High Temperature records are still frequent long before GW was a topic to speak of in the modern area.” By definition, if temperature is rising over a period of years, there will be heat records all the way because a new record is always relative to the years before it. That even includes the earliest years when anthropogenic greenhouse gas climate forcing was beginning to make a mark as the preindustrial CO2 concentration of ~280 ppm rose modestly to ~315 by 1959 (first year of direct measurement) and almost exponentially to ~400 ppm by 2014. Is it really necessary for me to show you what that procession of new temperature records looks like? Well, just in case, below is the instrumental record as calculated by the partially Koch-funded, global warming science-skeptical Berkeley Earth group. It goes all the way back to 1850, a few decades before scientists began speculating that if we keep burning more fuel for our heat and energy, the CO2 emissions may eventually warm the planet enough to change the climate.

          As for “CO2 follows warming”: before we were the main source of CO2 emissions, that was indeed the case. But it also fuelled the warming then as it does now. Typically, a cyclic increase in solar irradiation of the planet due to the Milankovich cycle of orbital tilt initiated the warming. The warming inevitably led to global thawing, melting and rotting, with CO2 and methane outgassing from warmed oceans, sea beds, tundra, bogs and so on. Look it up in those fake scientific journals and IPCC reports.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Good for you SYD. You are correct about the 1880-2014 example and the word (mine) was “frequently,” intended only to show that there is no run-a-way climate beyond the norm. As for the relationship whether CO2 or Temperature lags or leads, there is no change. CO2 “LAGS” temperature. We’re talking about which eventually “drags” the other along. Temperature has not followed! CO2 has been rising ever since the end of the little ice age.
            FACT: CO2 has been increasing in so many parts per million for years now but temperature has not moved in relationship…at all. I need to go, but did want to say you’re doing better…are you sure you don’t have a little conservative blood in there somewhere? Later.
            E

          • Syd Baumel

            Well good for you, Ernie, for admitting defeat on the temperature record comparions. As that great conservative Stephen Colbert would say, “I accept your apology.” Since you “need to go,” I won’t follow up on your kooky CO2 assertions.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Are you really so locked in to ideology to realize that I apologized for nothing, but did give you a little credit for realizing it was not intended to win an argument. You jumped the gun and are making it plain that you accept more on faith than you do from any effort involving critical analysis. Hottest day records still stand today that were made way before GW was a national dialog and is typical of climate change and nothing humans can do changes that fact. You should see the point.

            SYD, have you realized that of all the blogged scientists (?) you say you are tracking, Not ONE can show you evidence EVEN a little that CO2 drives TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES but there are 400,000 year HIGH Temperature Anomaly swings (4 major) that prove that CO2 LAGS Temperature trends whether up or down over thousands of years. This evidence alone is compelling and backed by science and research of many years. I will add some of that data below from a short technical summary paper I wrote a few years ago.

            Before I do however: Tell me this SYD. ***Name one Scientist proving CO2 in the last few paltry years (since records began in 1880) where it has made any measurable temperature anomaly difference! ***Tell me the very best program (MODEL) anywhere that has come anywhere close to predictions. ***Tell me who can show rising seas today. ***Tell me who among your experts can prove severe weather of any kind is linked by any proof to CO2! ***ABOVE ALL TELL ME what scientist you follow can explain HOW CO2 CAN INCREASE 26.1% (1959-2014) and not create the inevitable, by folks like yourself, the ANTICIPATED VAST INCREASE in temperature! ***Can you or those so-called expert climatologists tell me WHY YOU NOR THEY ever discuss the major GREENHOUSE GAS…WATER VAPOR (95% GHG by volume). It is conveniently left out of the conversation, isn’t it.

            *****Consider this***** (just the tip of a very large iceberg)*****

            Of the approximately 1% of CO2 to total GHG’s, ~ 3% of the 1% is anthropogenic or Human caused. (Goldburg). Human addition (anthropogenic) is 8 Gton which is approx. 1 % of total atmospheric CO2 (750 Gton in atmosphere). Comparing greenhouse gases by strict
            concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP (Global Warming Potential), the total human contribution to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%. Negligible compared to water vapor, not to mention solar affects.

            The Carboniferous Period
            (about 286 -360 million years ago) and the Ordovician Period (about 438 million
            years ago) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when
            global temperatures were as low as they are today. The Late Ordovician Period
            was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly
            12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. (C.R. Scotese and R.A. Berner, 2001)

            Vostok Ice Core Data, about the timing of CO2 and climate change –
            from extensive studies in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises
            what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP
            (Before Present). The results of their meticulous analysis led them to conclude
            that “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ±
            200 years.” (Caillon et al., 2003) All historical data to date supports a
            finding that increasing atmospheric CO2 can lag temperature by as much as
            100 – 800 years but consistently shows it as a lagging, not a leading
            indicator of Global warming.

            What are the benefits? – CO2 is a highly effective fire suppression total flooding system and can replace the Clean Air Act’s phase-out of Halon 1301 (1994y) systems although one must understand that it comes with much higher risk to life. Atmospheric CO2 is viewed by many today, (at 397 ppm) as impoverished. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 387 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. For over
            100 years, nurserymen have been adding carbon dioxide to their greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. A doubling of the carbon dioxide (774 ppm) concentration in the atmosphere would increase plant productivity by almost one-third. Most plants would grow faster and bigger, with increases in leaf size and thickness, stem height, branching, and seed production. The number and size of fruits and flowers would also rise. Root/top patios would increase, giving many plants better root systems for access to water and nutrients.

            Conclusion!

            (1) CO2 is not a pollutant! (2) It is non-toxic under normal use. (3) Benefits far outweigh negatives for both humans and plant life. (4) CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming; (5) CO2 has been many times higher during previous ice ages.
            Ernie

          • Syd Baumel

            Ernie, a productive dialogue on science is impossible with someone who is determinedly steeped in nonscience (by which I mean you – sorry, you can’t believe that nonsense unless you live in the AGW denial bubble, safely removed from textbook climate science and the consensus of the peer-reviewed literature). That “I accept your apology” stuff was just me mimicking satirist Stephen Colbert twisting the slightest concession from a debate opponent into an “apology.”

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            GIVE it up SYD. If this were a debate on points you never responded with credible research. YOU lost.

          • Syd Baumel

            Sure, Ernie. Sure. Okay, let’s do a test run of answering one – just ONE, for now – of your innumerable, counterscientific points/questions. Let’s see to what extent you’re willing and able to acknowledge authoritative data when it’s presented to you on a platter (as I have already – at least you acknowledged the long-term warming record).

            You write (to me and others):

            “Tell me who can show rising seas today.”

            Okay. NOAA (for one) can. Take a look: http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/SLV_timeseries_2013_610.gif?itok=d89KD95r (full deets here: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-sea-level).

            This information is not exactly a state secret, and you should note that sea level, like most, if not all of the other metrics of global warming, has been determinedly on the rise PRECISELY during the so-called pause: http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-still-and-heres-how.html.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Syd, even with satellite adjustments trends are not holding out and what small increases that are derived have slowed in rate of increase. Two of the variables used for adjustments have greater error rates. The typical graph you show is often seen and when the actual study is read one can still find predictions with greater and greater errors. From 1993-2013 the sea level has supposedly risen 466.7% while CO2 has increased 26.1%. Hardly seems fair to blame such a minor increase in CO2 for a project 3.3mm/year projection.

            One source to cite based on the summary.

            Reference
            Boretti, A.A. 2012. Short term comparison of climate model predictions and satellite altimeter measurements of sea levels. Coastal Engineering 60: 319-322. Boretti (2012) begins his work by noting that in its report of 2007, the IPCC projected that global sea level was likely to rise somewhere between 18 and 59 cm by 2100; but he says that certain “model-based analyses performed recently have predicted much higher sea level rise [SLR] for the twenty-first century,” even “exceeding 100 cm if greenhouse gas emissions continue to escalate,” citing most pointedly in this regard the studies of Rahmstorf (2007, 2010). However, he notes that studies reaching just the opposite conclusion have also been published, referencing those of Holgate (2007), Wunsch et al. (2007), Wenzel and Schroter (2010) and Houston and Dean (2011).

            Working with what he calls “the best source of global sea level data,” which he identifies as the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeter data, Boretti applies simple statistics to the two decades of information they contain to “better understand if the SLR is accelerating, stable or decelerating.” So what did he find?

            The Australian scientist reports that the average rate of SLR over the almost 20-year period of satellite radar altimeter observations is 3.1640 mm/year, which if held steady over a century would yield a mean global SLR of 31.64 cm, which is just a little above the low-end projection of the IPCC for the year 2100. However, he also finds that the rate of SLR is reducing over the measurement period at a rate of -0.11637 mm/year2, and that this deceleration is also “reducing” at a rate of -0.078792 mm/year3.

            Just one Syd. When the ocean variations show massive effects El Nino and it’s opposite La Nino in even sea level measurements you have to question NOAA.
            That is it for tonight. You still can’t make the case.
            Ernie

          • Syd Baumel

            It sure looks like you’ve mistaken NOAA’s ~2.5″ anomaly in sea level since 1993 for an absolute increase compared to, what, half an inch of global sea level? How else can you arrive at such a mind-boggling interpretation that the chart shows a “466.7%” increase in sea level and then use that misreading of it to discredit it?

            So are we agreed, then, that the correct answer to your question – “Tell me who can show rising seas today” – is that NOAA can show that sea level has risen approx. 2 inches “today” if, for example, we define today as the period of the supposed pause in global warming since 1998? Or do you have a different definition of “today”?

            You then cite a paper in which an “Australian scientist reports that the average rate of SLR over the almost 20-year period of satellite radar altimeter observations is
            3.1640 mm/year, which if held steady over a century would yield a mean
            global SLR of 31.64 cm.” I see you cut and pasted that from a blog (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N31/C1.php), not the paper itself. In that 2012 paper, Boretti writes: “The best source of global sea level data is the University of Colorado (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/, 2011b).” He then uses their data to produce a graph showing what he suggests is a meaningful deceleration in SLR from 2005 to early 2011 (the end of the data he had at the time). On the basis of that very brief sample period, he suggests we’re probably in for the same deceleration for the long term. Well, if you go to the source of his data, you’ll see right on their home page that the deceleration was a blip (followed by an acceleration) that has had no effect on the long-term trend since 1993: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/. Also, by any reasonable definition, even your preferred source (i.e. the UC group cited by Boretti) “can show rising seas today.”

            (The findings of a recent study published in Nature suggest the ~3 mm/yr SLR since the 90s represents a much greater acceleration from the average 20th century rate than previously thought: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-sea-larger-thought.html. That would be 3.2 mm/yr [according to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/%5D vs 1.2 mm/yr from 1900-1990.)

          • drklassen

            The lag is only initial due to sequestering. Your interpretation is like saying you’re on a swing going back and forth, then someone comes along and starts pushing you and you go higher and higher. But *clearly* since you were moving before the pushing, the pushing “lags” the motion, ergo, it can’t be causing the rising height.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            drklassen, you have got to be kidding.

          • tonyduncan

            why would he be kidding when his explanation is not only rational but actually fits the facts much better.?

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Tony, can you possibly apply rational thought to either your thinking that somehow drklassen’s most recent comment made any sense! He replied to specific data stemming from cited sources with a non-linked silliness reply back to me with highly technical terms like “higher, pushing, rising height, moving and motion! TO WHAT? I don’t mind debating with you guys but with every message back to me being a repeat of your man-is-cause-of-climate-change faith, having no apparent link to science it becomes harder to give you any further time. For every source having a PhD opinion, ask for or pull their work or research rationale and use it as a base for argument if you can. If you have enough background to evaluate their conclusion, you will generally find it too narrow, inconclusive, in theory, or very general…for example, “…well CO2 is a GHG and it is rising…so it must explain everything from the Blizzard in the NE USA happening almost as we speak to growing Ice Fields in the Antarctic and changes on MAR’s…”
            By the way, Sequestering HAPPENS Every TIME the Earth goes through a warming curve which releases MORE of the STORED CO2 from the oceans and continues as long as the Temperature anomaly continues to increase! Not to mention that warmer means more plants etc. meaning more evolving of CARBON DIOXIDE meaning CARBON LAGS TEMPERATURE ANOMALY’s. GEEZE! What does it take you guys! MANKIND IS NOT CAUSING GW OR CLIMATE CHANGE and any tiny measure of contribution remains un-provable to date!

          • drklassen

            No, sequestering happens during cooling events.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Lassen, the following is how I replied to you via an initial response to your “Buddy,” Tony!

            Tony, can you possibly apply rational thought to either your thinking that somehow drklassen’s most recent comment made any sense! He replied to specific data stemming from cited sources with a non-linked silliness reply back to me with highly technical terms like “higher, pushing, rising height, moving and motion! TO WHAT? I don’t mind debating with you guys but with every message back to me being a repeat of your man-is-cause-of-climate-change faith, having no apparent link to science it becomes harder to give you any further time. For every source having a PhD opinion, ask for or pull their work or research rationale and use it as a base for argument if you can. If you have enough background to evaluate their conclusion, you will generally find it too narrow, inconclusive, in theory, or very general…for example, “…well CO2 is a GHG and it is rising…so it must explain everything from the Blizzard in the NE USA happening almost as we speak to growing Ice Fields in the Antarctic and changes on MAR’s…”

            By the way, Sequestering HAPPENS Every TIME the Earth goes through a warming curve which releases MORE of the STORED CO2 from the oceans and continues as long as the Temperature anomaly continues to increase! Not to mention that warmer means more plants etc. meaning more evolving of CARBON DIOXIDE meaning CARBON LAGS TEMPERATURE ANOMALY’s. GEEZE! What does it take you guys! MANKIND IS NOT CAUSING GW OR CLIMATE CHANGE and any tiny measure of contribution remains un-provable to date!

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Last Call to drklassen: Let me close with a few things Mr. Klassen and ADD OTHER READERS who may still be staying on.
            All you who seem convinced that mankind is creating run-away Global Warming with it’s more cautious “Climate Change” moniker since GW wasn’t happening are likely to avoid the following because you’ll really have no response to counter. IF NECCESSARY START WITH THE SECOND “***”

            ***I know you are giving me analogies Klassen, you but fail to link them to any specific point so pushing a swing which will oscillate to explain your two-way reaction of CO2 v Temperature cancels the point. You do this a lot.

            ****You never even tried to answer the empirical evidence (Observation backed by evidence at some point) I gave you a chance to respond to in the dialog. – — Of course CO2 is not driving climate change by any measureable amount and DOES FOLLOW TEMPERATURE Anomaly’s over the long and sometimes not-so-long…call a LAGGING indicator. I have well over 20 studies by credible scientists in particularly from the 2008 Climate Summit and beyond to present day who offered strong cases (all peer reviewed and presented in person), in opposition to the idea that CO2 was driving any climate in of itself, nor a significant factor.

            I have followed the science because of a personal interest and because for 45 YEARS it has been part of my job as a Safety Engineering and Forensics Professional. Dissecting studies alarming over things that harm people is still my business and I can usually determine when to take them serious and when to validate (second opinion, seek corroboration or other).

            ***Next those minor pesky subjective observations conveniently unanswered as follows:

            ******Name one Scientist proving CO2 in the last few paltry years (since records began in 1880) where it has made any measurable temperature anomaly difference! ***Tell me the very best program (MODEL) anywhere that has come anywhere close to predictions. ***Tell me who can show rising seas today. ***Tell me who among your experts can prove severe weather of any kind is linked by any proof to CO2! ***ABOVE ALL TELL ME what scientist you follow can explain HOW CO2 CAN INCREASE 26.1% (1959-2014) and not create the inevitable, by folks like yourself, the ANTICIPATED VAST INCREASE in temperature! ***Can you or those so-called expert climatologists tell me WHY YOU NOR THEY ever discuss the major GREENHOUSE GAS…WATER VAPOR (95% GHG by volume). It is conveniently left out of the conversation, isn’t it.

            ***Remember, it is a scientifically IMPOSSIBILITY to determine actual GOBAL TEMPERATURES! That is why long range evidence is weighed strongly and we know that within the last 400,000 years we have had 4 episodes of Temperature ANOMALY’s (Call them Global warming periods). IN EVERY CASE CO2 has lagged the heat rise and when the Anomaly began to fall Co2 continued rising for a time and eventually followed and lowered. These were researched through rock and ice studies, fossil studies of organics, animals, sediments and much more. Done by a variety of scientists over many years, the data was not in opposition to one another on salient facts…e.g., the RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and the rise and fall of the Temperature Anomaly.
            I can understand your support for various articles by otherwise respectful authorities but I know also how many draw conclusions from academic studies that fail to be sustainable. Neither of us can always be certain how definitive we can accept their premise or conclusion, but we can match up to personal research, check other sources etc., and I am still doing that. Too many university studies for example end in…”…of course more study is indicated…”
            I can’t say that I won’t join in further debate on GW/climate change (no capital letters), this one chain is likely done.
            Just one final bullet. Remember NOT ONE SCIENTIST HAS PROVEN THAT THE 1% of CO2 in air (by volume) and it’s anthropogenic ~ 3% of that 1%, drives temperature in any controlling sense NOR is it a measurable agent affecting temperature on the Global Scale because there IS NO WAY TO KNOW ACTUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. THERE IS NO CONCENSUS and never has been.
            Best regards all. – Ernie –

          • drklassen

            Repeated rant… TL;DR. Read, and *understand* real research.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Meaning you have no response.
            At least you stayed with it, while most with no answers dropped away. But it is hard for you not to resort to disrespect.
            Goodby Mr. Klassen.
            Ernie
            =====================================================

          • drklassen

            Meaning, you keep YELLING the same silly things regardless of actual evidence and keep imposing the same silly “absolute proof” criteria implying you have no clue how science is done and no desire to actually learn anything as you are quite happy locked in your ideologically created obliviousness.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Prove it!
            You’re done here.
            E

    • ThisNameInUse

      Love the black/white allegorical world you live in in your mind, where “liberals don’t back up their points with data” and the conservatives are the real scientists. I wonder how you keep your head from exploding as you explain why the EPA administrators for the last four REPUBLICAN presidents were on Capitol Hill last summer begging the current Republicans in Congress to take this issue seriously.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/18/gop-epa-congress-climate/10765747/

      Could you POSSIBLY take off your juvenile partisan hat long enough sometime to actually deal with the science and find some allegiance with your species? Must you live 24/7 in alliance with whatever the next dominant species on the planet will be, and show some loyalty to humankind? Is that too much of a stretch for you?

      • ernisc@cableone.net

        Mr. or Ms. “This-Name-In-Use” you just proved my point! You just disrespected me in (probably less than 200 words) and absolutely offered ZERO evidence to my discussion points AT ALL. What evidence can you offer that anything justifies the EPA regulating carbon based not on science but by edict from this President who has no science background at all and has never cited much more than the UN and “ALL” that science (un-cited sources). And why are you silent on CO2?
        Now, to your (only) point: EPA administrators are appointed politicians not scientists and lets see…the last 4 REPUBLICAN presidents are…Bush 43, Bush 41, Regan 40, and Ford 38! Ford was president 1974-1977 which is over 37 years ago!
        Seems really strange that an old EPA Administrator, skipping Carter 39 and Clinton’s 42 EPA Administrators would leave his couch for that. Must have been briefed. Gee, could you have made that up…would a noble liberal actually lie…maybe not lie but believe a blog or other source as a legitimate reference. Just speculating, no name calling.
        By the way what do EPA Politicians have to do with any factual basis on CO2 or Global Warming.
        I appreciate your taking a stand on your belief in GW, but really, before you debate with me, you might want to do a lot of homework. Take care “youngster.” (Sorry if that’s the wrong term but so far I have the impression you might be off Campus 101, a liberal based education influence.) If you are older, my apologies.
        Take care. – Ernie –

        • Syd Baumel

          I don’t think USA Today has been “got to” sufficiently by the global warming cabal to have brazenly made this up:

          “In a congressional hearing organized to undermine Republican opposition
          to President Obama’s environmental proposals, Senate Democrats asked the
          heads of the Environmental Protection Agency for Richard Nixon, George
          H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to discuss the risks from
          climate change and what should be done about it.”

          I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s a matter of record. How could it be? Because Republicans used to be pretty “evidence based.” Now, ideology, religious fundamentalism and political contributions from an endangered fossil fuel industry have eaten their brains.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Compared to the Democrats, Republicans are still evidence based and one of my fields is forensics, board certified and a life Fellow. Fact established and corroborated are needed. Man does not equal GW!
            I am a conservative and a voting Republican. You can see my points above.
            Take care.

          • tonyduncan

            your “evidence is based on nothing scientific that I see, I follow about 100 climate scientists on twitter. I am pretty sure everyone of them has a Ph.D or is getting one in a field related to physics chemistry or biology, Every single one of them is sure that the small % of CO2 in the atmosphere has a significant effect on the climate.
            all the major climate scientists who are against efforts to limit CO2 ALSO beleive that it has an effect on global temps, but they argue that the effect is not as strong as the overwhelming majority of scientists beleive. Of those none have so far provided actual evidence undermining the current understanding by the overwhelming number of climate scientist. Lindzen has for 2 decades been coming up with hypothesis that would mitigate the effect, and so far none of them have been accurate. Curry has her stadium wave, which has not been at all verified, Spencer has his 1,500 year cycle which has not been verified, and there are numerous other attempts at showing CO2 effect is not going to be large enough to merit any action. NONE have any real basis of empirical support.
            Certainly nothing else has any empirical support besides CO2 for the last few decades of global warming.
            sorry but having expertise in forensics is not enough to make me throw out what even the skeptic experts say.

          • ernisc@cableone.net

            Thanks Tony. I do have a hard time accepting twitter contacts and only 100 or so in number as providing more than a belief in CO2 as a danger to this planet. It is important to know that there is NO CONCENSUS among experts to that point! Several hundred plus climate experts and scientists have produced a great number of peer-reviewed studies with very credible evidence to the contrary.
            Nothing has come true from those “GW by Mankind” experts” who have touted everything from sea rises to (also) proven grossly wrong temperature prediction models. None of which has occurred, and we can include severe weather predictions that have continued to happen throughout history. Then there is the 17-19 years of flat to slightly lower temperature increases while CO2 continues to increase.
            I have produced science based details, some included in my first response a day ago as of tonight starting with the words…”Interesting comments…” About halfway down, there is some of what I speak. I have over 20 hard research alone from the 2008 Climate Summit and more over about 20 years now.
            Time does not permit more just now/tonight, but maybe more over the weekend. Proof isn’t there for those 100 you tweet with and remember that not one scientist on the planet has proven CO2 drives temperature. CO2 actually LAGS temperature proven a number of ways from the Vostok Ice core studies to other GW (4) warming episodes.
            Maybe later, Tony. I appreciate your input, but see nothing to substantiate the GW = Anthropogenic nature of this issue.
            Best.
            Ernie

          • tonyduncan

            interesting way of trying to twist the total lack of support For your assertion by practicing scientists who are experts in the field by proclaiming that they are of no consequence because they utilize a recent form Of communication.
            But the ones I am discussing are practicing scientists from universities and scientific organizations around the world, and Not I only do they ALL unequivocally accept that CO2 causes some level of global warming, they have never mentioned ANY climate scientist that did not accept this as an established fact of Physics.
            It has been fun reading your well Paced condecension towards people who are actually providing facts, but without you divulging your incredible sources, that are unknown to any scientist that I am aware of, you are just wasting everyone time

    • tonyduncan

      Ernisc,

      I have a strong background in propaganda and self delusion. Have studied history and philosophy of science, and have had a sting interest in climate change since the climate gate emails almost 6 years ago.
      I have followed both the skeptics and mainstream scientists on the scientific and political aspects of climate change.
      I have found almost the exact opposite correlation hat you have.
      In examining the skeptic arguments there is almost always reliance on facts that are either completely wrong or distorted in ways that do not present the issue accurately at all.
      whereas, with a few exceptions, the mainstream scientists present a fuller more accurate picture of the actual scientific understanding with relevant caveats.
      In the case o this author, Christopher Moncton, he has made so many egregious errors and ridiculous accusations that he has become rather a buffoon, and it is only the most extreme climate deniers continue to let him post.
      I am not a scientist, but I have scientific training, and in one instance I fact checked nearly 100 points he made about climate in an argument he had with John Abraham. I counted only 4 points that were largely correct, about 50 that were just completely wrong and the rest were distortions that he mischaracterized to imply something that they did not really mean.

      I am happy to go over the inaccuracies or distortions in this article, if that is of any interest to you.

    • drklassen

      Ah, there it is! The silly “it’s only 1% so how can it affect anything!”.

      Tell you what, take 1 gram of plutonium oxide and dilute it to, oh, 0.5%, in water. Then drink it. All of it. Then (try to) come back and tell us how non-toxic it was because it was so dilute.

      And, yes, most of our greenhouse warming is due to wage vapor. But water vapor can’t be a climate forcing factor.

  • drklassen
  • ernisc@cableone.net

    My last reply to:…

    SYD BAUMEL, are you really so locked in to ideology to realize that I apologized for nothing, but did give you a little credit for realizing it was not intended to win an argument. You jumped the gun and are making it plain that you accept more on faith than you do from any effort involving critical analysis. Hottest day records still stand today that were made way before GW was a national dialog and is typical of climate change and nothing humans can do changes that fact. You should have seen and understood the point.

    SYD, have you realized that of all the blogged scientists (?) you say you are tracking, Not ONE can show you evidence EVEN a little that CO2 drives TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES but there are 400,000 years of HIGH Temperature Anomaly swings (4 major) that prove that CO2 LAGS Temperature trends whether up or down over thousands of years. This evidence alone is compelling and backed by science and research of many years. I will add some similar data below from a short technical summary paper I wrote a few years ago.

    Before I do however: Tell me this SYD. ***Name one Scientist proving CO2 in the last few paltry years (since records began in 1880) where it has made any measurable temperature anomaly difference! ***Tell me the very best program (MODEL) anywhere that has come anywhere close to predictions. ***Tell me who can show rising seas today. ***Tell me who among your experts can prove severe weather of any kind is linked by any proof to CO2! ***ABOVE ALL TELL ME what scientist you follow can explain HOW CO2 CAN INCREASE 26.1% (1959-2014) and not create the inevitable, by folks like yourself, the ANTICIPATED VAST INCREASE in temperature! ***Can you or those so-called expert climatologists tell me WHY YOU NOR THEY ever discuss the major GREENHOUSE GAS…WATER VAPOR (95% GHG by volume). It is conveniently left out of the conversation, isn’t it.

    *****Consider this***** (just the tip of a very large iceberg)*****

    Of the approximately 1% of CO2 to total GHG’s, ~ 3% of the 1% is anthropogenic or Human caused. (Goldburg). Human addition (anthropogenic) is 8 Gton which is approx. 1 % of total atmospheric CO2 (750 Gton in atmosphere). Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP (Global Warming Potential), the total human contribution to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%. Negligible compared to water vapor, not to mention solar affects.

    The Carboniferous Period (about 286 -360 million years ago) and the Ordovician Period (about 438 million
    years ago) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. The Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. (C.R. Scotese and R.A. Berner, 2001)

    Vostok Ice Core Data, about the timing of CO2 and climate change – from extensive studies in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP
    (Before Present). The results of their meticulous analysis led them to conclude that “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.” (Caillon et al., 2003) All historical data to date supports a
    finding that increasing atmospheric CO2 can lag temperature by as much as 100 – 800 years but consistently shows it as a lagging, not a leading indicator of Global warming.

    What are the benefits? – CO2 is a highly effective fire suppression total flooding system and can replace the Clean Air Act’s phase-out of Halon 1301 (1994y) systems although one must understand that it comes with much higher risk to life. Atmospheric CO2 is viewed by many today, (at 397 ppm) as impoverished. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 397 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. For over
    100 years, nurserymen have been adding carbon dioxide to their greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. A doubling of the carbon dioxide (774 ppm) concentration in the atmosphere would increase plant productivity by almost one-third. Most plants would grow faster and bigger, with increases in leaf size and thickness, stem height, branching, and seed production. The number and size of fruits and flowers would also rise. Root/top patios would increase, giving many plants better root systems for access to water and nutrients.

    Conclusion!

    (1) CO2 is not a pollutant! (2) It is non-toxic under normal use. (3) Benefits far outweigh negatives for both humans and plant life. (4) CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming; (5) CO2 has been many times higher during previous ice ages.
    Ernie

    • drklassen

      CO2 does not “lag” warming. It amplifies it. At the beginning of an interglacial, the Earth’s obliquity changes enough to cause just enough warming to release some sequestered CO2, which creates more warming, which releases more CO2, which creates more warming, etc. Until all the mobile CO2 is released.

      What’s different today is the CO2 we are *adding* is the stuff that was made non-mobile 300Mya.

      • ernisc@cableone.net

        OK, the evidence I HAVE CITED is very substantial and with the ABSENCE of any increase of another Temperature anomaly despite a 26% up-tick in CO2 (1959-2014), CO2 has not moved the needle. Satellite data and other evidence continuous to show GW remains WELL WITHIN NORMAL!
        Show me evidence or real peer reviewed studies (Not Blogs) that CO2 DOES NOT LAG Temperature anomaly’s. You cannot.
        ALSO, do you understand that CO2 tracks with (lagging) temperature anomaly’s because actual GLOBAL TEMPERATURE MEANS (average) is IMPOSSIBLE!
        So the next time you or others state an opinion on this not-so-horrible CO2, which I respect, cite some legitimate source.
        Ernie

        • drklassen

          I don’t see any cites; but then most of what you’ve been posting is just you yelling the same things over and over with no cites.

  • ernisc@cableone.net

    To all who still believe CO2 DOES NOT LAG TEMPERATURE ANOMALY’S…

    OK, the evidence I HAVE CITED is very substantial and with the ABSENCE of any increase of another Temperature anomaly despite a 26% up-tick in CO2 (1959-2014), CO2 has not moved the needle. Satellite data and other evidence continuous to show GW remains WELL WITHIN NORMAL!

    Show me evidence or real peer reviewed studies (Not Blogs) that CO2 DOES NOT LAG Temperature anomaly’s. You cannot.

    ALSO, do you understand that CO2 tracks with (lagging) temperature anomaly’s because “”actual”” GLOBAL TEMPERATURE MEANS (average) is IMPOSSIBLE!

    So the next time you or others state an opinion on this not-so-horrible CO2, which I respect, cite some legitimate source.

    Ernie

    • drklassen

      I never said the initial released from sequestration didn’t lag the initial temperature change event. I agreed. But then CO2 feedback happens. So, no, it doesn’t lag over the entire warming period. 1) Nutation cause warming, 2) small amount of CO2 released from sequestration, 3) CO2 leads to more warming, 4) If not all CO2 released, go to 2 else stop.

      That’s how it’s been for the past million years. Today we have added: 5) release previously non-mobile CO2 leading to more warming

  • ernisc@cableone.net

    Klassen, the following is how I replied to you via an initial response to your “Buddy,” Tony!

    Tony, can you possibly apply rational thought to either your thinking that somehow drklassen’s most recent comment made any sense! He replied to specific data stemming from cited sources with a non-linked silliness reply back to me with highly technical terms like “higher, pushing, rising height, moving and motion! TO WHAT? I don’t mind debating with you guys but with every message back to me being a repeat of your man-is-cause-of-climate-change faith, having no apparent link to science it becomes harder to give you any further time. For every source having a PhD opinion, ask for or pull their work or research rationale and use it as a base for argument if you can. If you have enough background to evaluate their conclusion, you will generally find it too narrow, inconclusive, in theory, or very general…for example, “…well CO2 is a GHG and it is increasing…so it must explain everything from the Blizzard in the NE USA happening almost as we speak to growing Ice Fields in the Antarctic and changes on MAR’s…”

    By the way, Sequestering HAPPENS Every TIME the Earth goes through a warming curve which releases MORE of the STORED CO2 from the oceans and continues as long as the Temperature anomaly continues to increase! Not to mention that warmer means more plants etc. meaning more evolving of CARBON DIOXIDE meaning CARBON LAGS TEMPERATURE ANOMALY’s. GEEZE! What does it take you guys! MANKIND IS NOT CAUSING GW OR CLIMATE CHANGE and any tiny measure of contribution remains un-provable to date!

    • drklassen

      Yelling doesn’t change reality. Carbon lags in the same sense that someone pushing a kid on a swing after they start moving lags.

      • ernisc@cableone.net

        Carbon still lags Temperature. And it doesn’t ride on a swing.

        • drklassen

          Feedback; the swing is, you know, a metaphor.

          Which means, it doesn’t lag in the way you claim; it’s a feedback for *more* *warming* which releases more CO2. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987Natur.329..414G%EF%BF%BD%C3%9C

          You keep using this “lag” mantra as if it’s proof that CO2 has no warming effect. You are wrong. Yes, initial release of CO2 is caused by an initial *small* warming event. Then feedback happens. If you actually *read* Caillon et al., 2003 instead of just quoting (half!) of one sentence in the abstract you’d have come to: “The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feed-backs (39) that are also at work for the present-day and future climate.”

          Gee, exactly what I’ve been saying…

          As for the Late Ordovician: Nobody has ever claimed CO2 is the *only* forcing factor. Ocean currents, land-mass distribution, orbital elements, solar output, etc. *all* have an effect. And which one has the leading effect *changes* over time as they interact. See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JD02521/abstract

  • ernisc@cableone.net

    Last Call to drklassen: Let me close with a few things Mr. Klassen and ADD OTHER READERS who may still be staying on.

    All of you who seem convinced that mankind is creating run-away Global Warming with it’s more cautious “Climate Change” moniker since GW wasn’t happening are likely to avoid the following because you’ll really have no response to counter. IF NECCESSARY START WITH THE SECOND “***”

    ***I know you are giving me analogies Klassen, you but fail to link them to any specific point so pushing a swing (on a swing set) which will oscillate to explain your two-way reaction of CO2 v Temperature cancels the point. You do this a lot.

    ****You never even tried to answer the empirical evidence (Observation backed by evidence at some point) I gave you a chance to respond to in the dialog. – — Of course CO2 is not driving climate change by any measureable amount and DOES FOLLOW TEMPERATURE Anomaly’s over the long and sometimes not-so-long time frame…call a LAGGING indicator. I have well over 20 studies by credible scientists in particularly from the 2008 Climate Summit and beyond to present day who offered strong cases (all peer reviewed and presented in person), in opposition to the idea that CO2 was driving any climate in of itself, nor a significant factor.

    I have followed the science because of a personal interest and because for 45 YEARS it has been part of my job as a Safety Engineering and Forensics Professional. Dissecting studies alarming over things that harm people and is still my business and I can usually determine when to take them serious and when to validate (second opinion, seek corroboration or other).

    ***Next those minor pesky subjective observations conveniently unanswered as follows:

    ******Name one Scientist proving CO2 in the last few paltry years (since records began in 1880) where it has made any measurable temperature anomaly difference! ***Tell me the very best program (MODEL) anywhere that has come anywhere close to predictions. ***Tell me who can show rising seas today. ***Tell me who among your experts can prove severe weather of any kind is linked by any proof to CO2! ***ABOVE ALL TELL ME what scientist you follow can explain HOW CO2 CAN INCREASE 26.1% (1959-2014) and not create the inevitable, by folks like yourself, the ANTICIPATED VAST INCREASE in temperature! ***Can you or those so-called expert climatologists tell me WHY YOU NOR THEY ever discuss the major GREENHOUSE GAS…WATER VAPOR (95% GHG by volume). It is conveniently left out of the conversation, isn’t it.

    ***Remember, it is a scientifically IMPOSSIBILITY to determine actual GOBAL TEMPERATURES! That is why long range evidence is weighed strongly and we know that within the last 400,000 years we have had 4 episodes of Temperature ANOMALY’s (Call them Global warming periods). IN EVERY CASE CO2 has lagged the heat rise and when the Anomaly began to fall Co2 continued rising for a time and eventually followed and lowered. These were researched through rock and ice studies, fossil studies of organics, animals, sediments and much more. Done by a variety of scientists over many years, the data was not in opposition to one another on salient facts…e.g., the RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and the rise and fall of the Temperature Anomaly.

    I can understand your support for various articles by otherwise respectful authorities but I know also how many draw conclusions from academic studies that fail to be sustainable. Neither of us can always be certain how definitive we can accept their premise or conclusion, but we can match up to personal research, check other sources etc., and I am still doing that. Too many university studies for example end in…”…of course more study is indicated…”

    I can’t say that I won’t join in further debate on GW/climate change (no capital letters), this one chain is likely done.

    Just one final bullet. Remember NOT ONE SCIENTIST HAS PROVEN THAT THE 1% of CO2 in air (by volume) and it’s anthropogenic ~ 3% of that 1%, drives temperature in any controlling sense NOR is it a measurable agent affecting temperature on the Global Scale because there IS NO WAY TO KNOW ACTUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. THERE IS NO CONCENSUS and never has been.

    Best regards all. – Ernie –

  • http://batman-news.com BIGJIMSELF

    You know, given where they come from…and who they are…it is obvious that our leaders in the USA don’t know anything about global warming…or much else for that matter.

  • Syd Baumel

    You can relax now. The warming trend since October 1996 is now over 1 degree per century and statistically significant (Trend: 0.111 ±0.100 °C/decade (2σ); i.e. p<.05, 95% confidence), according to the dataset of the skeptical, partially Koch-funded and Anthony Watts-approved (until he saw the results) Berkeley Earth project (http://berkeleyearth.org/).

  • Francis Roberts

    Yeah? So based on your science then, how do you explain the melting ice caps? And even with no global warming what if we keep producing so much excess CO2 that it kills off all the species in the Great Barrier Reef and dissolves it? And what about the scientifically proven human generated mass extinction recently in the news? Mark Morano has written a very biased – view article that totally leaves these very important related issues out. SHAME ON YOU, MARK! YOUR BAD! WE HAVE GOT TO IMMEDIATELY AND RADICALLY REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS. We can’t afford to encourage writers to write biased articles. We’re already killing off whole species. WE NEED TO GET RIGHT, AS A SPECIES BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE FOR US!