Climate activists sour on UN climate deal: ‘It won’t save the planet…it saves the chance of saving the planet’ – ‘Bullsh*t’ – ‘Fraud…Fake’ – ‘Magical Thinking’


By: - Climate DepotDecember 14, 2015 8:54 AM with 483 comments

Warmist Bill McKibben on Paris deal: ‘It won’t save the planet…it saves the chance of saving the planet’ – “This agreement won’t save the planet, not even close,” Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, a climate advocacy group, told The Huffington Post in an email. “But it’s possible that it saves the chance of saving the planet — if movements push even harder from here on out.”

#

Warmist George Monbiot: ‘I’m sorry to disappoint you, but the Paris deal is bullshit’

 

#

Former NASA lead ‘global warming’ scientist James Hansen on UN summit: ‘It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit’ – Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes. “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Politico: ‘Obama’s fragile climate legacy’ – ‘Relies on the good will of Congress & next president to keep it in place’

Republicans on Campaign Trail Largely Ignore the Climate Deal

Disappointed Bill McKibben vows to use treaty, however phony, to attack fossil fuel industry Trying to make lemonade from the Paris lemon. McKibben writes in the NYTimes:

India Says Paris Climate Deal Won’t Affect Plans to Double Coal Output [Boom!] goes the climate treaty. The New York Times reports:

UN Green Climate Fund didn’t even collect last year’s paltry pledges There’s no money for poor countries. They will not be cutting emissions. Ninety percent short of the $100 billion-per-year “commitment,” the Green Climate Fund only “raised” part of the 10%.

NYTimes: A Signal to Industry to Go Green in an Era of Carbon Reduction Pretending the Paris deal is meaningful in hopes someone believes it is. The NYTimes reports:

NYTimes: A Climate Deal, 6 Fateful Years in the Making Coral Davenport melodramatizes the “making” of the Paris non-deal. The NYTimes reports:

WaPo: How one word nearly killed the climate deal The poor countries demand for “loss and compensation” payments was treated as an ordinary typographical error and erased. Mock heroics. No one would have “had” to do anything anyway. The WaPo reports:

Kerry: We Wouldn’t Have a Climate Agreement if There Actual Penalties for Not Reducing Emissions And, BTW, there’s no actual ‘agreement’ anyway. The Washington Free Beacon reports:

EU unlikely to increase climate ambition before 2020, says EU climate chief The Paris ‘deal’ in action. ClimateChangeNews.com reports:

WSJ: Paris Climate of Conformity “It pays to be skeptical of politicians who claim to be saving the planet.” The Wall Street Journal editorializes:

‘Toothless’ climate change deal means Britain could be left pursuing ever tougher green targets “Other countries may fail to deliver on their promises, MPs warn.” May? Even if they do, so what? The Telegraph reports:

Paris conference: Panic over global warming collided with reality “Paris is the moment when the political panic over climate change finally begins to collide with inescapable realities.” Christopher Booker writes in the Telegraph:

New Zealand’s part to reduce global warming ‘a long process’ “This is 85 years away.” AAP reports:

Japan will not sacrifice growth in combating climate change: Abe One day after Paris, Japan says “Sayonara, suckers.” Japan Today reports:

John Kerry responds to James Hansen’s ‘fraud’ condemnation of Paris ‘deal’ Jim Hansen wins. The Guardian reports:

NYTimes contradicts Obama on front page over value of climate treaty Obama says the treaty can “save the planet.” The Times says not. Obama said: But the NYTimes reports this morning on the front page:

Lomborg: Climate treaty to cost world £1.2 trillion per year but accomplish nothingI’m not sure anyone will do anything because of the climate treaty. The Daily Mail reports:

Video: Reporters shout, jump for joy after climate change agreement “She then compared the event to the suspense of watching a major 2002 soccer match between England and Brazil.” The Washington Examiner reports:

WaPo: ‘Historic’ climate treaty “Historic” is the new ‘bogus.” WaPo headline, editorial and reports from this morning: Paris accord is a big win for Obama, even as climate dangers still loom Historic pact to cut greenhouse gases marks ‘turning point’ Countries just adopted a . . .

Guardian: ‘Almost 200 countries sign historic pledge to hold global temperatures to a maximum rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels’ Now all they need to do is find the thermostat. The Guardian reports:


  • adrianvance

    Bill McKibbon is a journalist and not a very good one. He writes nonsense about his utter ignorance. The facts are very simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that
    admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the
    anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only
    present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

    • Icarus62

      None of that is true. CO2 is responsible for 80% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. We have already warmed the Earth more than the range of Holocene climate in only half a century of anthropogenic global warming, and at the current rate of warming we will hit 2°C in just 60 years… that’s assuming there is no acceleration in the rate of warming. We are committing the world to a climate far outside anything experienced by modern human civilisation, with accompanying sea level rise of tens of metres – enough to submerge thousands of coastal towns and cities, and millions of acres of cultivated land. It really is a very serious problem, and your kind of denial of reality has just been rightly rejected by 200 countries of the world, who have acknowledged that we need to do something about it.

      • klem

        I love it when the left turns around and eats their own. It makes my day.

        Skeptics have warned greenies for years that your leaders were pulling the wool over your eyes, but you buried your head in the sand.

        Only science-impaired leftists like yourself could be fooled into believing that a tax can change the weather.

        Cheers

        • greenthinker2012

          So according to you the following organizations are “science impaired leftists”?…but somehow you know the truth?

          Here is a partial list of the organizations that agree that AGW is real…

          -Both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences.

          -American Association for the Advancement of Science

          -Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

          -United States National Research Council

          -Royal Society of New Zealand

          -Royal Society of the United Kingdom

          -African Academy of Sciences

          -European Academy of Sciences

          -European Science Foundation

          -InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies

          -International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

          -American Chemical Society

          -American Institute of Physics

          -American Physical Society

          -American Geophysical Union

          -Australian Institute of Physics

          -European Physical Society

          -American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

          -European Federation of Geologists

          -European Geosciences Union

          -Geological Society of America

          -Geological Society of London

          -International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

          -National Association of Geoscience Teachers

          -American Meteorological Society

          -Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

          -Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

          -Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

          -Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

          -World Meteorological Organization

          -American Quaternary Association

          -International Union for Quaternary Research

          -American Astronomical Society

          -American Statistical Association

          -Canadian Council of Professional Engineers

          -The Institution of Engineers Australia

          -International Association for Great Lakes Research

          -Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

          • klem

            And absolutely none of them claim that a tax can change the weather.

            I said before,

            Thanks

          • greenthinker2012

            Who is literally claiming that a tax change can alter the weather?
            Can you provide a quote of someone saying that?

          • Sparafucile

            Everyone who’s ever uttered a variant of “The answer is a tax on carbon.”

          • M J

            Not even close. Proponents of a carbon tax usually understand the distinction you ignore, that between climate and weather. It is the climate that needs to change, not the weather.

            Furthermore, proponents of a carbon tax are not as dogmatic as you suppose: they are willing to consider other ways of making sure people who burn carbon pay the real, full price of carbon, instead of shifting the burden onto other people the way they do now. But a tax is the least objectionable from a political standpoint.

            So in fact, proponents of the tax are being more realistic from both a scientific perspective and a political one. So you have no grounds for your slur, that they are “claiming that a tax change can alter the weather”.

          • Sparafucile

            You refuted none of by observations. But thanks for offering a pathetic deflection attempt.

          • greenthinker2012

            Hi Spara..You have lots of criticism of various bits and pieces of the mainstream science on climate change but I have never seen you present a coherent picture of what you think is happening and what science backs up your view.

            For example, after all these years I don’t even know if you think..

            -the temperature is rising?

            -is everything the same temperature as before?

            -if so is it “natural” and what is causing it.

            -is CO2 involved at all?

            -is it human generated CO2?

            You get the idea.

            What are your thoughts specifically?

            Cheers

          • Sparafucile

            Seeing “what is happening” does not permit you or anybody else to *conclude* that a cause is known, unless it can be demonstrated via long-accepted scientific methods. Thus far, that hasn’t been done. One of the key sticking points is that researchers continuously demonstrate that they don’t understand the myriad feedbacks that affect climate; and every time they presume to know, subsequently-measured empirical data proves their assumptions wrong.

            To your questions, asked in a straightforward fashion (which I appreciate), unlike what that other moron typed, as deflections (aka lies):
            – Over the last 165 years, yes. At present, we seem to have been on aplateau for the last 20 years, compared to other spans in that longer term.
            – Rhetorically and tautologically, that’s impossible.
            – I don’t know, and neither do you, unless you’re either lying, or declining to follow the scientific method.
            – “involved”? Probably. But without understanding the feedbacks, the degree of involvement at these concentrations is utterly unknown.
            – If any proportion is due to CO2, then about a third of that is anthropogenic. This IS demonstrated to a proper scientific standard.

          • greenthinker2012

            My questions were more examples than strict inquiries. 🙂
            Mostly I just wanted you to state your perspective/viewpoint/understanding of what is happening.
            Thanks for answering what I asked though.
            Without the constraint of my questions what do you think is going on with our climate?
            Cheers

          • Sparafucile

            What’s “going on”? Right now, not very much. For the last 165+ years, and long before CO2 started accumulating in the atmosphere, we’ve been happily emerging from the Little Ice Age.

            If anybody’s capable of demonstrating, by experimental not speculative means, that excess CO2 drives a strong feedback effect (in either direction), then concern may be warranted. But after three decades, now, of speculation and prognostication, combined with a refusal to accept (let alone adopt) the only large-scale “solution” to excess CO2 emissions, the Eviro-Wacko Left has only demonstrated that it wants its longstanding and pre-existing agenda forced upon the world, that it craves money and power (the control kind, not the energy kind), and that it’s willing to lie and tell bogus scare stories to get what it wants.

          • Actually they’ve finally done an experiment, well more they’ve re-interpreted data collected over about a decade or so, and they’ve claimed it shows a clear trend (change) in downwelling IR that they’ve “attributed” to increasing CO2.

            Which doesn’t prove that humans put the CO2 there, mind you.

            But they say it accounts for 10% of the observed change. The observed change is very little and the 10% puts the amount “ATTRIBUTED” to CO2 somewhere down in the error limits – i.e. ‘not statistically significant’, but interestingly enough even to get to that point they did some questionable hand waving. So basically while they CLAIM to have proven something, they really didn’t.

          • adrianvance

            “Downwelling IR?” That’s on a par with the illiterate “greenhouse effect” of which no gas is capable and can only be the consequence of a transparent solid. It is amazing how many stupid people are rushing in utter ignorance to pay more taxes for a provably wrong myth and lie by politicians.

          • First let me assure you that I understand what you are saying and it does make sense, while those on the other side don’t make sense.

            However, we have to stop setting ourselves up by being more careful with how we express our arguments. You have to remember that a large portion of the population is as dumb, or dumber, than those we’re talking with here.

            We both know the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is misnamed. You got the reason exactly right – a greenhouse is based on actual physical barriers and careful controls on not only heat but also in some cases on CO2 levels, which are often deliberately artificially increased to well over 400 ppm and it is GOOD for the plants.

            But to say “there is no greenhouse effect”, because of the fact that there is a warming, caused mostly by water vapor and not to any significant degree by humans, that has been given that name no matter how wrong it is to do so, makes us look silly when we say it that way.

            It is true that primarily water vapor does actually delay the transfer of heat to space and the amusing thing is that certain clouds of certain types at certain altitudes do act almost as a ‘barrier’ to IR energy, but not CO2.

            The tiny trace of other gasses in the atmosphere such as CO2, CH4 and O3, do absorb paltry amounts of IR energy – but they do not ‘trap’ it as climate alarmists claim. They TEMPORARILY absorb it, then re-radiate it. This radiation can be up, down, sideways… and in the end though it is delayed, this radiation always ends up the same place it was always going. Space, the final frontier!

            The phrase ‘downwelling IR’ may be as silly as ‘greenhouse effect’, but there is some IR that is delayed by being sent back downward. As far as we know now, re-radiation of temporarily absorbed IR happens in random directions and is equally likely to go in any of them.

            This has been going on before humans existed and will continue even if the climate alarmists manage to tax us all to death.

          • adrianvance

            If you are talking about re-emission from upper level concentrations of CO2 then consider that at 20,000 feet the proponents claim this is happening the air pressure is no more than 20% of that at the surface giving 78 ppm for CO2 and where re-emission comes at any angle in three planes the chance of a quanta being aimed Earthward is no more than one in nine by probability and that is for a window of no more than 120 degrees, again in three planes, or more likely 90 degrees to be effective, in three planes. Therefore, you are proposing something that is not only an unlikely event but one well within the definition of insignificance.

            You are correct in noting CO2 is generated in professional greenhouses like those now growing “Tomatoes on the Vine(tm)” but the reason is to promote photosynthesis in the plants, i.e. plant growth. They do increase the greenhouse efficiency by keeping the humidity at 100% with “spritzers,” as that captures and retains IR and the resultant heat boosting the growth rates and that works well as the space is fully enclosed.

          • For some time I’ve been trying to engage the climate alarmists and to date I’ve not succeeded in finding one who is capable of having a calm, rational, adult discussion about these matters. It’s sad, really. But I’ve decided to give up trying to engage them for the New Year.

            You are generally correct as far as I’ve been able to determine, specifically about the reason they add CO2 to greenhouses – temperature in a real greenhouse is controlled by physical barriers, not CO2 concentration. CO2 concentration is deliberately increased as you know to make the plants grow better, to increase yields, etc. I completely agree that calling what warming does occur in the open atmosphere due to what is clearly misnamed the ‘greenhouse’ effect is ridiculous and the warming is clearly overstated – we know this by decades of observation which prove beyond any discussion that the warming the climate paranoids are so afraid of clearly is not happening. I have not bothered to consider or calculate the probability of the re-emission of IR as in depth as you seem to have but whatever the explanation, the point is the warming they insist IS happening clearly is not. They rely on deliberately corrupted data to support their claims while anyone who looks at the raw data and the bigger picture sees they are false.

            Is the Arctic warming? Yes, obviously, and the ice and snow there has recently hit a series of lows, but we have not been watching it long enough to say that this is not part of a regular pattern. We do know the Earth has been warming, generally (not consistently) since the last major glaciation and these people don’t seem to realize that is a good thing – plus the Earth is not at anything like an optimum temperature. They’re stuck in the propaganda and swept up in the need to see anyone who refuses to get on their lunatic express as evil. They don’t realize how many people continue to suffer and die because billions, if not trillions, of dollars are being wasted chasing their proven fraud theories that could be bringing fresh, safe drinking water and sanitation systems to those around the world that need them.

            They ignore clear and compelling evidence that refutes their beliefs – the Antarctic is clearly GAINING ice and snow at a rate that is enough to make up for all global losses, and then some, but since this proves their desired world view wrong they reject it.

          • Hmm, let’s ask the IPCC that last question:

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            SO, in answer to your question, since it is well understood that there was MORE atmospheric CO2 during the years 1998-2012, when the IPCC says there was MUCH LESS (less than 50% annually compared to the earlier period) warming, and LESS CO2 during the earlier time (1951-1998) but MORE warming, clearly one thing they say is that there is more warming with less CO2, and less warming with more CO2. Also they say that, in more recent times, the rate of warming has reduced by about 50%.

            It’s all there, in their latest report, in black and white.

            What?

            You haven’t ever bothered to read the IPCC reports?

          • greenthinker2012

            Have you read the reports?

            On page 1 it says quite clearly…

            The SYR confirms that human influence on the climate system is clear
            and growing
            , with impacts observed across all continents and oceans.
            Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over
            decades to millennia. The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans
            are the main cause of current global warming.”

          • adrianvance

            “If you like your temperature, you can keep your temperature! Period!”

            Much of what you have said here is not true. The temperature has been in decline for 18 years.

          • greenthinker2012

            Adrian, I will listen to what the world’s scientists are saying.
            Anyone who knows statistics knows why the period that is always chosen is 18 years. Last year the claim was 18 years and the year before the claim was 18 years.
            Why didn’t the climate change deniers update the period to 20 years if it was true?

          • adrianvance

            Citations?

          • greenthinker2012

            There are thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of climate change.
            To pretend you can’t find them, or are unwilling to do some work to find them, shows that your position is not evidence based.
            If you are interested to learn about how the statistical analysis of the data works and how picking 18 years allows one to arrive at any desired conclusion, go to your local university and talk to someone in the math department.
            If you are interested in learning the truth that would be a good start.

          • Yes, there are many such articles – you will find a list of some of them at the following links:

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

            http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

            Now I fully expect you to avoid actually reviewing or commenting on the papers – so let’s see if you prove me right!

          • greenthinker2012

            The papers I read from your links do not refute man made climate change.

          • Actually the climate realists have been updating the year. Your claim it has been 18 years for 3 years is a blatant lie. Provide any support for that claim that you can find, or we will continue to consider it an obvious lie.

            Back some time ago the IPCC even admitted to this, by the way:

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            Now it is ‘settled science’ that CO2 was higher during 1998-2012 and lower during the period from 1951-1998. So why, if CO2 is such a dominant greenhouse gas, was the warming lower when CO2 was higher, and higher when the CO2 was lower?

            You will note, since they were dealing with data that ended in 2012, they said “15 years”. Now that it’s 2015 that would make that 18 years.

            Get it? I mean, you know how to add 3 to things and get the right answer, don’t you?

          • greenthinker2012

            Did you even read the report you linked to?

            On the very first page it says…

            The SYR confirms that human influence on the climate system is clear
            and growing
            , with impacts observed across all continents and oceans.
            Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over
            decades to millennia. The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans
            are the main cause of current global warming

          • adrianvance

            When I see “everyone knows” I know I am reading the words of an idiot as that is never true and “all the world’s scientists” have never agreed on anything. “20 years” is not a magic number with special qualities. Statistics can deal with any number and with most data sets, more is better, but in this case the downturn began 18 years ago and has continued. It is just that simple.

          • greenthinker2012

            Adrian, your reply shows that you do not understand statistics.
            I urge you to go to your local university and ask the mathematics dept to explain it to you. You don’t have to listen to a guy on the internet but you should go learn something about statistics.
            I think an idiot is someone who refuses to learn and thinks they know better than the scientists who have devoted their careers to understanding climate change.

          • adrianvance

            It is amazing how often an idiot works so hard to prove that he really is stupid. “Statistics” and “everyone knows…” are about as opposed as a lable and a claim could be.

            For the record I had the one 300 level statistics course all Physical Science majors were required to take and got an “A” in it thanks to one of the early “scrambled books” on the subject that I got from a friend of the author, a University of Chicago professor experimenting with “programmed learning” in the late 50’s. You, sir, are the idiot as you to believe in the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, the greatest science sham in history.

          • greenthinker2012

            Yes Adrian It is amazing how often an idiot works so hard to prove that he really is stupid.
            “I got an A in statistics once”is a pretty lame argument.
            And then capping off your comment with a personal insult shows how you have nothing of substance to argue with.
            Pathetic.

          • adrianvance

            What have you here, but a phony name, no credits, no publications, no arguments, no citations, no facts, proven frauds like “97% of all…” and nothing more.

          • greenthinker2012

            That is a pretty good description of you and me.
            Except the crucial difference is that I (unlike you) am not making the preposterous claim that all the world’s scientists are wrong about climate change and that I am somehow the enlightened one who has figured out the truth.

            You point out some alleged inconsistencies in the science here and there claiming that these points somehow invalidate the vast field of climate science.
            You make such a claim but offer no alternative scientifically cohesive explanation.

            Where are your peer reviewed scientific papers Adrian?
            Show us your alternative explanation for the climate changes we see happening.

            Oh that’s right….in your eyes nothing is happening.

            According to you all the people who have been measuring temperatures for the last century have all been mistaken or are part of some giant conspiracy.
            All the atmospheric chemists for the last century have been mistaken.
            All the geologists, all the biologists, all the scientists in their different fields who have arrived independently at the same conclusion using different types of data are all wrong.
            Thank God Adrian Vance is here to tell us he knows the truth.

          • Sparafucile

            “All the world’s scientists”, eh?

            You can always tell a true believer from a rational evaluator by the hyperbole.

          • greenthinker2012

            Indeed Spara, like you I also support rational evaluation.
            You and I have come to hold different opinions after our respective evaluations of the science, but I think we both agree on the importance of rationality and the rejection of the type of thinking shown by Adrian Vance who believes it is all a giant conspiracy.

            Regarding my comment above…

            It is Adrian Vance who is claiming that the entirety of climate science is a fraud.

            So in this case I agree with your assessment that….

            “You can always tell a true believer from a rational evaluator by the hyperbole.”

            If you read Adrian’s comments you can see his claims are ludicrous.
            I am surprised that you come to his defence since he rejects science.

          • greenthinker2012

            Indeed Spara, like you I also support rational evaluation.
            You and I have come to hold different opinions after our respective evaluations of the science, but I think we both agree on the importance of rationality and the rejection of the type of thinking shown by Adrian Vance who believes it is all a giant conspiracy.

            Regarding my comment above…

            It is Adrian Vance who is claiming that the entirety of climate science is a fraud.

            So in this case I agree with your assessment that….

            “You can always tell a true believer from a rational evaluator by the hyperbole.”

            If you read Adrian’s comments you can see his claims are ludicrous.
            I am surprised that you come to his defence since he rejects science.

          • Sparafucile

            They why the hyperbole? Or do you actually think “all the world’s scientists”, even those not financially benefiting from the deep & wide AGW trough, have drawn a unanimous conclusion?

          • greenthinker2012

            My reply was to Adrian’s comments that claim that ALL the word’s scientists are dishonest and conspiring to commit a worldwide fraud.
            I was pointing out that his claim is ludicrous.

          • Sparafucile

            By making a ludicrous claim of your own?

          • greenthinker2012

            I don’t think you understood what I wrote.
            I was paraphrasing Adrian Vance.
            And yes, I agree that his hyperbolic statements are ludicrous.

            PS…It is funny to see you be such a crusader against hyperbole but then at the same time use phrases like
            “the deep & wide AGW trough”.

          • Sparafucile

            That trough has been over $100 billion deep, and two decades wide.

            Not hyperbole. Provable figures, properly-characterized.

          • greenthinker2012

            Yes…hyperbole.

            You used the imagery of animals feeding at a trough for emphasis or effect. Unless you are literally claiming that scientists are eating from troughs, that is the definition of hyperbole.

            Here is a dictionary definition from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

            hy•per•bo•le (hī-pûrˈbə-lē)

            n.

            A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect

          • Michael Stone

            Sparafucile is very corrupt and dishonest.

          • Constant Gardener

            Sparafucile is an idiot with a capital “I.”

            Happy New Year, Arizona brother.

          • Michael Stone

            Thank you and well wishes for you and yours for the new year.

          • Mobius Loop

            Happy New Year to you too CG. Keep fighting the good fight!

          • Constant Gardener

            Back at you Mobius (I call you Moby in my head). You’re one of the best of us. I’m looking forward to reading you in 2016.

          • Mobius Loop

            Well thanks, that is very kind of you to say so, and I in turn will continue to read your posts with pleasure.

            2016 is likely to be an interesting year, I’m based in the UK and live close to one of the heavily flooded area, the second year that the country has had record breaking rainfall, the new normal?

          • Sparafucile

            Now you’re complaining about (apt) metaphors? You guys get more pathetic with each post.

          • greenthinker2012

            Just trying to be accurate.
            I was you who complained about hyperbole, not me.

          • Sparafucile

            Don’t you understand the difference between hyperbole and metaphors??!?

          • Sparafucile

            They why the hyperbole? Or do you actually think “all the world’s scientists”, even those not financially benefiting from the deep & wide AGW trough, have drawn a unanimous conclusion?

          • adrianvance

            Glad to see you accept my analysis of you, but it certainly does not apply to me. I am one of the few critics that have published several books on this, documenting the history of the “97% of all scientists” and “greenhouse gas” frauds. (See “Vapor Tiger” on Amazon.com, $2.99 on Kindle)

            I have made proposals on films and books to major publishers who have published my teaching materials for 40 years and none would touch any of them as they know well “The fix is in…” and the government wants to tax carbon. I have submitted pieces to Scientific American, but been turned down, “….as you do not have a Ph.D. or academic post,” but they have since published a few things by non-academics as they fit the political bias there. Screenwriter Steven Bellow’s father is an Editor there and a friend of mine and has confirmed their leftward lean to me in conversation.

            The Joint Committee on Science and Technology, with whom I have communicated, but not testified before, is now trying get evidence of the temperature alterations done by NOA and NASA showing a two Celsius degree rise in the atmospheric temperature when there has been a 0.2 to 0.4 degree C decline in the last 18 years. Judicial Watch has filed suits on this matter and I am told they are pressing for criminal indictment of several NOA and NASA people who executed said fraud.

            I have and document much more in “Vapor Tiger” if you want to break down and spend $2.99.

          • greenthinker2012

            So you have no peer reviewed scientific publications on the subject but you do have a kindle book.
            Well thanks but I will stick with getting my facts from peer reviewed scientists rather than a self publishing internet guy.

          • adrianvance

            Here click on this: http://www.worldcat.org and input my name to the search routine input box in the upper left side of the screen and you can see the full list of 600 films, computer programs, magazine articles for ten national publications and books including those done for six major publishers.

            I do not have “peer reviewed” journal articles, many of which are published in garages and basements by academics who are bleeding money from academia with their little home brew operation. My parents were both college professors and it was well known you would have to buy 100 to 500 copies of these journals doing your article to get it published, but it was done to fulfill your “publish or perish” contract on your way to tenure. Believe me, academia is just as, or more, corrupt than business and the Federal government has spent $500 billion of taxpayer and borrowed money to support this BS.

            The publishing business is in disarray, and not the small town in Illinois of the same name, because the Print On Demand, POD publishing business has inverted the economics of the business and now authors get 50% to 70% of the book price instead of the 8% we used to get and even that was discounted 40% to 4.8% for anything the publisher sold to jobbers at a discount, so we got hit twice!

            I have had a book at Regnery for over five years, one they asked for, because they are nervous about the economy and business. They will now only publish books by famous or notorious people to insure sales. If you are not a movie or TV star, high profile person or politician it is nearly impossible to get a publishing contract with a major today.

          • greenthinker2012

            I am sure that one can find a few garage publishers for trash papers but this is not to say that ALL of science is corrupt.
            You have zero peer reviewed papers which means that you have no scientific credibility.
            Yes you have published a large quantity of your opinions but so what?
            Being popular is not a scientific argument.
            You write what people want to hear and what will sell.
            If your opinion had any scientific validity you could show us a paper of yours published in a reputable academic journal or presented at a reputable science congress.
            Your opinions would be examined and critiqued by other scientists for anyone to read.
            If your ideas had merit they would be accepted.
            You hide behind the claim that ALL of science is corrupt and that otherwise your ideas would be accepted.
            I am calling BS.

          • adrianvance

            I am soon releasing “Experiment In Climate” you can do with a 2.5 liter clear soda bottle, 325 ml of distilled or bottled water free of chlorine, 1/4 tsp of baking soda and one drop of diluted household “White Distilled Vinegar” that will show you adding 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere actually cools it by a very small amount, per the Le Chatelier equation that all of these BSers avoid like a plague when they claim it should rise by two Celsius degrees and quickly. Every step is explained. All math is broken down to something anyone can understand, no Calculus to cover and impress, You can buy a “stick” thermometer at Ebay for $2 to $5 or borrow one from your local science teacher and you can prove this for yourself.

            “Global Warming,” “Man in Space” and “Trip to Mars” have all been big science scams to employ Ph.D.s who would otherwise not have jobs. If we had put that money into oceanographic research we would be in abundance now, not bankrupt and having sentenced the next two generations to paying double the taxes you and I paid or see the collapse of civilization. We are now 50/50 on which outcome we will see. It is ignorance and the kind of gullibility you have that has permitted this to happen.

            You have no idea how evil and corrupt politics, academia, big science and business (defense manufacturers, drup companies) are, although you will blame business for everything, but they are smallest part of the picture. Corruption is the problem and I have fought it all my life.

            Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

          • greenthinker2012

            Your experiment has nothing to do with climate change but thanks for showing us your scientific illiteracy.

          • adrianvance

            This little demo simulates the atmosphere and shows clearly that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 does not elevate the temperature by two Celsius degrees, but in fact reduces it by a very small amount per the Le Chatelier equation which we fully explain instead of sandbagging our readers with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation which does not apply and is in Calculus which only 0.1%, if that, of the readers could follow and even that is not demonstrated or explained where we to Le Chatelier step-by-step.

            I am also doing an interactive version for the school market and giving it away in order that I not be accused of profiteering like Jim Hansen, Heidi Cullen, Bill Nye and all the other “science star” parasites.

          • adrianvance

            How do you know if you have not read the paper and analyzed the math? You, like all “greens” are totally phony.

          • greenthinker2012

            So you think some baking soda in a pop bottle is going to overthrow all of climate science?
            Wow!

            I look forward to reading your peer reviewed paper on the subject.

            No sarcasm here because it would truly be a revolutionary discovery.

            However, my guess is that the reason you are distributing this “science kit” to children is because they are the only ones you are able to convince with the experiment.

          • adrianvance

            I put up a long response here two hours ago, perhaps it will appear, but if not I will replicate it and you, “greenthinker2012” will hate it. It regards my new, upcoming publication “Experiment In Climate” that takes you through a simulation that will show you, conclusively, that what you believe is false. And, I do not ask you to believe me, but prove it for yourself with all steps and math presented for all to know, use and understand. No Clausius-Clapryron Calculus that does not work or apply and few can understand. That equation is so bad it has been patched by add-ons with funny names. It is joke, but a mainstay in the global warming gangs presentations to the ladies garden clubs and university auxiliarys plotting to get more Federal money. An interactive teaching version of “Experiment in Climate” will be sold by a leading educational publisher.

          • greenthinker2012

            Can you explain what the experiment is and what it proves?
            From what I can gather, you put some vinegar and water and baking soda in a pop bottle and seal it and carbon dioxide is produced.
            Then I imagine some of that carbon dioxide will dissolve into the liquid .
            You then measure the temperature of what exactly, the pressurized carbon dioxide gas or the liquid or what?
            What is this supposed to show us?
            Cheers

          • Sam Gilman

            Which dataset are you using?

          • M J

            Not even close to true. I refuted all of your ‘observations’. You are just too stubborn to see it and admit it even to yourself.

          • adrianvance

            Citations? None here…

          • M J

            You ask for citations? How ironic! You never did give citations for your alleged ‘calculations’ of the sea level rise if all all the polar ice melted. Nor did you give it for the other cases mentioned, such as Greenland’s ice alone melting.

            If you felt so sure you did not need citations then, why would I need one now?

          • adrianvance

            You are ridiculous: I did that calculation for a book as no one in this business has dared to as it would expose their fraud.

          • M J

            I am not ‘ridiculous’, nor is there anything ‘ridiculous’ about what you say. Your excuse for believing your calculation is correct, OTOH, really is quite ridiculous.

            Your calculation is wrong. Post your entire calculation in a relevant online forum such as http://physics.stackexchange.com, http://www.realclimate.org/, or http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and they will explain where your error is. But since your book is being published by a vanity press, no one will catch the error before it goes out in many copies.

            You will experience what most people would realize is a cause for great embarrassment and shame as their error is repeated through so many copies, but judging from your behavior here, you will find an excuse to ignore it.

          • Michael Stone

            Maybe we should move to the North Pole and build a casino? Breaking news…. Not good.

            http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/the-storm-that-will-unfreeze-the-north-pole/ar-BBo2Bxy?li=BBnb7Kz

          • M J

            First time for the North Pole to be above freezing for how many years? And did they mean specifically during winter?

          • Michael Stone

            They mean today, Wednesday Dec 30th, 2015 The temperature at the North Pole will rise by at least 54 degrees F.

          • Michael Stone

            M J refuted all you wrote… Of course with your reading comprehension disability being so severe, you don’t realize it.

          • Starfire

            Sometimes the truth hurts, eh? 😉

          • Sparafucile

            Says you, a senile coot?

          • adrianvance

            MJ “refuted” nothing. He only claimed to have.

          • adrianvance

            What observation? “The answer is a tax on carbon?”

          • You can just look at that one’s photo and tell he has a noggin full of nothing. And a read of his comments confirms it!

          • adrianvance

            “…it is climate that needs to change, not weather?” What an idiot!

          • adrianvance

            It would be a confession.

          • adrianvance

            Please note that every one of these organizations are tax supported. The tax paid people have fallen in line with this hoping for “more money for science” as their justification, but if it is bad science, as is this, the money is wasted.

          • greenthinker2012

            Do you get paid at your job?
            Does that mean you are dishonest?
            You say “many others” are not on the list.
            Can you name the science organizations that claim climate change is not happening and that human CO2 emissions are not a concern?
            I would be interested to see you back up your claims with some evidence.

          • Appeal to authority – logical fallacy.

            Consensus argument – political, not scientific.

            Finally, it doesn’t matter how many people claim something is true that isn’t. It remains untrue.

          • greenthinker2012

            It is not an appeal to authority.
            The science institutions all agree because that is what the science says.
            You know there is a 100% scientific consensus that gravity exists.
            Does that mean that saying that 100% of scientists agree that gravity exists is an appeal to authority?…..No, it can also mean that the scientists are right.

        • I give the lunatic lefties two points to ponder:

          1) You go ahead and stop climate change, if you think you can, but remember it’s been going on since the Earth first got an atmosphere and despite your best efforts, will continue as long as Earth has one.

          2) But you can take a real step to zero your personal carbon output, and I encourage you to do so! Just stop breathing.

          • Michael Stone

            You’re still postings your childish stupidity I see. You go first GW Denier….. Show us how it’s done.

            Btw; stopping climate change is not possible as you stated, there has always been climate changes, it has normally changed about every three months in most locations of the planet.

            The issue now however is dramatic record setting global climate changes due to AGW.

            We humans cannot change normal climate conditions but we can change what we have done to the atmosphere by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

            By doing what is necessary we will have a chance to prevent runaway and irreversible global warming.

            If the current global warming continues it will become runaway and irreversible and the sixth mass extinction of life will happen.

            Holding our breath as you suggest won’t work though. The primary problem is burning fossil fuels in power plants around the world , especially burning coal.

            We have to stop doing that and if we wish to continue having sufficient electrical power, replace the fossil fuel power plants with geo-thermal and solar power plants.

            For several good reasons I personally don’t like the wind turbine type of producing electricity. I also don’t believe taxes will reduce CO2 emissions.

      • klem

        I love it when the left turns around and eats their own. It makes my day.

        Skeptics have warned greenies for years that your leaders were pulling the wool over your eyes, but you buried your head in the sand.

        Only science-impaired leftists like yourself could be fooled into believing that a tax can change the weather.

        Cheers

      • adrianvance

        We do not have a very good record of the temperature ranges in the Holocene period, but can only estimate it on the plants that were growing there and all are extinct. While we do have similar forms it it more likely than not they did not have the same temperature requirements. Our ability to make good temperature estimates probably extends to no more than 450,000 years.

        The American Geophysical Association insists if all the ice that could melt did the seas would rise no more than 16 inches. When I do the math I get 17 inches, but they may have better, or certainly different data. They assume the poles cannot melt as long as Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees as that puts each pole in total darkness for six months.

        • Icarus62

          You know that global sea level has been 80 metres higher in the past, yes?

          • adrianvance

            That number has never been verified and is as credible as your spelling of “meters.” You are ignorant and need to change your diet. You look like an animal.

          • Icarus62

            That number has never been verified…

            That’s just comical 🙂

          • adrianvance

            There were many other factors. Are you aware that our north pole, spin axis was once in Nebraska and there are Finnish coal mines in the Arctic Circle?

          • Icarus62

            “our north pole, spin axis was once in Nebraska…”

            You do come up with some classics. No, it was never ‘in Nebraska’. It’s possible that Nebraska was once at the North Pole but that would have been hundreds of millions of years ago, and what does it have to do with the simple fact that sea level could be, and has been, 80 metres higher than today?

          • adrianvance

            I must correct myself if was the magnetic pole, but if all the ice on Earth were melted the seas could rise 20 feet and this is a calculation even rat could do.

          • M J

            Ah, so you did start to correct yourself. But why stop now? If you continue to correct yourself, you might actually see that your entire position concerning climate change needs to be corrected. Why, once you fully correct yourself, you will see that all the pseudo-scientific objections to the AGW hypothesis are just that: pseudo-science.

          • adrianvance

            Sorry you are wrong. They exist or did and are mined out. Read my book “Vapor Tiger” where I prove what I say and in my new book I show you how to prove it for yourself with simple equipment.

          • M J

            There is a big difference between “they exist” and “they did exist”. There are none now. It is independently confirmable from multiple sources that they have no domestic coal production now: they get all of it from abroad, mostly but not entirely from Russia.

            BTW: the kind of nonsense you regularly post here does not encourage anyone to buy your books. I certainly won’t now that I have seen what nonsense you write.

          • adrianvance

            Just Google or Bing “Coal mines in the Arctic Circle” and they will pop up.

          • M J

            And what happened when I Googled it was exactly what I expected: it names several mines, but after I found the first four I checked were closed, I decided you had thrown us another false lead.

          • adrianvance

            That they are closed is not the issue. That coal was mined, indicating lush foliage at some time, is the issue.

          • M J

            No, that is not the issue. That is a particularly bad example of a red herring. And did it ever occur to you that concerns over global warming might have been the deciding factor in the Norwegian government’s decision to close the mines? The government owns energy provider companies over there. Damn socialists;)

            Of course there was lush foliage there during the Carboniferous Era. That was a warm period, wet during the first part and drier towards the end. But that does not help your case one bit. Not when Finland has announced its intention http://grist.org/news/finland-aims-to-be-coal-free-by-2025/ to stop buying coal from abroad, to stop using it at all out of climate change concerns. Not when climate in the Carboniferous was so very different from today. Not when climate change caused an extinction event right in the middle of the Carboniferous and Pangaea had not yet formed, so Baltica (which included what is not Finland) was well south of the north pole.

          • Icarus62

            You can look up the correct value in countless places on the web but in fact it’s a really easy calculation.

            Antarctica is 14 million km² and the ice is 2km thick on average.
            Area of the world’s oceans is about 350 million km².
            Thus Antarctica is 1/25th of the area of the oceans.
            If you spread out that 2km thick ice over the 25 times larger area of the oceans, it makes 2,000 / 25 = 80m of sea level rise.

            OK?

          • adrianvance

            Sorry your numbers are wrong, as is your method, according to me and the American Geological Union where on their website they answer this question and come up with 17 inches. I get 16 inches in my book, “Vapor Tiger,” but I won’t argue the difference.

          • Icarus62

            You even deny simple arithmetic.

            Comical 🙂

          • adrianvance

            Wrong equation: See the American Geophysical Union pages on this and you will see the anticipated increase is only 17 inches as Antarctica will never melt as long as our axis is tilted 23.5 degrees and it is in total darkness nearly six months of the year. They include the melting of Greenland, which you do not mention as well as all the glaciers and unlike you they know what they are doing.

          • adrianvance

            26,500,000/(350,000,000 x 1,000) = 0.000757 km? or 75.7 cm? If you you are doing this is km, but it looks like you are mixing units.

          • Icarus62

            The ‘x 1,000’ just converts from km to m.

            Adrian, I don’t want to belabour the point, but the simplest way to see that I’m right is to appreciate that Antarctica is very large – 1/25th the area of the world’s oceans – and the ice is 2km thick on average. Simply divide by 25 to get the thickness if all that ice melted and was distributed around the oceans. It’s 80 metres, thereabouts.

            Your argument seems to be with the idea that it could all melt, not with the resulting sea level rise if it did. However, there is no doubt that Antarctica was ice-free in the past (and probably for much of Earth’s history). How can you be so confident that it couldn’t happen again? Of course that much ice cannot melt in our lifetime, but even a small proportion of it would cause major problems for coastal communities.

          • adrianvance

            Antarctica has not been free of ice in the time of man, according to many authorities and several authors in the American Geophysical Union journals have declared there is no circumstance that will melt all the ice from Antarctica as long as our tilt is 23.5 degrees which creates a 66.3 degree circle in which everything will be below freezing six months of the year: The Arctic and Antarctic circles.

          • M J

            Yours is a really weak rebuttal. Which of his “numbers are wrong”? All of them. I don’t think so. And your fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html) is particularly amusing this time, because the unworthy authority you appeal to is yourself, in a book no reputable publisher would touch, a book you had to published in the “vanity press” manner.

          • adrianvance

            The great body of my work has been published by major publishers, but now that business is pretty well gone and you need to be an elected politician, movie or rock music star, or ax murderer to get a book through an old-line publishing house. Or, give them lots of money, which some are doing.

          • M J

            Your breezy generalization about the publishing industry is as unconvincing as your breezy dismissal of your own error concerning ‘metres’. I know people who still get their books published by “major publishers”. If you don’t, it can’t be for the reason you say.

          • adrianvance

            I seriously doubt that you know anyone wealthy or famous enough to get a book published by a major publisher. I have had a book sitting at a major publisher for seven years as they do know whether to take a dump or go blind in the Obama economy and they not only asked me for this book, but a series of six to ten in YA market!

          • M J

            “Seriously doubt”? Then just like your doubts about global warming a.k.a. climate change, your doubts are groundless and led you to another false conclusion. I do know people who got their books published by major publishers. Have you ever heard of “Springer Verlag”? Or Manning Press?

          • M J

            His spelling of metres is correct. It is British spelling. You make a fool of yourself by failing to notice he is correctly using British spelling.

          • adrianvance

            We are in America, if you have not noticed.

          • M J

            Why are you so sure that is where Icarus is? The Internet is international — which is another reason why Icarus would be perfectly justified using the British spelling no matter where he really is. Most ESL speakers learned British English.

          • Michael Stone

            (“Why are you so sure that is where Icarus is?”)… Why?,,, because he is a very stupid, loudmouthed, egotistical dunce.

          • M J

            Then your reasons are all the very worst possible reasons.

            Icarus is the one who gets his facts right and repeats them patiently for a crowd of losers who just don’t get it. He rarely loses patience. But when he does, it is with someone who really deserved much worse.

          • Michael Stone

            HI MJ…. Yu totally misunderstood what I wrote. I happen to be on your and Icarus side on the issue.

          • adrianvance

            Your “replied?” What would you say if you had a complete brain?

          • Michael Stone

            Hi M J.. Sorry about the misunderstanding,,, the way I worded that post I can understand why you misunderstood so I erased it.
            This Mr. Adrian Vance, who doesn’t know the correct way to spell his name, is a despicable low life person, undeserving to be considered part of the human race…
            Like jmac I believe he and all of the pro GW Deniers like him and Sparafucle are evil.
            The lies they write on the GW issue sound good to people who are not well educated on the subject of AGW and they have created an enormous amount of doubt in the minds of so many, especially elected officials and world leaders and that is the reason no credible action has been taken to try and reverse what humanity has done to cause AGW.
            I follow you and agree entirely with what you write on the GW subject… You do good.

          • adrianvance

            Typical liberal: Viciously attack the source. Deal not with facts.

          • M J

            Typical denialist: accuse other of not dealing with facts when in fact, it is the denialists who go into anaphylactic shock when presented with a fact.

          • M J

            And once more, we are in perfect agreement;)

          • Michael Stone

            Yes indeed; we are. On the AGW issue we always have been. actually.

          • adrianvance

            Has anyone ever accused you “liberals” of being evil? Why is it you never hear conservatives wish their opponents ill, threaten them, but prefer to argue the issues and facts only to be called names?

          • adrianvance

            How the Hell do you think I am supposed to spell my name? Do you know the history of it? That it is drawn from the Roman emperor Hadrian?

          • Michael Stone

            The first letter is supposed to be capped… (A). You criticize a swell many for what you believed to be a spelling error… Which it was not….. Shove it.

          • adrianvance

            Shame is a terrible thing to waste.

          • adrianvance

            He writing for an American audience in an American publication which if it were properly edited would be corrected. When I write for British publications I use their spellings out of courtesy.

          • M J

            Your attempts at self-justification only sound more desperate as time goes on. The internet is not a publishing house.

          • Michael Stone

            If he truly is a published author, I believe DR. Michael Mann can sue him for libel for what he wrote about DR. Mann.

          • adrianvance

            If Michael Mann were to sue me I would counter with an “abuse of process” action that would clean out his bank and net income for years to come. What I have said about him is well known. Mark Steyn went a little over-the-line, but not by much in my judgment, and he is now counter-suing for millions. I think he will win as Micheal Mann fraudulently has claimed to have received a Nobel Prize and he did not.

            You can Google my name and there are databases that include all the titles of my 325 educational filmstrips, 433 Apple IIe educational programs, my pieces for ten national magazines here an in the UK, my being made Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain for my contributions to the understanding of vision and photography, my speeches, my radio shows and appearances on TV, six of my dozen books as I do fiction under a pen name, but the point here is that I prove everything I say and you an read it for $2.99 in the Kindle format for “Vapor Tiger,” the complete story of “global warming” and I am bringing out a new book with experiments you can do at home to prove it for yourself.

          • M J

            If you actually discuss your “abuse of process” dream with a competent lawyer, you will find that you have not even a snowball’s chance in hell of winning it. On the contrary: you are setting yourself up for a libel suit yourself by claiming that Micheal Mann “fraudulently has claimed to have received a Nobel Prize”.

            I have read the controversy, I did not reach the same obviously partisan conclusion you did. Instead, I reached the conclusion that the Nobel Prize Committee is largely responsible for the confusion by offering the prize to an organization instead of to individuals. Dr. Mann was a lead author, so he did get a certificate concerning the prize awarded to the whole organization, the IPCC.

          • adrianvance

            Here, read the evidence:

            Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

            Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data
            through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

            Thanks for the comments, Ray.

            Cheers, Phil

            Prof. Phil Jones

            Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
            School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
            University of East Anglia
            Norwich Email [email protected]

            NR4 7TJ

            UK

          • M J

            Evidence of what? Was that supposed to be evidence of hiding data? Were you hoping we would like you be misled by the phrase “hide the decline”?

            That is evidence of one thing and one thing only: that the email was not written for public consumption, it was written for someone who knew very well, unlike you, what “hide the decline” really means.

            This may sound to you like dishonesty, but having worked inside companies with very different styles of writing emails for those in the company and those outside, I know very well how the two differ, I recognize right away what the real problem is: this email was not written in such a manner that people outside the field would correctly understand what it means. That is all.

            BTW: I reached this conclusion before the independent investigations I already mentioned reached the same conclusion: “hide the decline” does not mean what you think it does, there is no dishonesty, no hiding of data involved.

          • adrianvance

            Any reasonable person can see what Phil Jones was saying. He, and many others, are in this game for money and the power of being seen as “saving the planet!” CO2 is a “trace gas” that does 0.2% of all atmospheric heating and I will soon release a short book that will take you step-by-step through a demo system where you can prove it for yourself. Your suggestion of a difference between “inside” and “outside” communications is ridiculous and the fact there is no difference has put a number of people in jail for long terms.

          • M J

            In post after post, you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you have no idea what a “reasonable person” can or cannot see.

            BTW: who do you think you can fool by claiming CO2 does only “0.2% of all atmospheric heating”? Even as an ad for your book, it is a failure. Your calcluations are simply wrong.

            Of course, I know you would avoid genuine peer review, but did you have anyone check your ‘calculations’?

          • adrianvance

            You put up nothing, but your objections and who are you? You have no credentials, no publications, no credits of any kind, offer no math, but come on as if you were the last word in this matter when you are not in the room!

          • M J

            I don’t need credentials. As for your credentials, there are nowhere near what you make them sound like. All those publications you are so proud of are in a completely different field with completely different skills and competencies. Go back to your core competencies and leave climate science alone: you are no good at it.

            Nor do you have to take my word for it (this has a lot to do with why I don’t need credentials): there are enough other people who have already explained to you why you are no good at this.

          • M J

            How would you know what “any reasonable person can see”? You are not one of us. I do see what he is saying, you do not. There is no “game for money and power” involved — except for that played by the fossil fuel companies, who already have the lion’s share of both money and power.

            Researchers at institutions like East Anglia Hadley Centre are paid pennies and are offered no political power, so it is simply impossible that their motives be as you say.

            Perhaps you will be able to see this yourself when you figure out that your 0.2% figure is much too low and why. But it is more likely you will continue to tilt at windmills, if you really believe that nonsense about what has ” put a number of people in jail for long terms.”

          • adrianvance

            No, but this blog is a publisher and an American publisher.

          • adrianvance

            Here is how it really works: From “Vapor Tiger.”

            Earth has an 8,000 mile diameter thus a surface area of 201 million square miles by A = 4 pi r^2. Earth is 71% covered by oceans with average depth of 12,232 feet, 2.31 miles, thus 143 million mi^2 times 2.31 for 330 million cubic miles of seawater.

            To determine the effect of melting glaciers we only need to know the average depth of the oceans and with the depth we can determine the amount of seawater per foot. Adding that amount of water raises the seas one foot.

            The authorities and geography literature say the seas have an average depth of 12,232 feet. Thus, for every foot of depth there are 62,536 cubic miles of sea water and it will take that much water to raise the seas one foot.

            According to NASA the glacier they claim will raise the sea level four feet has an area of 255 square miles and it is one-third mile deep. This gives 84 cubic miles of ice, but ice loses 10% of its volume on melting so it is 75.6 cubic miles of water. Therefore, the change in depth would be:

            75.6/62,536 = 0.00121 ft or 0.0145 inch

            This is about the thickness of a human hair. But all the “greens,” and
            panic pushers, claim we are going to melt all the ice on Earth. Geophysicists say they cannot imagine a circumstance where all the ice on Antarctica will ever melt as it is in the dark six months of the year and unlike the Arctic, the ice is on a continent, not in a sea thus cannot gain heat from ocean currents. It is high, dry and cold.

            Ice melting in the Arctic ocean has no effect on sea level as it is floating and
            like an ice cube in a glass melts with no effect on the water level. It is already displacing water to the same volume it will have when melted. It is
            floating because ice is 10% lighter than water. The only ice we can melt and contribute to raising the seas is that on Greenland and in the glaciers.

            The America Geophysical Union, AGU, says the increase will be about 17 inches which is in good agreement with my work.

            The US Geological Survey claims the seas would rise 217 feet if all ice melted but they include both poles and where the South Pole is in darkness six months of the year AGU geophysicists say that is not possible.

            The Third UN IPCC report claimed sea levels would rise 24 feet, but don’t publish their methodology. We suspect there was none. This appears to be more of their “arm chair science” and the embarrassment does not end there.

            This is a problem that would take a well taught junior high school science club 15 or 20 minutes. Today it is doubtful our college science majors could
            do it as science education has become environmental indoctrination. It is the greatest tragedy of our time. Science sold out for money.

          • Icarus62

            But you know that global sea level has been 80 metres higher in the past, yes? And the Earth’s rotation axis hasn’t changed. Indeed, Antarctica had no permanent ice as recently as 40 million years ago. So, clearly the Earth’s tilt is not enough to keep Antarctica from completely melting, with accompanying sea level rise of many tens of metres, because it’s happened before.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9ae1d4fcac36c10bf7bb23d187490ac1cab58fd72e51bdece0354fc03e53ef24.jpg

          • Michael Stone

            Vance is insane.

          • adrianvance

            I do not know that and doubt that you can up with any proof unless it is accompanied with much data perhaps estimated from the breakup of the original single “Pangea” continent to the present four or five, depending on how you count them.

          • adrianvance

            What you are talking about are some rocks that were apparently under water and are now 80 meters above sea level in one location, but those rocks are billions of years old. The planet has cooled and shrunk a bit causing mountains to rise, some very substantially, but that has been caused more by tectonic plate motion than Earth shrinking. That 80 meters has other causes as proved by the lack of the amount of ice anywhere to confirm your misunderstanding.

          • M J

            You just earned for yourself at least 13 points on the “Crackpot Index” the http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html — someone really should rewrite this for climate science crackpots instead of just for physics crackpots. Then it would be even more clear how you deserve a much higher score;)

          • Michael Stone

            What you wrote is total insanity…… There is enough freshwater ice on Greenland alone to raise the sea levels around the globe by more than 20 feet if and when it all melts.

            I have decided that you are not a professional global warming denier as I once thought.
            You obviously are insane and Exxon or other fossil fuel corporations would pay you to write disinformation about AGW for them..

          • adrianvance

            Do the math, as have I above, and you will see that the ice on Greenland melting would raise the seas very little. You are very full of yourself, but have no substance. What have you published?

          • Michael Stone

            Your math formula is horribly flawed… If you are correct I do believe that thousands of math geniuses on the planet would have figured that our long before you and I were even born and thousands more during the past 80 years.

            You remind me of the guy in a city near where we live who pushed a stolen shopping cart around the city and while mumbling to himself picks up rocks and when the cart is half full, stacks them up in neat piles wherever he happens to be located.

            He is relatively harmless but obviously he is crazy.

          • adrianvance

            Your “math geniuses” are dead wrong my work proves it. Go over it. Take to a high school math teacher and then apologize.

          • M J

            But Adrian Vance is not harmless. The disinformation he spreads is very harmful.

          • M J

            Michael Stone already pointed out the errors in your math. They are real. You may have published things, but not based on that bad math — unless you got it published by a vanity press;)

          • adrianvance

            Where did Michael Stone “point out errors” in my math. You people clearly cannot do math.

          • M J

            If you even tried to understand the math I have done, it would make your head spin, since you have no idea what simplicial complexes are or why they are used for finding topological invariants using algebraic techniques.

            He already pointed out where the errors were in your math. It is not my fault you were too dishonest/lazy to acknowledge his refutation at the time. Go look it up yourself so we can show the refutation again.

          • adrianvance

            What math? I have seen none and seriously doubt you could produce any.

          • M J

            What you “seriously doubt” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. You have already established your reputation as a crackpot, so no one cares what you “seriously doubt”.

          • Michael Stone

            Haaa haa haa .. I love it…. Happy New year.

          • To suggest that there is any chance that all the ice and snow will

            1) melt and
            2) wind up in the oceans

            is what is insane. Do you know the topography of Greenland? Obviously not.

            But you know, if it happens, it won’t happen overnight. We will have plenty of time to prepare for it.

            The one thing is certain is that climate is going to change. And the recent talks in Paris prove that nobody, not one nation, is serious about reducing carbon output. All they’re serious about is taxing carbon.

            Your credibility wouldn’t suffer so badly if you would just stop suggesting we’re headed for next to impossible futures. I’m not saying there won’t come a day when Greenland and Anaractica are free of ice. In fact I’m certain that day will eventually come, no matter what we do. It’s just we’d be wise spending money on getting ready for it, not trying to prevent it. That’s all.

          • Michael Stone

            Earth is near 24,000 miles thick, or 40,000 km…. Oceans average 12,200 feet deep, a little over 2 miles deep.
            Therefore the average depthh of the oceans around the globe are a very, very thin cover of 2 miles compared to 24,000 miles.

            There is enough freshwater ice at the Earth’s polar regions to raise sea levles aroung the wold by over 180 feet if all of the ice were to melt, which isn’t a great deal of rise of the average depth of the oceans.

            A rise of just 5 to 6 feet however would be a diosater for a majority of the cities on the planet and the billions of humans who live there.
            A 10 foot rise however would cause a catastrophic disasteer for humanity.

          • adrianvance

            I gave you the entire calculation above. Why do you waste your time wander off the page with such nonsense? And you accuse me of being insane? Get help.

          • Michael Stone

            I posted facts, not nonsense. You try to say thousands of scientists whom you disagree with are all wrong… You are the one who needs help…. It is truly pitiful.

          • adrianvance

            You have published a few numbers, but not a calculation, as have I. I am sorry it others have not done the work, but I am familiar with some of the nonsense that some Ph.D.s can say having been raised by two college professors on a college campus. Some people are as arrogant and sloppy as are you. Examine the calculation I have done above. it is complete and correct.

          • Michael Stone

            Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. From an insane dork.

          • Wow, what a convincing argument.

            NOT!

          • M J

            “Some people are as arrogant and sloppy as are you” — but only very much fewer are as arrogant and sloppy as you. I guess there is a bell curve for these characteristics too;)

            I never saw a complete calculation out of you. I have seen “a few numbers”, but this is what you complain about when Michael supposedly does it. I have also seen incomplete calculations. But never a complete and correct one. I doubt you have a clue how to go about doing one.

          • M J

            He’s not the one “wandering on the page with nonsense”.

          • Do you even know what the IPCC is predicting the maximum sea level increase will be? At the current rates of change, how long will it take for the sea level to rise even one foot? Do you even know what the current rate of increase is?

          • Michael Stone

            Do you know what the surface temperature of Earth will be when half a trillion tons of methane gas escapes from the melting Arctic permafrost in a one to eight year period of time?
            Figure it out… That will be equal to an additional 52.5 trillion tons of CO2 in the greenhouse gas mix.

          • Who is saying that half a trillion tons of methane gas will escape from the melting Arctic permafrost in a one to eight year period?

            Again, at least I’m glad you figured out where the REAL source of the observed atmospheric CO2 is coming from. Now can you help me convince the other climate alarmists?

          • Michael Stone

            The Paris climate Conference was a disaster.

          • Hey what do you know, something else we agree on!

            A bunch of unnecessarily spewed carbon, no real commitment to reduce CO2 emissions, only pledges to tax carbon dioxide!

            A disaster indeed. And yet climate alarmists are busy hailing it as a great accomplishment and breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for it, go figure!

            Say, had you heard about the ongoing methane “disaster” near Los Angeles?

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3376565/The-massive-gas-leak-threatening-Los-Angeles-Thermal-video-reveals-unprecedented-outpouring-methane.html

            Now that one is definitely man-made!

          • Michael Stone

            here is a comment in that article you posted a link for. > (“Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, can be flammable under high pressures”)..
            LOL.. Methane gas, or natural gas, does not have to be under pressure to be highly flammable. A small gas leak in a house can lead to blowing the building sky high.
            Interesting article but that leak compared to what is now spewing out of the Arctic Ocean is a pin drop in a lake.

          • Yeah, I saw that too – despite the fact the methane flammability limits in air at STP conditions are 5.0-15.0 vol%.

          • Michael Stone

            You ask > (“Who is saying that half a trillion tons of methane gas will escape from the melting Arctic permafrost in a one to eight year period?”)
            The over 400 scientists who worked on the ISSS scientific Arctic research studies during the past 21 years say it can happen at any time now. … Check it out.

          • Not finding any such claim from any valid source and thinking if you had one you would certainly have shared it by now.

          • Michael Stone

            I have over a hundred, but if I post any you will laugh it off and say the scientists are lying idiots and a scaremongers who want more grant money…

          • Yeah, sure you do, sure I will.

            Wrong again!

          • Michael Stone
          • You can stop the lies any time – I’ve told you several times I not only admit to global warming – I WELCOME IT! So calling me a GW denier only proves what a liar you are!

            Your first link, an alarmist BLOG, initially refutes your alarmist claims:

            QUOTE:

            Scientists of different persuasions remain fundamentally divided over whether such a scenario is even plausible. Carolyn Rupple of the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gas Hydrates Project told NBC News the scenario is “nearly impossible.” Ed Dlugokencky, a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) said there has been “no detectable change in Arctic methane emissions over the past two decades.” NASA’s Gavin Schmidt said that ice core records from previously warm Arctic periods show no indication of such a scenario having ever occurred. Methane hydrate expert Prof David Archer reiterated that “the mechanisms for release operate on time scales of centuries and longer.”

            Apparently you don’t put much faith in Gavin Schmidt. I agree, he’s quite a crackpot!

            Your second link was the Russia and India report. Funny they didn’t say anything about a massive, sudden release of methane but they do once again agree with EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR SOME TIME! Like you, they confirm that it is most likely the upward trend in atmospheric CO2 is being driven by normal, natural releases of methane as formerly permafrost areas are warmed as part of the normal, natural events that happen during interglacial periods. If you look at the long term climate record you see huge swings from much colder than it is now to much warmer than it is now – your methane mechanism might be part of how that comes about normally, naturally, and repeatedly. However, I believe that sane scientists have determined the present arrangement of ocean basins and continental land masses produced a relatively stable situation for our current climate – though wait a few million years, that will probably change!

            Your third source – ANOTHER BLOG!

            Keeping in mind that you posted these three links for a specific reason, though each of them says different things, the third seems to be to support your idea that the gulf stream has changed direction and is now streaming into the Arctic and causing all that ice to melt.

            However, the opening illustration shows exactly the opposite. Go figure.

            The second illustration is apparently (or so it’s caption claims) based on data that is a decade and a half old and it shows “average annual heat gain” then attempts to blame it on ‘pollution clouds’.

            I’m afraid it completely demolishes your theory since the first illustration shows NO gulf stream water going up towards Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and the second one suggests that even over time while it’s normal for SOME to go there, very little does when you look at the big picture. The point there is that this is not unusual to see some warm gulf water finding it’s way there, according to your source. So once again you’re paranoid about something your source suggests is normal and natural.

            So sad.

            Well the real deal is this: If you want to make a difference concerning carbon, go to China. In 2013 they emitted 29% of the world’s carbon output to the United States paltry 15%. And Chinese emissions continue to grow as they build power plants that burn dirty coal, without any of the clean coal technology we use here.

          • Michael Stone

            Oh btw; you didn’t approve of the prior 2 articles I linked about the Gulf Stream altering course.. Try the article in the three I just posted for you.

          • Interesting you say try the article you just posted… but there’s no link here to try! Yeah, sure, you posted it somewhere else. I’m tired of wasting time with a guy who’s as dishonest as you so if I happen to run across it I’ll check it out. Neither of the last 2 said what you claimed they said and the second was flat out RIDICULOUS! Why should I expect a third to be any different? But if I see it, I will at least check it out.

          • Sorry, I know I’m replying twice… want to try to give you a serious answer to your question:

            The failure of additional CO2 (approximately a 48% increase over the 270 ppm level) to cause the warming predicted shows that your fears of what will happen with even the catastrophic release of methane are unfounded. The climate system is not as sensitive as you alarmists believe plus it has robust NEGATIVE feedbacks which prevent just the sort of doomsday scenario that causes you such terror.

            There’s a name for people who fear big numbers. You seem to be one of them.

            I know there are a lot of people, for political and ideological reasons, who are feeding you a bunch of nonsense you are accepting without question that makes you believe otherwise – but we’ve already seen the failure of the alarmist hypothesis. This is usually where alarmists deny past predictions by the climate scientists who’s work was LATER (as you point out) included in IPCC reports – but the simple fact is every alarmist prediction by every alarmist climate scientist that has matured has been proven wrong. So far, from where I sit, most if not all of the actual results of climate change have been positive. Oh, sure, people who buy or build ever more expensive homes near the mean high tide line (Al Gore apparently among them, go figure, also Scripps Institute of Oceanography, a hive of climate alarmists, just built a multi-million dollar facility a stone’s throw from the mean high tide line) are winding up with expensive insurance claims. But that’s not due to climate change, just old fashioned stupidity.

          • Michael Stone

            Okay, thank you… I really did not think you were insane like Adrian Vance is,,, but you are…. Ga bye.

          • M J

            Reading your pseudo-scientific writing all dolled up to look real is like watching a dog watching television!

            No, the alleged ‘failure’ you mention does not” show that your fears of what will happen with even the catastrophic release of methane are unfounded.” Not even close. First of all, the ‘failure’ you claim never happened; the rise did occur. Secondly, the scientists predicting methane disaster are very well aware of the logarithmic sensitivity. But even with that logarithmic response, those levels of GHGs are going to be very damaging.

          • Well if it’s pseudo-scientific writing you’re tuned to, here’s some:

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

          • Michael Stone

            I really don’t care what IPCC says…. I prefer to listen to the scientific community for my information, not what is published years later by the UN.

          • That’s an interesting response – shows your selection bias – as soon as even the IPCC starts admitting the truth, suddenly they are out of favor. I bet the same thing will happen with you whenever any former climate alarmist takes a more rational, realistic stance in public. Let’s wait and see!

          • M J

            It may have been an unfortunate statement on Michael Stone’s part, but it does not show “selection bias”. What does show bias is your prejudicial assumption of the reason for his preference. You have no grounds to claim that he does it to cover up when the IPCC is forced to “admit the truth”. None whatsoever. But you chose to believe it out of your own bias.

            The truth is that whether you follow the IPCC’s figures or the more recent sources Michael uses, you get a substantial rise in ocean levels by the end of the 21st century. The economic impact of even the smaller predicted rises is quite high, much higher than the cost of switching away from carbon fuels.

          • What more recent sources Michael uses? I have been asking him for sources and so far all he’s done is given ones that:

            1) Don’t say what he claimed they did and

            2) Promote completely nonsensical notions.

            Like that one that claimed the gulf stream has reversed!

            The PROJECTIONS of substantial sea level increases are not based on any reasonable or valid science, only alarmism. They’re about as valid as claims two polar bears on a piece of ice within sight of land prove that polar bears are going extinct.

          • M J

            You must be a poor judge of what notions are ‘nonsensical’. You call his nonsensical, but you have been making nonsensical claims all along.

            You did it in this post, too. It is not even close to true that projections of “substantial sea rise” are “only [based on] alarmism”.

            Again, the IPCC is predicting over a meter by the end of the century. The exact figure they predicted is probably higher, I don’t remember.

            But I don’t have to remember to know that the IPCC predictions proves your prejudicial accusation flat out wrong. They are predicting enough of a rise to be catastrophic, and their predictions are based on science.

          • Listen, I don’t deal in obviously false and RIDICULOUS projections – you can see for yourself, if you look at the past IPCC reports, that is what you alarmists are all about.

            I deal in what is REAL, what is OBSERVED and what is reasonably projected based on those things alone, not the nonsense you believe in, which NEVER comes true.

            There is no valid evidence that even their alarmist projections will come true and there is a solid track record of their past alarmist predictions NOT coming true.

            You can deny it all you want, it remains true!

          • Michael Stone

            I said whom I favor over IPCC reports for GW information…

          • Michael Stone

            Yep; I am careful of whom I trust.

          • M J

            You are asking the wrong questions. The IPCC is predicting a substantial rise (I forget the exact figure, but it is over a meter) by the end of the 21st century. The current rate of increase is not very big, but by the end of the 21st century, it will be much higher. High enough to wipe out a lot of New York City real estate.

          • Climate change is inevitable. However, I suspect your predictions are as incorrect and overly alarmist as those of other climate alarmists.

            Here’s something you might find interesting.

            The Flandrian Transgression

            The name, Flandrian, has been applied to the current sea level rise affecting the coastal regions around the globe which began approximately 18-19,000 years ago (during latest Pleistocene time and continuing progressively during Holocene time to the present).

            http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/bight/coast.html

          • M J

            It is mildly interesting, but it appears you think the article supports you. It does not. Rather, it spends a great deal of effort describing how difficult it is to determine past sea level rises.

            But that is very different from what we are facing now. Back then, it was hard to assess the sea level because the changes in sea level were slow, so that they were comparable with the changes to geology. Nowadays we are faced with something very different: we really can calculate a projected rise in a much simpler manner because the geology is not changing.

          • With few exceptions, and perhaps you are referring to one of them, not sure, your statement that:

            the geology is not changing

            Is incorrect. Geology is changing all over the world. While the article does point out it is difficult to determine past sea level changes, it does not say they did not occur – just that it’s difficult to accurately describe them sometimes.

            Isostatic rebound is still one of the forces of change in North America, but not necessarily in the New York area today. There the likely most active force is some subsidence of areas that are poorly consolidated.

          • M J

            You may think you have a refutation, but you do not. You have a quibble. A pretty obvious failure of a quibble at that.

            Of course, at all times, geology is changing. But usually, very slowly. If you had paid attention to the context, you would not have been confused by my brachylogy: it was perfectly OK for me to use “geology is not changing” to mean, “geology is changing so much more slowly than ocean levels, we really can ignore it in our calculations”.

          • All that matters to me is you’ve now admitted that you know you misspoke when you said it wasn’t changing. Which was my point. You could have done that in one sentence – instead you hemmed and hawed for a full two paragraphs.

          • I live in a place where I can easily walk to current eroding sea cliffs and wave cut benches. A short drive to the east reveals a hillside with fossil evidence of five different sea levels. I ride my bike over a rise that is actually the (human altered) fossil remnant of what was once barrier dunes, now about 400 feet above sea level.

            The sea cliffs I mentioned are about 300 feet high in places, made up of sand and mudstones laid down when they were significantly or slightly underwater.

            I am comfortable with inevitable change. I know that to waste time even thinking I can stop change borders on insanity, so I don’t. Yes, over CENTURIES and more we’re talking about some expensive efforts to adapt and overcome the inevitable change that’s coming.

            None of that justifies climate alarmism, which is just another form of mental masturbation and an excuse to tax when taxes won’t help.

          • adrianvance

            The IPCC, which is 2,000 diplomats and 12 scientists, six of whom quit in disgust and asked theit names be removed from the final draft report, but they were not so several are suing the IPCC, is an organization only interested in getting money from America.

          • Not just America, but yes, they do want a great deal from America, and others.

          • adrianvance

            This is not math. It is the recitation of some meaningless numbers in this context.

          • Michael Stone

            I see and the NUMBERS you stated are math… Got it.

          • Michael Stone

            You must be aware that what you write is in total disagreement with thousands of scientists and professors both living and those who have passed away and who have all earned Doctorates in their specific fields of scientific studies.

            I do believe what you believe and write about science issues is correct…
            I also believe that you should seek professional help from medical doctors who know how to sometimes alleviate such irrational mental thinking for people who clearly suffer from delusional thinking due to paranoid schizophrenia……
            It doesn’t seem that you are suffer with violent tendencies so professional help would be available once you realize that you are crazy.

          • adrianvance

            First, I doubt that and second, if true they are in error as I have published here a calculation that can easily be verified by anyone with the capacity, which I doubt you have so get some help.

          • Michael Stone

            You math is wrong.

            On Greenland alone there are 600,000 cubic miles of ice…. On Antartica there is 90 times more than on Greenland, or 5,400,000 cubic miles of ice on Antarctica. A total of 6,000,000 cubic miles of ice.

            If all melted sea levels would rise by over 180 feet.

          • adrianvance

            Sorry, but while that figure has appeared in several publications it is in error: There are 684,000 cubic miles of ice on Greenland and it takes 62,536 cubic miles to raise the level of the seas one foot. It all the ice were to melt on Greenland, which will never happen, the seas would rise 10.9 feet 45% of the figure you are quoting out of utter ignorance.

          • First of all, no, it wouldn’t. Some of it would form massive lakes.

            Second, no, it would not raise sea levels 180 feet even if it all melted and ran into the sea. You seem to forget that frozen water takes up more volume than the resulting liquid meltwater.

            Third, you can’t seriously be claiming that all the ice is going to melt. Really? Do you believe that?

          • Michael Stone

            Uh-huh… Well write up your scientific research paper on the subject, have it peer reviewed by Anthony Watts and published in Journal Science.

          • Do you think this might work as an illustration of what you and other climate alarmists are missing about what will happen in Greenland? Assuming anyone actually believes all the ice and snow there will actually melt in our lifetimes, that is?

          • Michael Stone

            What on Earth makes you believe if those low areas were full of liquid water instead of ice that rivers would not flow out into the ocean? Greenland is mostly above sea level ya know..
            Do you have some strange ide
            Our Great Lakes in the US for just a few examples continually flow out into the Atlantic Ocean. Naturally all of the melted ice on Greenland won’t all enter the oceans, but enough will to raise sea levels by over 20 feet when it has all melted.
            You must have some silly ideas that scientists who say sea levels will rise by over 20 feet when the ice on Greenland melts haven’t computed how much water will stay on the land and how much fresh water will flow into the ocean. …
            Do you actually believe you are more apt to know that than they are?
            If you believe the Greenland ice sheets and glaciers won’t all melt in our lifetimes if the current global warming continues and the feedback loop to GW have all kicked in and GW continues to accelerate you are delusional…
            It could almost all melt in less than five more years if half a trillion tons of methane gas escapes into our atmosphere from the melting Arctic permafrost before 2022 and that pending disaster is quite possible .
            Right now no one can give an exact year when that will occur, it all depends on how much methane gas enters the atmosphere every year from now on.
            Of course you can say that is “Warmies” frantic howling, but the 400+ scientists who have conducted hands on, observed research in the Arctic for over 21 years say it can happen at any time now.

          • Greenland IS mostly above sea level, and has a large interior basin mostly fringed by mountains. I sent you a very good topographic map, an image as an attachment so you wouldn’t even have to click on it! Didn’t you bother to see it.

            And your claim that

            “enough will to raise sea levels by over 20 feet when it has all melted.”

            only proves how little you know about hydrology. Plus who said all the ice in Greenland was going to melt again? I want their names and the specific dates they said it was going to happen. And if it is not in our lifetime, won’t be provable in our lifetime, then guess what – THEY’RE LIKELY LYING!

            Do you actually believe you are more apt to know that than they are?

            No, you keep saying that. I don’t know why. What I DO know is they’ve been caught in so many lies that I no longer put much stock in their alarmist twaddle. Or, for that matter, yours, for the exact same reason!

            If you believe the Greenland ice sheets and glaciers won’t all melt in our lifetimes if the current global warming continues and the feedback loop to GW have all kicked in and GW continues to accelerate you are delusional.

            See, this is the thing. The IPCC is the world’s foremost authority on climate, according to you alarmists.

            Yeah, I know, take all the time to ROTFL that you need, I’m doing it too – saying that always makes me howl with laughter!

            But, based on the best science available, they claimed that:

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            So you have it exactly BACKWARDS. Global warming isn’t accelerating. It’s decelerating. The IPCC, based on all the best available science, says so!

            It could almost all melt in less than five more years if half a trillion tons of methane gas escapes into our atmosphere from the melting Arctic permafrost before 2022 and that pending disaster is quite possible .

            Yeah, and if pigs could fly I’d give you a bag of Doritos!

            Look, I’m about to put you on mostly ignore, except maybe once in a while if I catch you in those lies I keep catching you telling. So let’s do our best to look each other up in 5 years and if

            1) All the ice in Greenland has melted

            OR

            2) A half a trillion tons of methane gas escapes into our atmosphere from the melting Arctic permafrost

            I’ll give you 1/4 million, U.S. or something of that value

            BUT

            You have to promise that if both of those conditions are NOT met, you will give ME 1/4 million, U.S., or something of that value.

            Deal?

          • Michael Stone

            If BS were pennies you would be a multi millionaire.

          • adrianvance

            Describe in quantitative terms a “feedback loop.” This is a myth created by Jim Hansen and with it he has made millions of Dollars.

          • Michael Stone

            Jim Hansen?? ___ Nooo, how feedback loops effect the global surface temperature were written by scientists long before DR James Hansen was born.

          • adrianvance

            Citation? Prove it. My first experience with atmospheric physics was in 1972 when I was asked to authenticate a set of filmstrip scripts for Doubleday & Co., in the process corresponding with four of the top names in that field and in my experience, and to my knowledge, that term was not in use. The first time I heard it was in a UCTV replay of a Jim Hansen interview wherein he used the term and I am quite sure he invented as the UC physicist intreviewer was surprised to hear it and had Jim explain what he meant.

          • Michael Stone

            You initially wrote the term “feedback loop” was a myth invented by Jim Hansen…. You prove it. Your story isn’t proof of that lie you told.

          • greenthinker2012

            Oh…and Adrian….don’t forget to mention that you got an “A” in a statistics class years ago.

          • Michael Stone

            I changed my mind and have decided to help alleviate your delusions about Greenhouse gases and about your false comments you wrote in regards to DR. James Hansen.

            The physicist John Tyndall in the 1860s wrote about (*feedbck loops*) to global warming. That was long before DR James Hansen was born.

            From the article > (“In addition, it was already known via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, that warmer air can hold more water vapour: the amount is about 7% more per degree Celsius of warming. And that additional water vapour would in turn cause further warming – this being a positive feedback, in which carbon dioxide acts as a direct regulator of temperature, and is then joined in that role by more water vapour as temperatures increase.”).

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html

            Now if you wish to become truly educated on how greenhouse gases in our atmosphere function, read and study this article several times.

            If you cannot comprehend what is written, seek some assistance from someone who has an IQ of at least 50 to help you.

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm

            From the article > (“The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.”.
            If you bang your head against a brick wall for an hour you can burn off 1,500 calories. I personally don’t do that though.

          • adrianvance

            The American Geophysical Union says there is no circumstance where the ice of Antarctica will melt for the next 10,000 years and given the greatest output of the sun it will take 10,000 should it begin to happen, but at this time it is gaining ice!

          • Michael Stone

            Those scientists are ignoring the releasing methane gas from the Arctic’s melting permafrost.

          • Michael Stone

            Last year a small sliver of an ice sheet broke off of Antarctica and entered the ocean… That “small” sliver of ice was 300 miles long by 50 miles wide. There was enough fresh water in that ice to supply all of the water needs of humans on the North and South American continents for 2 years.

          • adrianvance

            Yes and that “sliver” was big enough to raise the sea levels the with of on human hair.

          • Michael Stone

            Maybe; it was just a sliver after all…. Wait till the rest melts you fool.

          • M J

            You really don’t see how you contradict yourself? You used that “width of one human hair” for the sea level rise from a much bigger quantity of ice melting. So you were either wrong then or wrong now. Or both.

            Given your track record, I will assume it is both!

          • Link?

            You know, while it may not break off in single chunks like that, every year much, much more ice from Antarctica melts, then reforms the next year. In fact it’s not really surprising that happened -assuming you’ve got your facts straight and can prove it with a link. For the Antarctic is setting new records for ice extent quite regularly – a fact you climate alarmists seem to avoid making as much of a big deal about compared to how you go on when a big glacier calves or Arctic ice hits a new low.

            Why the obvious bias in your concerns and announcements?

          • Michael Stone

            BS.

          • That’s all you got. A pathetic and obviously unsupported denial that that much ice, and more, melts every year there?

            Or are you denying that they’ve been setting records for maximum ice extent?

            While this may not be the best ‘scientific’ site, it IS a climate alarmist site – check out their video, showing how much ice grows, and melts, each year there:

            http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2012/09/3-d-animation-of-the-changing-antarctic-ice-sheet.html

            Here’s NASA announcing the new record in 2012:

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369

            Here’s the site “livescience” reporting multiple records set in 2013:

            http://www.livescience.com/39720-antarctica-ice-record-highs-2013.html

            Here’s ABC announcing the new record in 2014:

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

            And NASA announcing the same in 2014:

            http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

            And while climate alarmists like you are cherry picking what to mention, this is happening:

            http://phys.org/news/2015-05-antarctic-sea-ice-logistic-problem.html

            “…at Mawson, the ice typically only breaks up for one or two months of the summer, but in the last four to six years this has not happened every year, and some years only partially.”

          • Michael Stone

            Sea ice is not freshwater land ice.

          • No kidding. But thank you, Private Obvious – you’re dismissed!

          • Michael Stone

            (” That all you got.”} you say. __ “BS” was all that was necessary for that garbage post.

          • Typical reality denier post – this one AND that one. Reminds me of the burger king commercial where the guy announces low cost menu item and the response is nervous laughter or a series of snorts.

          • Michael Stone

            You remind me of the guy who drives while texting and says, “It’s not unsafe”.

          • Except I’m the guy who doesn’t text and is against driving while using electronic devices, particularly with respect to my liberal niece, who would always preach that, yet caused a 5 care pileup on a major freeway because she was doing just that! Typical liberal, doesn’t practice what she preaches!

            My phone is hands-free and while it is capable of texting I tell people don’t bother texting me, I won’t read them and won’t respond.

          • Michael Stone

            You still remind me of the nuts who drive and text saying it’s not a problem as you say AGW is not a problem and in fact to paraphrase say AGW is a myth.

          • Why do you so blatantly lie! I already told you that driving and texting IS a problem – my own niece (who spoke out against it regularly) texted while driving and caused a major 5 car pileup on one of our freeways! I never said or suggested AGW is a myth – that’s another lie. Get it right. I said it’s a hoax, a fraud. A myth I could excuse.

          • M J

            Speaking of ‘bias’, is your failure to note the difference between sea ice and land ice deliberately done out of bias to hide the truth?

          • adrianvance

            Sea ice melting effects no change on the sea level, hence it is omitted in such analyses.

      • Indeed, of what YOU posted, “None of that is true!”

        Water vapor is responsible for 90-95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. NASA scientists say so – TOP NASA scientists:

        “This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”

        Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect.

        But if you’re worried about global warming, let the IPCC calm you down:

        See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

        … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

        SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

        Now it is ‘settled science’ that CO2 was higher during 1998-2012 and lower during the period from 1951-1998. So why, if CO2 is such a dominant greenhouse gas, was the warming lower when CO2 was higher, and higher when the CO2 was lower?

        • Icarus62

          CO₂ is the main driver of global climate:

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

          CO₂ provides 80% of the forcing that sustains the greenhouse effect:

          http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

          Natural processes cannot account for the global warming trend:

          http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf

          • adrianvance

            I would love to see how “forcing” works in physical terms. For the Hansen hypothesis to be valid there would have to be a hierarchy of molecules, i.e. one waiting to be told what to do by another! This is patently insane and Hansen never dared publish it, but would say it in a speech or TV interview where it would not be challenged as he does not do press conferences and will only talk to journalists one-at-a-time with total editorial control over what they can print or broadcast. The man is not a scientist, but a propagandist for an invalid concept.

          • Icarus62

            In physical terms, some of the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by the atmosphere instead of being transmitted directly to space. This perturbation of the energy balance of the planet is the ‘forcing’ which is responsible for the greenhouse effect – i.e. the ~33K/155W/m² difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere. Any gas in the atmosphere with more than two atoms is a significant infrared absorber and is therefore termed a greenhouse gas.

          • adrianvance

            Utter nonsense: What do you claim absorbs all this IR? Extra pockets on CO2 molecules? Water vapor absorbs 99.8% of all solar IR absorbed by air, but Hansen claims it does not form until CO2 permits it! How? With tiny pilots? Divine or Satanic intervention? You guys are ridiculous with your “perturbations.” What a hoot!

          • Icarus62

            What is the source of your 99.8% claim?

          • jmac

            Adrianvance is a special kind of nutcase. He is pretty stupid or do you think he has a fan base of stupid people he must tend to with BS that even Exxon knows is BS?

          • Icarus62

            There is a section of the public who want to be reassured that humans are not changing, and cannot change, the Earth’s climate. That way, they don’t have to accept any responsibility for contributing to it. I don’t think Adrian is stupid at all – he simply creates the kind of comforting pseudoscience that these people want to hear.

          • jmac

            I normally go with lying, insane or morons. However, I’ve interacted with Adrian before and (even his soda pop can with vinegar 8th grade experiment, that he intends to market). In his case, I’m going with special kind of nutcase. 🙂

          • CB

            I second that finding.

            Adrian Vance is suffering from mental illness that may already have been clinically diagnosed.

          • M J

            No, yours is the utter nonsense — as usual. How CO2 absoprtion influence H2O absoprtion was described clearly and correctly (unlike your description) at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

            Hint: water vapor absorption of IR does not count towards the total balance if the vapor loses the heat again as it turns back to liquid water.

          • M J

            There are many more than adequate explanations on the net of how forcing works “in physical terms”. If you really don’t know how this works, you have no business making all the sweeping claims you make so often.

          • adrianvance

            That first paper is utter nonsense. I would love to see an independent physicist take that apart. Total BS It should be used in evidence at a criminal fraud trial or a sanity hearing.

          • Icarus62

            Care to support your assertion?

          • M J

            I would love to see lots of things — like yours, they are not going to happen. So what you “would love to see” does not count for a hill of beans.

            No “independent physicist” is going to “take that apart” because contrary to your wishes, it is sound, it cannot be “taken apart”.

    • marycdavdis

      ❝my neighbor’s aunty is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
      4ppz……..
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportTap/GetPaid/$98hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • Will Haas

        SPAM!

    • jmac

      #facepalm abject ignorance

      Google? Does Google know how to google?

      Even Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

      Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

      “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

      • adrianvance

        Nonsense, the physics is very simple and I am producing a new, short book all about an experimental demonstration you can do in your home with an empty cola bottle, a quarter teaspoon of baking soda and one drop of vinegar and see how the atmosphere really works. You do need to by a “stick thermometer” on Ebay for $2 plus postage, but this beats all the million Dollar simulators we have paid for.

        Google “Two Minute Conservative” for truth.

        • jmac

          Sounds like the old experiment I and most others did in 8th grade. http://www.apple-cider-vinegar-benefits.com/baking-soda-and-vinegar.html

          • adrianvance

            It is, but I am teaching the stoichiometry of the system, the Le Chatelier Principle and how it predicts a reduced temperature instead the rise all these idiots are raving about. Note that the last ten years where CO2 has increased 100 ppm the temperature has declined per Le Chatelier! I think a lot of these people are not only nervous, but when I get done teaching this widely they will have nowhere to hide.

          • jmac

            Crank on Adrian. Ok, I gotta go now.

          • M J

            The temperature has not “declined per Le Chatelier”. It has increased. Icarus62 and others have already presented the evidence for the rise in temperature many times now. You have not shown even one correct refutation of that evidence in any or your replies.

            For that matter, since you are concerned with the infamous apparent flatness in temperature, did you take into account the CO2 absorbed into the ocean? What are you going to do when that all comes out of the ocean and into the atmosphere?

          • adrianvance

            The refutations of these bizarre contentions are all over the place! The Joint Committee on Science and Technology has asked for the source data on which NOAA and NASA produced their panic-pushing graphs and they have refused to give up the source data. A legal foundation is suing them for it and an original source, private organization, claims it can replicate it so that is in work. Do a little work and you can find all this….

          • M J

            “Do a little work and you can find all this…” — but do just a little more work and you will find that your so-called ‘refutations’ are no such thing at all. None of them stand up to close scrutiny.

          • adrianvance

            What they have quoted is the stuff GISS, NOA and NASA have “adjusted,” which Congress is now investigating and at least one lawsuit has been filed over. Read the papers.

          • adrianvance

            Here read it and weep: cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/upcoming…

          • M J

            It should make you weep: I got a 404 “not found” error. You should weep over your bumbling that you could not even get the link right — or is your source so flaky that they had to move the resource just after you linked to it?

            Or is it both? Browsing around a few other articles at that site and reading the “About Us” section shows that ‘CNS’ should be understood to mean “Conservative Nutcase Syndicate”. You should have known better than to use such nutcases as a source for anything.

          • Michael Stone

            He is a nutcase though, so it would have appealed to him.

          • M J

            And it is hard to separate cause and effect concerning the nuttiness;)

            But it is worth commenting on how lamentable this is: there should be no divide between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ on this issue: both need climate change mitigation. Yet there is a very deep divide, because the fossil fuel industry is very good at exploiting conservative ‘nutcases’.

          • adrianvance

            It was there when I posted the link. Perhaps it will return, but this would not be the first time the likes of Michael Mann put their fingers on the scale.

          • M J

            You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for your excuses now. Michael Mann had nothing to do with it.

      • Sparafucile

        Eric Schmidt, climate expert? Adulterer, yes; climate expert, no.

        • jmac

          #facepalm Here we go. Let’s hear the GOP preach to us about personal responsibility, family values and the virtues of White Christianity and climate experts.

          • Sparafucile

            We weren’t talking about religion (except CAGW religion), or the GOP. The local subject, jerk, was Eric Schmidt. Your “tu quoque” fallacy is exposed, as are you — the jackhole who offered it.

          • jmac

            “We weren’t talking about religion”
            Exactly nitwit!
            I was responding to a (since deleted) post about Google, of which you were no part when you jumped in and gave me a morals lesson.
            Why do you not know anything of the topic to which you respond?

          • Sparafucile

            More deflection from you?

            Pathetic.

          • jmac

            #facepalm

          • Michael Stone

            Because he is the stupidest GW Denier on the web.

          • cunudiun

            Adrian Vance is getting jealous.

          • Michael Stone

            I didn’t think of that and come to think of it Vance may be stupider than Spara… He may bit I don’t think so.

            He’s a lot more dangerous though because his “science” actually may sound good to many who are not well educated on the AGW issue.

          • cunudiun

            But it seems to me anyone who would swallow AV’s science would likely have more problems than simply “not well educated.”

          • Michael Stone

            I dunno Fellas…. I am acquainted or friends with a lot of nice people who are highly educated, but are not well educated on the AGW issue and they think that AGW is doubtful or a farce..
            Yet when Al Gores film came out they believed him… Now most believe what the corrupt GW Deniers say or they are very skeptical of AGW.
            I believe the major reason for their doubt was the corrupt “Climategate” story published by the NY Times.

          • Thon Brocket

            You never got over that Climategate thing , did you, KP73?

          • Michael Stone

            Why should anyone get over it Brocket? For just one very important thing Climategate raised it’s lying head just prior to the important Copenhagen Climate Conference and that lie was a deciding factor that ruined any good results from the Copenhagen Conference.

            Ya know Brocket; it has been so many years now since I have had the displeasure of seeing your name that I had begun to wonder if you had left the planet or were perhaps committed to a mental health institution and couldn’t type while confined in a straight jacket.

            Now do return to your cave or hole in the ground and leave sane people alone…. Signed, ~~Kem Patrick~~

          • Sparafucile

            Three paragraphs of lies ant stupiduty. Thanks Kem, you senile coit.

          • adrianvance

            My credentials and many publications are a matter of public record. What are yours?

          • Michael Stone

            So? I have none published…. Anyone can publish lies however…. You ever heard of the Aussie “Peter K. “Hartlod” Anderson, or Anthony Watts?

          • adrianvance

            Generally, you cannot publish lies as publishers are very careful to avoid being discredited or libelous, but when an idea is strongly supported by the government they will swallow hard and go with it: Witness our many wars since WWII, the last war to defend America. All since, including the “Cold War” have been for defense industry profits, kickbacks to the elected ruling class and the political power in claiming to “save America!” Now they have found a way to “…save the planet!” But, it is based on the fraud that CO2 drives the atmosphere when it is only responsible for 0.2% of all atmospheric heating.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote, > (“Generally, you cannot publish lies”)… Ha haaa haaa… Just one example is the NY Times publishing the false story that Michael Mann altered data with his graph.
            Give it up wako.

          • adrianvance

            That is a fact. Read the following from the East Anglia CRU scandal:

            “Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

            Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either
            later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH
            land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

            Thanks for the comments, Ray.

            Cheers, Phil

            Prof. Phil Jones

            Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx

            School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx

            University of East Anglia

            Norwich Email [email protected]

            NR4 7TJ

            UK

          • Michael Stone

            That may sound bad but what was the entire conversation,, not taking a portion and using it out of context.
            Phil Jones and Michel Man were cleared of any wrongdoing by several different investigative bodies.

          • Sparafucile

            He has none. Hes an uneducated sad old man who is living iut his last days ss an internet troll.

          • adrianvance

            See above. Apologies accepted.

          • Sparafucile

            Huh?

          • adrianvance

            I prove what I say. Put it in print and people pay money for it.

          • adrianvance

            Did you misspell “condom” again?

      • adrianvance

        Is that why all the “climate model” predictions have faiiled? Every one….

        • jmac

          Oh Sweet Baby Jesus, please just go away Adrianvance.

          • Michael Stone

            He did…. He is spamming his initial comment on another thread.

          • jmac

            Thank Gawd! That guy has got to be in the Internet Top One Hundred Idiots list. 🙂

          • adrianvance

            No, I think you have me beat.

          • adrianvance

            Just spreading the truth.

          • Michael Stone

            Your “truths” are not true and spam is spam.

          • adrianvance

            Sorry, not going to do that.

    • Michael Stone

      I am very interested in what you say….Where do you get your information that there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect?
      The reason I ask is because our moon which in solar system distance is near the same distance from the sun as Earth but the weather and climate conditions are vastly different.
      Why does the temperature of the moon vary from day to night from 250 degrees F during day time and drops to minus -260 degrees F below zero at night? Why ddoes the

      • adrianvance

        The moon has no atmosphere so the temperature varies wildly depending on whether or not the sun is shining on the rocks.

        • Michael Stone

          BINGO !!! …. ATMOSPHERE… See how smart you are?
          Read what is published in any science text book which has information on how our atmosphere functions and how the GREENHOOUSE gases, CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapor, etc, determine the Earth’s surface temperature.

        • Michael Stone

          Other than it’s night time, what would stop the sun from shining on the moon’s rocks? ___ Snow maybe? Gad; you are incredible.

        • Michael Stone

          You initially wrote here > quote > (“There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere…. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat”). < unquote.
          Well Mr. Vance; it is clearly obvious that you like not understanding how our atmosphere and the greenhouses gases function, you don't know anything about how a home greenhouse works either.
          A garden greenhouse is not a closed sealed system. If it were, the interior would get so hot on a hot sunny day that the plants would all die, just as a human or any animal rather quickly would die in a closed car on a hot sunny day.
          If our atmospheric CO2, CH4 and N2O levels continue to rise as they currently are, our atmosphere will become thicker and "closed" so that more of the rising heat will be trapped and our planet will become to hot for life.
          I swear; people like you should be arrested and charged with attempted genocide of all life on Earth and stand trial to determine if you are guilty of that charge.

          • adrianvance

            Look at your last paragraph and tell me you would not be burning witches in the time that was done. You are an evil person.

            You have done none of the work to determine that CO2 is only responsible for 0.2% of all atmospheric heating where water vapor, with 8,000 times more molecules and each capturing seven times as much IR energy per molecule, is doing 99.8% of it.

            Your first link is for a company that sells ventilation equipment for people who have greenhouses in southern climates. They are certainly not needed in the north. And, a greenhouse is normally a closed system as the operators now burn propane to make CO2 to enhance plant growth.

            A “greenhouse” works because it is enclosed with a transparent cover that lets sunlight in, but traps IR physically in the manner I describe in “Vapor Tiger.” No gas, much less CO2, works that way and every physical scientist knows it.

            Every physical scientist also knows from where grants come and he will apply with a proposal that is politically correct or get a rejection, as have I and a number of my friends. This is a scam into which the Federal government has put $500 billion in taxpayer money to “prove” and none of their models work. The Le Chatelier equation shows why: CO2 is a trace gas and a poor absorber of IR. It is just that simple.

    • Bart_R

      Clearly, you’ve put a lot of time and effort into your.. whatever it is that you’re doing.

      And just as clearly, you have no issue with bluntly taking swipes at anyone you disagree with, as if provoked into a fight for survival, whomever they are or whatever they’ve said or done.

      However, Mr. Vance, this leads me to the dilemma: how do I, a civilized person, have a discussion with you about this subject when there is no expectation the response will be anything but irrational attack, invalid argumentation, unfounded economic alarmism, propaganda and misinformation?

      Do you have any suggestions for me about how to proceed productively?

      I acknowledge, this invitation to dialogue is unlikely to be the answer.

  • Will Haas

    The problem is that there are gaping holes in the AGW conjecture. It is based on only partial science. Consider the following:

    The climate change that we are experiencing is typical of the Holocene for the past 10,000 years. Models have been generated that show that climate change is caused by the sun and the oceans and hence Mankind does not have the power to change it. We are in an intergalcial period and are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than a thousand years ago. There is nothing unusual about it to indicate that Man might be the cause.

    Despite all the cliams, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.

    This is all a matter of science

    • Icarus62

      The climate change that we are experiencing is typical of the Holocene for the past 10,000 years.

      No, it isn’t. We are already well outside the range of Holocene climate and warming at an unnaturally rapid rate.

      http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2779/3173/original.jpg

      • Will Haas

        I guess it all depends on which paleoclimate reconstruction one cares to believe. Apparently you believe the hockey stick reconstruction that was devised solely to support the AGW conjecture. The Medieval Warm Period as well as other such warm periods proved difficult for the AGW conjecture so they eliminated them. According to the reconstructions that I am familiar with the warm up from the Little Ice Age looks much like the warm up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period roughly 1300 years ago. The current Modern Warm Period is not yet as warm as the past Medieval Warm Period.

        • Icarus62

          The graph above is based on Marcott et al 2013, which covers the last 11,000 years or so (Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ study didn’t even go back as far as the MWP). Current warming is clearly greater than at any time during the Holocene, as you can see, which means that today is the warmest period in the last 120,000 years. And it’s not going to stop any time soon.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b900ab6bf022ea377901a69c9721ddd7776f640f23eb1413a9e1bfe6cabe8c2.png

          • adrianvance

            This has been shown to be based on “adjusted” data much in the manner of Micheal Mann’s erasure of the Medieval Warming to make his “hockey stick.”

          • Icarus62

            That’s just a desperate and false accusation (and made more absurd by the fact that Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ didn’t even go back as far as the time of the ‘MWP’, so he can hardly be accused of having ‘erased’ it).

          • adrianvance

            I suggest you do a little reading before you go off in public. Now we know why you use a rat face. How evil: Blaming a dumb animal for your stupidity.

          • Walther11
          • Icarus62

            Why did you post that deceitful nonsense? You know perfectly well that the black curve is just a schematic from many decades ago, not a properly scaled graph. Michael Mann’s work is far more accurate.

          • Walther11

            There is nothing deceitful about it. Michael Mann’s work is a proven fraud. At a minimum it proves your statement that his hockey stick didn’t cover the Medieval Warm period is complete fantasy.

          • Icarus62

            The original ‘hockey stick’ in mbh98 covered the last 600 years i.e. back to 1400 as I’m sure you are well aware.

            Your graph is deceitful because the black curve is an unscaled schematic and therefore cannot be plotted against Mann’s palaeoclimate data as shown.

          • Walther11

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ac936cce65984ecf8efacc5f2026bac93e86918247962197a094c6c7078c042.jpg

            Sorry that complaint does not wash. These are form IPCC reports and scaled or not the graphic at minimum shows the medieval warm period warmer than today and it shows the hockey stick going back through the same period as the medieval warm period.

            The very first criticism of the hockey stick after it was published was that it erased the medieval warm period. Are we trying to rewrite history now?

        • jmac

          More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 Michael Mann hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

          • Will Haas

            And others have provided reconstructions that tell a much different story. At the very least it was warmer during the previous interglacial period with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels even though CO2 levels were lower than today. Man’s burning of fossil fuel was clearly not the cause.

          • jmac

            #facepalm double down on stupid

          • Michael Stone

            Hi Will.. First time I have never run across you… Good to see someone put these warmies in their place… You obviously know a lot about how the Earth’s atmosphere actually functions..
            I need a little help with that because I don’t have the expertise you have on the subject and hope you can assist me and answer a few of my questions.
            Why does the surface temperature of our moon drop from 250 degrees F to a minus -260 degrees F during it’s nighttime? I find that to be amazing. There must be a reason.
            And you brought up Mars when you wrote, > “Mars not burning fossil fuels was not the answer.”….. Not the answer to what?

          • Will Haas

            Mars must be a typographical error. It should read Man’s instead. Moon temperatures vary so much because the moon has a longer day and no atmosphere.

          • Michael Stone

            The moon’s night is just as long as it’s day….But no atmosphere,,, BINBO!!! Right, the Earths atmosphere wand greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what determine the Earth’s surface temperature.
            Get ahold of a science text book which discussed our atmosphere and study it…. If you disagree with what is written, write new science text books.

          • Will Haas

            Apparently the science text books that you are reading are wrong. What I am telling you goes back to the work of the Scottish physicist, James Clerk Maxwell in the late 19th century. It is not new. The convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals and having nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases, accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere.. There is no additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The natural lapse rate in the troposphere is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Most of what I am telling you can be found on the Internet. It is not my invention.

          • Michael Stone

            All science text books in the entire world which cover our atmosphere say the same thing; the greenhouse gases, water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O determine the Earth’s surface temperature…
            Therefore: once again, start writing your new science text books, have them published and sell them and stop arguing with me about it.

          • Will Haas

            So apparently you are claiming to have read every science text book in the entire world and hence you can read every written language in the entire world in which science books have been published. How many books and how many languages is that? So exactly how does the different greenhouse gases that you have listed determine the Earth’s surface temperature? You need to inform the IPCC of this because they really do not know. They have yet to determine a specific value for the climate sensivity of CO2.

          • Michael Stone

            No; I am telling you that the real science of how our atmosphere functions is published in every science text book in the world which have the information of how atmospheric greenhouse gases determine the surface temperature of the planet.
            I can also guarantee you that the BS you write on the issue is not printed in any science text books.

          • Will Haas

            Please answer my questions. In particular, what is the climate sensitivity of CO2. In their first report, the IPCC published a wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2 Only one value can be the correct one. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same range of possible values.
            There is probably nothing more important for them to be doing then to make a precise determination of the climate sensitivity of CO2 yet over two decades of study they have learned nothing to help them refine their estimate but you are claiming that the solution is in text books that you apparently have been reading. What is the exact climate sensitivity of CO2 and please justify your answer. Maybe the IPCC can use your answer in their next report.

          • Michael Stone

            As I understand it the IPCC is a group of people attached to the UN… They are not climate scientists as far as I know.. They take climate scientists study reports and publish them …

            Therefore; there probably are different results from different scientists from around the globe…. What I believe is of importance is atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has risen from 280ppm to 400ppm in less than 140 years…. In geological time that is fantastic and has never been done by nature,,, not even close. It’s from human activity.

            Here is my answer to your question, but you really should ask a climatologist.

            I prefer to give you the opinion of a scientist as I am not a scientist…
            Andrey Ganopolski of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is one of the pioneers of constraining climate sensitivity from paleoclimatic data….

            He coauthored the recent Nature paper “Making sense of paleoclimate sensitivity”, which concludes on the basis of many studies that the experience of past climate changes in Earth’s history implies a warming of 2.2–4.8K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.
            Did you notice the word “estimates”.

            The following is from the UK’s BBC News, with a slightly different answer to your question.

            http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15858603

            From a study November 2011.. > quote > (“The study is the latest to derive a value for “climate sensitivity” – the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations – from palaeontology… Previous studies have produced a mean value around 3C; but the new analysis concludes it is somewhat lower, around 2.3C.”). < unquote.

          • adrianvance

            Of the 2,000 people in the UN IPCC group 12 were actually scientists and six dropped out asking to have their names removed from the first draft report, but the IPCC Chairman, then an Indian railroad engineer, did not oblige them and left their names on. Several have sued and the Chairman recently resigned after being indicted for child sexual abuse crimes.

          • Michael Stone

            I already knew all of that Dufus.

          • Will Haas

            When you consider their mission, the IPCC should be a largely scientific oriented organization but they are really largely a political organization. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, CO2 has been increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere and the proximate cause has been Man’s burning of fossil fuels. But there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 is having any effect on climate.

            On of the biggest problems associated with the consideration of paleoclimate data is that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water cannot hold more CO2 then cooler water. There is no real evidence that the additional CO2 causes warming. They use models to try to isolate the effect but the models themselves assume that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. The models beg the question. Quite a few estimates of the climate sensitivity have been made and the range one can find in the literature is actually much greater that then that published by the IPCC. A recent article that I read claimed that previous estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 were too large by a factor of 22. But they really do not know what the climate sensitivity of CO2 really is. Another line of thought is that because CO2 has no effect upon the natural lapse rate in the troposphere, the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really 0.0, implying that CO2 has no affect on climate.

            If greenhouse gases really caused additional warming then the vast majority of that warming would have had to have been caused by H2O and not CO2, but such is not part of their models. The AGW conjecture claims that H2O provides a positive global warming feedback to increases in CO2 but that does not include all what happens in the climate system. The actual feedback would have to be negative for the climate to have been as stable as it has over at least the past 500 million years.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote (“But there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 is having any effect on climate.”).
            Of all of the many wrong things you wrote in that post, your saying there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 is having any effect on climate is the stupidest one.

          • Will Haas

            If you believe that there is such real evidence then please present some of it. We are talking about real evidence and not just rational.

          • Michael Stone

            Quite frankly I am fed up talking withyou. However; I will post a few items of strong evidence of what AGW has done so far. Then you cn deride all of it tosuit your delusional thoughts about the issue.

            1. When atmospheric CO2 levels rose during times in Earth’s past of high planet surface temperature they rose very, very slowly, primarily from volcanic activity..

            Since humans’ Industrial Revolution began they have risen very fast and now are rising annually at over 2.5ppm, From a level of 280ppm to 400ppm in less than 140 years. In geological time that is fantastic.

            2. Since 1950 of the 150 large glaciers which were in just Glacier National Park area, only 23 small glaciers remain and they will all be gone by 2020 at their current rate of melt… The same conditions are occurring all around the globe with most mountain glaciers.

            In the Arctic Region there are massive ice sheets that cover entire islands that range up to over 400 feet thick… They are rapidly melting away. During the past two year they have lost 80 feet of thickness each year.

            All around the globe mountain streams, major rivers , watersheds, lakes and ancient aquifers are drying up and that has had major acceleration in jus the past 20 years.

            The oceans have warmed now to the point where shell fish and the very important for life coral reefs around the globe are bleaching out and dying… That is not uncommon some years in a few locations but now it is a global disaster and every year it gets worse.

            The Arctic’s perennial ice is now very rare… in 1980 the average thickness of perennial ice at the North pole was 8 feet thick… Now it averages 3 feet thick and in an area of over 700 square miles at the North Pole it has been a foot deep lake floating on thin ice every summer season for the past two years.

            Here are a few more of many things that are proof of what is happening now.

            Rivers around the world are drying up

            http://www.bing.com/search?q=rivers+drying+up+around+the+world+&go=Submit+Query&qs=bs&form=QBLH

             

            Drought in Africa

            http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=drought+in+africa+2015&qpvt=drought+in+africa+2015&qpvt=drought+in+africa+2015&FORM=IGRE

            Drought in South america

            http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=drought+in+south+america&qpvt=drought+in+south+america+&qpvt=drought+in+south+america+&FORM=IGRE

            Drought in China

            http://www.bing.com/search?q=drought+in+china+2015&qs=AS&pq=drought+in+china+&sc=8-17&sp=1&cvid=A536EA2A727D4D558D7A626C1964430A&FORM=QBLH

            Drought in India

            http://www.bing.com/search?q=drought+in+india+2015&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=drought+in+india+2015&sc=4-21&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=4B6E55AC5FD34C1BB594FC857EDA2737

            Drought in Australia

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/31/climate-change-making-droughts-in-australia-worse-as-rain-patterns-shift

            Drought inSiberia

            http://www.bing.com/search?q=drought%20in%20siberia%20&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=drought%20in%20siberia%20&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=D2A53C90D5654EBDA2DD5552F6D73385

          • Will Haas

            1. Actaully we do not really know how rapidly CO2 has increased in that past because the time resolution associated with proxy data is not all that good. There is ample evidence that Man has caused an increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

            2. We are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period around 13 hundred years ago. Glaciers retreat during such warming periods.

            3 The previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting but CO2 levels were lower than today. For the majority of the past 500 million years there has been no ice at the poles during summer.

            4. Some of my ancestors in South Carolina who were land owners had to move west across the mountains because the streams dried up during the 18th century. Weather cycles and climate change have been going on for eons. It is Man’s out of control population that is taxing existing resources including supplies of fresh water.

            5. Yes, we are in a warming period much like the warming periods of the past.

            6. Droughts, floods, and severe storms have been taking place for eons and will continue to take place whether Man is here is not.

            You have not provided any real evidence that CO2 has any affect on climate.

          • I’ve also been wasting my time with Michael Stone and have caught him in several and repeated lies.

            He claims the Gulf Stream has changed course and is causing the Arctic ice melt.

            He admits that there is growing release of methane from formerly permafrosted areas (though other AGW lunatics claim it isn’t true) and though he won’t admit it, if he’s right then he’s figured out what is driving the SLOW increase of atmospheric CO2.

            He insists that some huge quantity of methane is about to be burped up from methane hydrates in the Arctic continental shelf, within the next 5 years, leading to a catastrophic melt of all the ice in Greenland and a sudden rise of sea levels of 20 feet – which is fine with me as it will improve the beachfront lay of my property!

            He keeps presenting blogs and lunatic fringe sites as ‘evidence’. Claims to have “hundreds” of valid science sites but presents none. And claims he has this one guy, a paleontologist in the U.K., who is the absolute authority on everything, but won’t give me a proper link to ANYTHING the guy has EVER said or written.

            IN closing, may I suggest you share this with all the climate alarmists who come your way:

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            Now it is ‘settled science’ that CO2 was higher during 1998-2012 and lower during the period from 1951-1998. So why, if CO2 is such a dominant greenhouse gas, was the warming lower when CO2 was higher, and higher when the CO2 was lower?

          • Will Haas

            Mr. Stone has already stated that he is not a scientist and hence cannot for himself evaluate scientific arguments.

            The AGW related literature warns that melting of the permafrost may cause a huge release of methane that would in turn cause out of control global warming. But during the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, temperatures were warmer than today, sea levels were higher, and more ice cap melting occurred yet the Eemian still ended with the onset of the last ice age.

            I believe that Man’s burning up of our very finite supply of fossil fuels is not a very good idea and I would like to use AGW as another reason for conserving on the use of fossil fuels but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to support. I wish that we could avoid the next ice age by simply adding more CO2 to the atmosphere but wishing does not make it so. I keep asking people to provide real evidence that CO2 affects climate but no one has been able to do that.

          • Michael Stone

            How stupid can you possible be?

            You wrote > (” But during the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, temperatures were warmer than today”).

            During an ICE AGE global temperatures were not warmer than they are today..

          • Will Haas

            The Eemian was an interglacial period and not an ice age.

          • Michael Stone

            Actually scientists consider this ice age we are still technically in to be merely the latest “glaciation” event in a much larger ice age, one that dates back over two million years and has seen multiple glaciations since that period of time.

            In an ice age there are massive ice sheets such as Greenland and on Antarctica. …. By that definition, we are in an interglacial period right now.

          • Will Haas

            Yes we are in an interglacial period right now. The previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting yet CO2 levels were lower than today.

          • Michael Stone

            Who says so? You have already stated no one knows what really happened thousands of years ago… We know what is happening now though.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote, > (” I keep asking people to provide real evidence that CO2 affects climate but no one has been able to do that.”)..

            People have given you very credible evidence, much of which is OBSERVED evidence, but you refuse to believe it. You just blow it off and reply with insults.

            What you really do need is a bulldozer, so you can pull your head out of where you have it stuffed.

          • Will Haas

            There is rational but no real evidence that CO2 affects climate. If you believe that there is such evidence then please present some of it.

          • Michael Stone

            Already have but you argue it isn’t so.

          • Michael Stone

            You replied with > (“1. Actaully we do not really know how rapidly CO2 has increased in that past because the time resolution associated with proxy data is not all that good.”)… Thousands of geologists would say you are full of crap.

          • Will Haas

            Poor time resolution is associated with proxies that provide CO2 measurements over the past 500 million years. What I am saying is well known. Some of the data is really averaged over a million years or more. The further back we go the poorer the temporal resolution.

          • Michael Stone

            You replied by saying > (“2. We are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period around 13 hundred years ago. Glaciers retreat during such warming periods.”).
            Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 during the past 140 years from a level of of 280ppm to 400ppm in less than 140 years…
            During the prior 800,000 years the atmospheric CO2 level averaged 270ppm and had never exceeded 300ppm during those 800,000 years.
            Norma recovery from the “Little Ice Age” is not what is occurring. AGW has screwed up any normal global climate and weather conditions.

          • Will Haas

            Yes, human activity has been increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere but there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate as I have already explained. Roughy 13 hundred years ago the climate was transitioning from the Dark Ages Cooling Period to the Medieval Warm Period and it had nothing whatsoever to do with CO2. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today but CO2 levels were lower.

          • Michael Stone

            Actually the global temperatures during the MWP were not warmer than they are today. They were a little higher for a brief period in parts of the Northern Hemisphere but the NW Passage never opened for ships or boats to cross through and the Glaciers did not melt away.

          • Will Haas

            It all depends on which paleoclimate reconstructions you care to believe. Glaciers retreated and it was warm enough for settlements in Greenland. They did not know about North America in those days let alone try to sail around it.

          • Michael Stone

            You replied with > (“3 The previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting but CO2 levels were lower than today.”)
            No, that would not be possible…. The planet’s surface temperature is controlled by the amount of atmospheric CO2 and other potent greenhouse gases which are the “thermostat” for the planet’s surface temperature… Why don’t you know that?

          • Will Haas

            That is what happened. All the paleoclimate data supports it. No one is denying that temperatures were higher during the Eemian and that CO2 levels were lower than today. In terms of the radiant greenhouse effect, the primary greenhouse gas is H2O which provides ample negative feedbacks to changes in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate their effect on climate. The feedback has to be negative in order for the climate to have been as stable as it has been for the past 500 million years.

            But the radiant greenhouse effect itself is in doubt. A real greenhouse is not kept warm by the heat trapping action of greenhouse gases. The temperature profile in the troposphere can be derived from first principals. The natural lapse rate in the troposphere is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties on greenhouse gases. It is the convective greenhouse effect that accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any affect on climate.

          • Michael Stone

            You say the temperatures were higher than today during the Eeman Period and CO2levels were lower..
            It is amazing that during an ice age the temperatures would have been higher. However; indeed the atmospheric CO2 level were much lower.

          • Will Haas

            The Eemian was not an ice age.

          • Michael Stone

            Yes it was.

          • Will Haas

            I just ran a search of Eemian and this is the first thing that I got:

            “The Eemian (also Sangamonian, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, Valdivia, Riss-Würm) was the interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago.”

          • Michael Stone

            Yes I know. So what? You and everyone else should be concerned about global warming now in the years 2015 and on to the future. .

          • Michael Stone

            You actually wrote > (“The feedback has to be negative in order for the climate to have been as stable as it has been for the past 500 million years.”)..
            That is one of the craziest comments yet, from anyone. The climate has not been stable for the past 500 million years..
            Good grief, what is wrong with you? __ 250 and 55 million years ago there were mass extinctions due to very serious global warming. 260million years ago almost all life on Earth was wiped out, the oxygen level plummeted to near to nothing. It took millions of years for even the most rudiment coral reefs to once again appear…. Life on Earth nearly died permanently…. The climate was NOT stable.

          • Will Haas

            The climate has been stable enough for life to evolve. We are here.

          • Michael Stone

            Not for the past 500 million years it hasn’t….

            ” A quarter of a billion years ago, long before dinosaurs or mammals evolved, the 10-foot (0.3-meter) predator Dinogorgon, whose skull is shown here, hunted floodplains in the heart of today’s South Africa. In less than a million years Dinogorgon vanished in the greatest mass extinction ever, along with about nine of every ten plant and animal species on the planet.”

            http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/permian-extinction/
            You just do not know how to admit when you are wrong or else you just refuse to do so..

          • Will Haas

            No one really knows what caused the extinction event yet life continued to evolve.

          • Michael Stone

            You replied with > (“6. Droughts, floods, and severe storms have been taking place for eons and will continue to take place whether Man is here is not.”).

            A very childish reply for an adult who has stated on this thread that he wishes to learn about AGW and is not a GW Denier.

            The current situation of rivers, lakes, aquifers, watersheds drying up all around the globe is not normal conditions..

            The articles I posted links for your educational benefit very well visually show what is now happening all around the globe.

            Only a liar or fool would argue that is normal and has always been that way…

            I won’t bother to take the time to reply to your other three denying comments.

            Your reply was as expected. It is good to see you continue showing yourself for what you are.

          • Will Haas

            Your reading something in an article does not make it true. What you are advocating is religion of AGW and I am discussing the science.

          • Michael Stone

            I don’t consider global warming to be a religion or have anything to to with politics, etc… It is because our atmospheric CO2 level rose above 310ppm.
            I posted a link for drying up rivers, lakes, aquifers and watersheds… There are literally hundreds of photographs showing what is happening to rivers , lakes, etc…
            In addition in that link are hundreds of other scientific articles about drying up lakes, rivers, watersheds, aquifers and why they are drying up because of global warming and melting mountain glaciers and severe, long lasting drought condition ALL AROUND THE GLOBE. So you have the gall to say, “just because an article says so does not mean it is true”….That of course depend upon who is cited in the article as the expert or exerts.
            So if you do not believe the rivers, lakes, watersheds, aquifers around the world are dying up; if you also do not believe mountain glaciers around the world are not disappearing at a rapid pace now,,, give me some credible evidence that they are not, or shut it off and don’t bother me again with your incredible obtuse ignorance.

          • Starfire
          • Robert

            Well said!

          • Michael Stone

            Hi Robert… Those were excellent articles I linked for this nutcase.. Occasionally one of them does tick me off. I am very pleased they are not in the same room with me.

          • Will Haas

            Droughts and floods have been taking place for eons. For example, at one time the largest lake west of the Mississippi was lake Tulare in California’s central valley. The lake is now insignificant in size because Mankind makes use of most of the water that once flowed into it. It has had nothing to do with climate. The real problem is not climate change but Man’s out of control population.

          • Michael Stone

            Give me a link for a credible article that states floods and droughts have been a global issue during the past 800,000 years prior to now.

          • Michael Stone

            You going to give me a link for an article that states floods and droughts and major rivers drying up have been a global issuer during the past 800,000 years or are you going to ignore that request and continue on with your senseless babbling?

          • And yet you fail, as always, to present ANY evidence to back up your claims. Because you have none. All you have is ad hominem, which is further proof you know you have no VALID arguments!

            But thanks for playing and do come again soon!

          • adrianvance

            The climate and the gases therein, do not have feelings and are not politically correct or incorrect. You may be in the right pew, but your are in the wrong church.

          • Will Haas

            The climate sensitivity of CO2 is defined as the change in global temperature that would be caused by a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with feelings nor what is politically correct or incorrect.

          • adrianvance

            Methane, CH4, absorbs virtually no IR and where it auto-oxidizes in sunlight, even a twilight where it is known as “Wil-O-The-Wisp,” it has no life as CH4 beyond one night and is yet another physical science scam joke.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote > (“Methane, CH4, absorbs virtually no IR and where it auto-oxidizes in sunlight, even a twilight where it is known as “Wil-O-The-Wisp,” it has no life as CH4 beyond one night and is yet another physical science scam joke.”)..
            Keep writing the insane comments, the more you post the easier it is for everyone to see how crazy you actually are.

          • adrianvance

            Gases absorbing IR energy have no similarity with greenhouse warming. That is totally dependent on the physics of the surfaces of transparent materials like glass, plastic and water that all are reflective below an incident beam at 90 degrees and transparent from 70% at 45 degrees to 100% at 90 degrees. With respect to the atmosphere “greenhouse” is a stupid analog, but code to physicists to adhere to comity, i.e. “Don’t object to my lie and I will not object to yours.” This is the greatest scam ever perpetrated by the scoundrels of physical science.

          • Will Haas

            A century ago there were scientists that felt that a greenhouse stayed warm because the glass blocked IR energy from escaping. Early in the 20th century, experiments were run using materials that were transparent to IR. It just did not matter. A greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. In other words, the glass keeps the warm air in. The thermodynamics of a greenhouse has nothing to do with gasses absorbing and radiating in the LWIR.

          • Michael Stone

            Oops,, right! Practice.. Mar’s Mar’s, Mar’s, Mar’s, Mar’s .. There I speled it rite.

            Now about what you wrote about Mars,,. would you take the time for me to answer my question about what you wrote?

            Oh; and thank you for bringin up th e typo.

          • Will Haas

            I did not write anything about Mars. The word “mars” was a typo. What exactly is your question?

          • Michael Stone

            Last month on another thread you wrote, > quote >(“But the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans”) < unquote.
            Hey, do you realize that the sun and oceans were present during the previous 5 mass extinctions of life on Earth? Those extinctions were caused by dramatic global climate changes where the planet's surface temperature was extremely high or extremely low.
            All of those 5 times the sun was shining every day and the oceans were still full of water and or ice. Now agreed ocean (*currents*) have a great deal to do with global climate conditions, but they do not act as the thermostat for the planet's surface temperature.

          • Will Haas

            It is not really known what caused mass extinctions of the past but there are many theories. For example it has been theorized that the Earth being struck by an object of some kind caused the demise of the dinosaurs but they really do not know. The recent ice age cycling has not been listed as a mass extinction causing event but the actions of Man that has nothing to do with climate, has. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

          • Michael Stone

            Geologists have wel establisehdand proven that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere brought on that least four of the mass extinctions…. The fifth was caused by a very low atmospheric CO2 level and the planet became a ball of ice.

          • Will Haas

            There exists theories but there is no proof as to what caused the extinction events.

          • Michael Stone

            You are wrong of course… Read the books written and published By DR Michael J. Benton, then quote me where any other scientists say he is wrong.

          • Will Haas

            I am right of course. There is no real proof of anything that happened so long ago. There may be rational and interpretations of data but no real proof. I do not have any of Dr. Michael J. Benton’s books in my library. Please, in your own words, present the proof about which you speak.

          • You keep making obviously ridiculous statements such as:

            “Geologists have well establisehdand and proven that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere brought on at least four of the 5 mass extinctions.”

            Surely there are links to such claims – other than to blogs, mind you. Links to actual valid (i.e. not laughed right out of the public arena) papers supporting your claims.

            I wonder – why can’t you provide any?

            But never mind that – the more important thing is that you’re now admitting that nature is actually capable of causing rapid, or huge (or both) excursions in atmospheric CO2 without human help?

          • Michael Stone

            The last ice age was not 55 million years ago…That was when the last mass extinction occurred and it was no ice age 55 million years ago. . You are doing an excellent job of displaying your ignorance.

          • Will Haas

            I did not say that it was.

          • Michael Stone

            Well yes you did….. You don’t know what you are yapping about…

            Here is what you wrote, > quote > (“The recent ice age cycling has not been listed as a mass extinction causing event

            “) < unquote.
            No one had said the recent ice ages have caused a mass extinction.. The last mass extinction was 55 million years ago. The last ice age occurred millions of years after that.

          • Will Haas

            So you are agreeing with me that the recent ice age cycling, which got its start roughly 3 million years ago when North and South Americas hooked up, did not cause a mass extinction.

          • Michael Stone

            I don’t agree with you about anything….
            I have stated the last mass extinction of life was 55 million years ago .. There have been ice ages since with no mass extinctions.

          • Will Haas

            Then you are agreeing with me that there have been no mass extinctions during the last set of ice ages.

          • Michael Stone

            IF that is what you wish to say now I agree that you are agreeing with what I wrote in replies to you and have not altered what I originally wrote. … What you originally wrote is still here for any to see. Obviously you don’t know what you wrote.

          • Michael Stone

            You are ignoring what you previously wrote about the current climate change is caused by the sun and ocean’s. Did you wish to forget you wrote that nonsense?

          • Will Haas

            No, I’m not.

          • adrianvance

            “Reconstruction” here is a synonym for fraud or “making it up” for the vocabulary challenged.

          • Will Haas

            We do not have any real, direct measurements of paleo-global climate. Estimates are made from the evaluation of proxy data. Probably one of the best proxies is ice core data but that only provides temperatures at where the ice cores were taken and for as long as the ice sheets at that location lasted. The reconstruction of global climate based on a few sets of proxy data will alway be questionable and open to dispute. The hockey stick reconstruction was generated for the sole purpose of supporting the AGW conjecture. Past warm periods were a problem for the AGW conjecture so they eliminated them even though there is a lot of evidence that these warm periods during the Holocene did happen, were global in nature, and could not possible have been caused by Man’s use of fossil fuels.

      • adrianvance

        Note “Reconstruction” there lies the rub.

        • Icarus62

          Not really 🙂 Two datasets which share the same scales and baseline, combined on one graph. Nothing wrong with that.

    • M J

      “This is all a matter of science” — and not a word you posted is science. On the contrary: as Dr. Hansen has said many times now, as has been repeated by real climate scientist even more times, we are more certain of the AGW hypothesis than we are about Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

      • Will Haas

        I present the truth and your saying it is not does not make it not so. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. The AGW conjecture is very flawed as I have explained.

        • M J

          No, you present lies and other nonsense; saying otherwise does not make it so. There is an abundance of real evidence that CO2 has a lot of effect on climate — you just choose to deny it all and present us pseudo-scientific garbage over and over.

          • Will Haas

            No, I present the truth. The cooling properties of H2O in our atmosphere is undeniable. The fact that the convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere is derived from first principals and is also undeniable. If there is some real evidence that CO2 affects climate then please go ahead and present some of it.

          • Dale Anderson

            Since all you say is directly opposed to what is published in every science text book in the world with information on how our atmosphere and greenhouse gases function, I suggest you start writing new science text books, have them published and sell them to every library, every school, college and university in the world.

          • Will Haas

            The text books you refer to apparently just assume that the AGW conjecture is correct yet evaluating it in detail, it is very much flawed. The convective greenhouse effect that I speak of is dominant in all planetary atmosphere’s on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. The AGW conjecture simply ignore’s that fact. The AGW conjecture assumes that the 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere is caused by a radiant greenhouse effect due to the LWIR properties of greenhouse gases. But the reality is that the 33 degrees C is caused by the convective greenhouse effect as derived from first principals and there is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. That is why there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warming causes more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to the warming. If CO2 actually affected climate then the increase in the last 30 years should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. This is apparently all ignored by the text books that you speak of. From descriptions of the radiant greenhouse effect one would believe that LWIR absorption band heat transfer dominates over conduction and convection in the troposphere but in reality the opposite is true. Some of these text books assume that the high temperatures at the surface of Venus is caused by a runaway radiant greenhouse effect caused by the over 96% CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus but that is not so. The surface of Venus is as hot as it is because Venus is so much closer to the sun and the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is more than 90 times what it is on earth. It has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of CO2. Many people believe the AGW conjecture just because it is published in certain text books but it is really very much flawed.

          • Michael Stone

            No; the text books don’t discuss AGW…The text books explain how atmospheric gases function and how CO2, Ch4, N2O and water vapor in the atmosphere are the thermostat for the Earth’s surface temperature…. What you say is the opposite. So I suggested you write new science text books,,,,, trying to help you out.

          • adrianvance

            The new textbooks do not include absorption spectra or explain E = (c y h)/w where “E” is energy, “c” is the speed of light, “h” is Planks constant and “w” is wavelength. The summing of the various gas spectra reveal that water vapor, with 8000 times as many molecules as CO2, is seven times the IR absorber per molecule and responsible for 99.8% of all atmospheric heating where nitrogen, oxygen and methane, CH4, capture none, but Jim Hansen and Heidi Cullen, both “expert climate scientists” claim methane, CH4, “is 500 times the greenhouse gas as CO2” and the real joke is that there are no “greenhouse” gases as one would have make a solid, transparent cover over Earth to function as a “greenhouse” and gases cannot do that.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote > quote > (“but Jim Hansen and Heidi Cullen, both “expert climate scientists” claim methane, CH4, “is 500 times the greenhouse gas as CO2”). < Unquote…
            They do? Hey Dufus; if you are going to write fiction try writing a novel instead of wasting your time writing lies about the AGW issue on internet blogs.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote > quote > (“The new textbooks do not include absorption spectra or explain E = (c x h)/w where “E” is energy, “c” is the speed of light, “h” is Planks constant and “w” is wavelength.”). < Unquote.

            Well; when are you going to correct that horrible error in the new science text books?

            If you know something as important as that and just post it on internet blogs you are not doing the human race any favors.

            Start writing, publishing and selling your new science text books and stop wasting your precious time writing your scientific secrets on internet blogs.

            Don't you realize what a horrible waste of your time that is? You should know that the only thing of real importance we have is time.

          • adrianvance

            You do not understand the publishing business. 30 years ago a guy in Oklahoma wrote an Algebra textbook that was far-and-away the best such textbook I had ever seen. He could not sell it to the major publishers as they could see that if it were published it would be the last such book ever printed and destroy their, and other, Algebra book publishing business. He tried to start his own publishing business, suffered several specious lawsuits, all of which failed against him, but each cost hundreds of thousands of Dollars to defend and he eventually died penniless. The schools that have his books are doing everything they can to keep them in service. This is much that same kind of story. Money and power are writing the book.

          • Michael Stone

            Is that so; what was his name and the name of his books? You seem to know all about it so you should know the answer to those fair questions.
            Anyway that has nothing at all to do with the current science text books which have information on how our atmosphere functions… The correct information.
            30 years ago there was a guy who invented a magnetic motor, put it in a VW and drove it for 300,000 miles and it used no fuel at all…. He tried to sell it but no one wanted it because the VW kept picking up nails, screws, bolts, anything metal laying on the road….So he made a lot of money selling used nails, screws, bolts and other bits of steel…. True story he died a millionaire and his name is Dufus Dumfuk…. You might have known him.

          • adrianvance

            I think it was Stone and it was in the 60’s. The one I had was “Algebra I” and it had a bright orange cover. Amazon may have it in the used book offering.

          • Michael Stone

            I think it was Bull Shittt.

          • adrianvance

            Why in the world would I, or anyone, tell such a story if it were not true? It would be easy for me to go to the other side, play the game, sell out and do very well, but I refuse as I am fully aware the damage this is all doing to the nation. I have two children who are now adults and struggling in this world at a point in life where I had a romp as the corrupt forces were then only cranking up. This pains me greatly and I have well committed my energies to defeating these people, but there is ever the jerk, like you, who will make such a remark.

          • Michael Stone

            Why would anyone tell such a story? Liars tell stories.

          • I, on the other hand, have discovered and reported errors that did wind up changing books everywhere they appeared, all over the world.

            Have you?

          • Michael Stone

            I have on three occasions spent up to 90 days at ETS with other team members evaluating school books and or tests.
            As a teacher of several different subjects, I too over the years have found some errors in school books, mostly in history and biology text books.

          • We all make mistakes, for many reasons.

            I tend to note climate alarmists make mistakes to a great extent due to their inability to incorporate new information that differs with their chosen world view AND their inability to publicly admit they made mistakes at all.

            Funny how they prefer to be publicly obviously wrong rather than admit they made a mistake and move on.

          • Michael Stone

            Hey nut case; just STFU….. You just proved you are not sane… Sane people don’t write the dishonest crap you do on such a serious issue that is adversely effecting all life on Earth.

          • LOL. On your source about the gulf stream:

            http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/gulf-stream-moved-north-121016.htm

            it’s core diverted as much as 125 miles north of it’s usual position, to a position off the coast of SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND, supposedly, for only a couple weeks.

            You characterized this as it having diverted into the Arctic ocean where it caused, you claimed, the Arctic ice to melt and you acted as if this diversion was permanent.

            I guess geography is not one of the subjects you teach – HOPEFULLY!

            I see now why you get so much wrong, including what you say and think I said. You have serious comprehension/cognitive problems.

          • Michael Stone

            NO, I posted those two links, there are many more…. I knew you would try to discredit any I posted…That is your job.

          • Seriously – I’m just trying to understand if you really believe what they said in that second link. Really? Do you?

          • Michael Stone

            Alarmist make mistakes… Yep… Professional GW Deniers write lies.

          • You keep referring to GW Deniers – why?

            I’ve made it quite clear I don’t deny GW.

            Over and over, in fact.

            Are you mentally ill or just under the influence?

          • Michael Stone

            You deny AGW and how it is causing dramatic global climate changes… Yeah, you admit GW is a fact but say it is natural not the cause of human activity…That is a professional GW Denier role.

          • I don’t ‘deny’ anything, I point to reality and let it to the telling for me.

            Reality is that NONE of the dramatic changes and problems that are the grist of the climate alarmists, the reality deniers, are coming to pass.

            Actually, so far, the effects of climate change (the warming aspects) have generally made things better.

            They’re in the process of breaking the California drought. Is that NOT a good thing, in your eyes? Let’s ask that Benton guy you keep going on about that practically nobody has ever heard of. What does he say?

          • Michael Stone

            Thank you.. That is a superb example of denying the established science of AGE which you deny.
            You are a GW Denier and write nonsense to prove your invalid points about the issue.

          • You’re a liar, once again I remind you that I not only agree that GW is real, I say we aren’t getting enough of it! So every time you call me a ‘GW Denier’ I’ll call you out for being a liar.

            And I’d love to hear what this established science of AGE is. Please share it with us!

            As for ‘denying it’, I guess that’s what you call my repeated sharing of the latest IPCC report:

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

          • Michael Stone

            You deny AGW is a fact…. You are a GW Denier…

          • No, I admit to GW, as I’ve told you, many times, proving what a liar you are!

            Now AGW is a fraud and a hoax – but I do agree that it is “Mann” made!

            And look, the IPCC agrees:

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

          • Michael Stone

            You are not sane, seek help.

          • Will Haas

            The text books you are reading are wrong. There is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that greenhouse gases have any affect on climate. The Earth’s greenhouse effect is a convective one and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases as I have explained. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. Even if you believe in a radiant greenhouse effect, the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere is H2O which provides ample negative feedbacks to changes in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect that these other greenhouse gases might have on climate.. What the AGW conjecture ignore’s is that H2O, besides being a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands, is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. The feedbacks have to be negative for the climate system to as stable as it has for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve because we are here.

          • Michael Stone

            Why on Earth aren’t you writing your new science text books?
            If you only get a buck a copy you will be multi millionaire.

          • Will Haas

            I am not in the business of writing new science text books.

          • Michael Stone

            Of course not; you are in the business of spreading disinformation about the most serious issue humanity has ever faced…..
            Like an assassin, you won’t stop until someone pays you more to stop spread lies than you are now being paid to do so.

          • Will Haas

            You do not know what business I am in. I am not being paid to make any of my comments. I am after the truth, Your apparent not understanding what I am talking about does not mean that I am telling lies.

          • Michael Stone

            I know you are doing the same business of all the professional global warming deniers who are hired by the fossil fuel industry to spread lies and disinformation about the AGW issue….
            If you are doing it for nothing is not my business, it is you prerogative and your business.

          • Will Haas

            I am not a professional global warming denier. I have never been hired by the fossil fuel industry. You do not know what my business is.

          • Michael Stone

            You clearly have a serious reading comprehension disability.
            I did not say you were a professional GW denier being paid to lie… I said you w
            ere doing what the professional GW deniers are doing and if you choose to do it for no pay that is your prerogative.
            You need someone to read for you and explain what it meant.

          • adrianvance

            The “fix” is in my friend. You cannot sell the truth these days.

          • Michael Stone

            You sure don’t have a lot of trouble selling conspiracy theories. Btw; I am not your friend, so don’t start that false rumor.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote > (“The text books you are reading are wrong.”).
            You do not have a clue of how text books and tests are checked and approved prior to being published, sold and used by schools, colleges and universities.
            ETS (Educational Testing Services), in Princeton, NJ have professors and scientists read the books, triple checked by separate individuals for any errors or any questionable words, sentences or paragraphs and they are then debated by a group of peers and either approved or are rejected until changed.

          • Will Haas

            So are you telling me that every nation in the world where science text books are published, even North Korea, accepts the authority of ETS in Princeton , NJ. Exactly how are the professors, scientists, and peers chosen and how many languages must each of them have to read? My usual co author has had text books published and has never endured the procedure that you are talking about.

          • Michael Stone

            Yep, that’s what I’m telling you Dufus…. Believe it or not.

          • Will Haas

            Your calling me names does not enhance your argument. I doubt that North Korea respects any form of authority coming from the USA. So apparently you read Korean. How many relevant science text books have you read in North Korea? Do they give credit to related theories to western scientists just like our related text books do? Please answer my questions.

          • Michael Stone

            I called you “Dufus” because you are being obtuse and ignorant…. Dufus is very appropriate for such a person, or Fool,,, Idiot<,, Moron,,, Jerk ,,, Jacass, etc. .
            I have no idea if the North Koreans even teach science in their schools…. Very few outsiders know what they do in North Korea.
            I said every science text book in the world which have info on how our climate functions and how greenhouse gases function all say the same thing…..
            I did not specify which countries teach climate science….
            So if the North Koreans teach it they would use the well proven science about the subject… If they don't teach it they wouldn't even have text books that do.
            Anything there you don't understand?

          • Will Haas

            Calling me even more names does not enhance your argument and doing show just emphasises the frustration on your part for not coming up with a rational argument. Your statements are about all science text books in the world yet now you are indicating that such is not true because you do not have enough knowledge to substantiate what you say. What other lies are you trying to spread?. How many related science books have you read from Ukraine? How many from Vietnam? How many related science books are used written in the various languages used in West Bengal? Are the same peers used that review the German language versions of these same books? You should know all of this.

          • Michael Stone

            Yeah Dufus, I hear your whining..Stop being a jackass andI will not call you a dufus.

          • Michael Stone

            Uh-huh… And you are telling me and everyone else that thousands of scientists and university professors from all around the world have conspired to lie about what really determines the surface temperature of the planet…
            While you and a few other professional liars such as Sparafucle, Common Sense, Thon Brocket, S. Graves, Rush Llimpbrain and Anthony Watts know the true answers for the real manner in which our atmosphere functions. .

          • adrianvance

            Our government has spent $500 billion in grant offerings through the NSF and other organizations they have bought and now run to promote this scam for the purpose of political control, new taxes and bureaus with thousands of employees who would be reliable Democrat voters. Been there, done it, got all the bruises try to sell truth.

          • Michael Stone

            Reference?

          • Will Haas

            There is science and scientists on both sides of the AGW question. How many scientists does not really matter because science is not a democracy. The only thing that matters are the scientific arguments involved. PLease answer my questions. Exactly what is the climate sensitivity of CO2 and please justify your answer in your own words. This is something that the IPCC needs to know.

          • Michael Stone

            The number of “scientists” on your side of the issue can be counted on the fingers of one hand….
            The number of scientists and college professors on my side of the issue number in the thousands… You are outnumbered.
            I will alter that to say I am on their side because I am not a scientist… I am an educator. I have chosen to side with the scientists at NASA, NOAA, CDIAC, NSIDC, ISSS, Arctic Scientists and the scientists of the 94 scientific communities from all around the globe.

          • Ah, appeal to authority and consensus (political) argument, all rolled into one.

            Here’s a clue for you: Science doesn’t care how many people get it wrong. Truth isn’t decided by votes.

            But you say you side with NASA do you? And the IPCC perhaps?

            The latest word from NASA is that Antarctica is gaining ice and snow, enough to offset losses, more than enough, such that the claim of rising sea levels from melting ice and snow is now likely false:

            http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

            And the IPCC, oddly enough, says that as more CO2 was in the atmosphere, the rate of surface warming actually DECREASED.

            See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

            … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

            SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

            Clearly the later years, as CO2 approached 400 ppm, there was a significantly lower rate of surface warming then when the CO2 was down around 270 and climbing.

            Can your so-called experts explain that?

          • Will Haas

            Scientists never registered and voted on the matter. It does not matter how many scientists or organizations are on either side of the AGW controversy because science is not a democracy. What matters are the actual scientific arguments. If consensus made things true then we would all be still believing in the Ptolemaic model of the universe.

          • adrianvance

            90% of all textbooks are written by committees of authors under one, or a few editors who totally control the situation. The only single textbook authors are Nobel prize winners, or some such. Some editors in these projects have had science training, but most have not. I worked in that business over 40 years, made many contributions, most photographic, but some text and one full book doing all text and photographs.

          • adrianvance

            “Greenhouse” is an inappropriate analogy and I have embarrassed several Ph.D. physicists into admitting it to the point to their saying, “It gets more money for science!” It will also destroy science when the truth is known as it surely will be one day.

          • Will Haas

            You are right about that. The AGW conjecture is based on the radiant “greenhouse” effect that does not really exist either in a greenhouse or in the Earth’s atmosphere, but that is what they have been teaching in the schools. The so called greenhouse gases have nothing to do with a real greenhouse and they do not trap heat according to the AGW conjecture. To many, the AGW conjecture at first seems quite plausible but upon further examination it is really full of holes. When they present consensus as a primary reason to support the AGW conjecture, you know something must be wrong. I have never before been presented with “consensus” as a reason to believe a particular scientific theory. Consensus may have meaning in politics but not in science.

          • adrianvance

            Nonsense: If they actually dealt with the issue and taught students how to read the absorption charts and do the math of the Le Chatelier Principle they would quickly understand how ridiculous this “greenhouse” BS is as Earth is not a greenhouse. This is a fraud for money and power. It is just that simple.

          • Michael Stone

            Like I keep trying to explain to you… You are insane.

          • adrianvance

            There is no “greenhouse effect” caused by gases as they cannot form a solid, much less a transparent solid. In solids and liguids molecules are in contact and surface formation is possible.

          • Will Haas

            I will explain it to you again. I will agree that there is no radiant greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse caused by the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. Experiments have shown that IR has nothing to do with it. The glass causes a convective greenhouse effect by limiting cooling by convection. The Earth too, as well as all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres, has a convective greenhouse caused by gravity. It is gravity that reduces cooling by convection and causes the lapse rate in the troposphere. The lapse rate, as derived from first principals, is a function of the pressure gradient and the heat capacity of the atmosphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of trace gases. In the troposphere, conduction and convective heat transfer dominates over LWIR absorption band radiation. Convection works to correct any deviations caused by radiation. The so called greenhouse effect, where the atmosphere causes the Earth’s surface to be on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere, is a convective greenhouse effect caused by gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. In a real greenhouse, the glass limits cooling by convection. On Earth it is gravity that limits cooling by convection. The so called radiant greenhouse effect that the AGW conjecture is based on, is really fiction, and has not been observed.

            I really like your point as to how much more powerful the IR absorption properties of H2O is compared to CO2. Actually adding either CO2 or H2O to the atmosphere has the effect of lowering the lapse rate which signifies a cooling effect.

          • Robert

            +1 !

          • adrianvance

            Sorry, but water vapor is responsible for 99.8% of all atmospheric heating, not cooling.

          • Will Haas

            H2O moves heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling properties. Actually it is the sun that is the primary driver in atmospheric heating.

          • adrianvance

            Sorry, there is no such “abundance of real evidence” and it is easily shown with simple equipment.

          • Michael Stone

            You wrote, > quote > (“Sorry, there is no such “abundance of real evidence” ). < unquote.
            When you write something that is as stupid as that, how do you expect anyone, even idiots to take what you write seriously?

          • adrianvance

            Only because I can prove what I say.

          • Michael Stone

            Ha haaa haaa haaaaa haaaaa haaaaaaa haaa haaa ,whoop… Haa haa haaa haaa haaaaaa.

      • adrianvance

        Everything is true.

      • adrianvance

        You people have an amazing capacity for creating really bad and stupid analogies.

        • M J

          NO, are analogies are sound. It is you who produce both bad reasoning and bad analogies.