The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIsrael Shamir Archive
Talking About the Weather
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It is cold in the Midwest, so cold that Rachel Maddow already ascribed it to evil Putin (“Russia will freeze you and your family to death.”) It is extremely cold in England, too. I’d think this frost spell should put paid to the silly notion of Global Warming. But no, the adepts of Al Gore sect are not so easily dissuaded. Like the Flat Earth Society, they are impervious to arguments. These enlightened people keep struggling against global warming.

They decided to overturn Mark Twain’s adage Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it – and do something. There is a new popular hero, a pleasantly old-fashioned-looking 16-year old Swedish girl with braids, Greta Thunberg, who had sat down in a snowdrift and said she wouldn’t budge until somebody would do something against global warming. She has led a school kids demo for the same purpose, and the European MSM is rapturous.

This is the kind of demo they like; not the evil Jew-haters like the GJ, the Yellow Vests, not the workers asking for wages, not white nationalists calling for a stop to immigration, not the peaceniks objecting to highly justifiable and profitable war in Afghanistan and Syria, not the anarchists foaming at the mouth against innocent bankers, but a good bright friendly march of diverse people with open friendly faces and welcoming smiles.

There is no harm in protesting the weather. The obscure power behind the MSM, the Masters of Discourse love such cases. Greta became an instant saviour – she has been sent to Davos to give a speech to the owners of Planet Earth. She was called “almost a Messiah”, and the Swedish Church twitted that Jesus had appointed Greta Thunberg as His successor. (Not bloody likely! If He would pick such harmless causes, He won’t be crucified!). The poor girl (previously diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and selective mutism) had been promoted, like… like Stephen of Cloyes, the 12-year-old French shepherd who had led thousands of French and German children on the Childrens Crusade to liberate the Holy Land – and all the kids ended in the slave markets of the East, delivered by the adults who promoted the Crusade.

She organised a school strike. Some teachers objected and said that the kids can march outside of school hours, but the media was indignant: they will learn much more marching against global warming than studying useless math. Computers can do math better than people, while humans should learn to march after the Piper.

“The [kids] should be proud of the non-excused absences from classes on their school reports. … They learn more about civic engagement during a day of demonstrating – mobilising schoolmates, making banners, organising climate-neutral travel and debates (perhaps even with teachers and parents) – than in many a class on politics” – pontificated German Die Zeit.

Whoever does not agree with Greta, should be punished by the hate laws, says the Austrian Der Standard: “The right-wing populists don’t care about climate change, because the answers are complicated and demand a sacrifice from everyone. That doesn’t fit in with the populists’ election arithmetic scheme. It’s much easier to simply brand people as foreign. Or as different, as they do with Greta Thunberg.” Indeed, there is no more tolerance, no place for dissent in mass media today, than it was in 1930s. The agenda had changed, but you have to follow the agenda all the same.

The girl is not completely wrong, mind you. Conservation of nature is a very important thing, and we can do a lot for it. We can construct repairable and durable gadgets, instead of using disposables; we can wear wearable and mendable clothes, instead of throwing them away as they go out of fashion; we can naturally the decrease the population of our countries, instead of importing North Africans and Syrians. But all these initiatives will be bad for sales. Greta objects to meat, so she could demand that Swedish shops stock and sell fish, wild fish caught in the sea, not the farmed variety. Wild fish is better, healthier, saves a lot of energy, but you need qualified fishmongers to sell it, you can’t hire an illiterate immigrant, equip him with a scanner and pay him pennies. So fish became rarity in Sweden. But sitting in the snowdrift or marching instead of studying is hardly a remedy.

Our betters love conservationist causes; they use it to lever extra taxes and hike the cost of living. The GJ rising was triggered by Macron government’s introduction of a new eco-tax on diesel. In Sweden (and in North Europe in general), energy is necessary for survival, but the rulers keep raising energy costs by switching to “green energy”, meaning generated without oil or coal. As a result, tens of thousands Europeans die of cold every winter, and it is not a figure of speech. So they conserve oil and kill people. This is very expected for Greens.

Expensive Green Energy has an additional advantage: it is not bought from Russia, the great enemy of the Masters. Russian gas and oil are cheaper and easier to deliver, but who cares about the price? Consumers, you’d mutter? Who cares about consumers? Not the organisers of the new crusade. They offer two expensive options: American LNG or Green Energy. The Europeans will pay, stimulated by the little Swedish girl. Really neat!

In England, they plan to build a new railway line HS2 using wind farms and other unconventional sources of energy. The problem is price tag, $77 billion to start with, but probably much more. All that will be paid by taxpayers and passengers – while the UK has already very expensive rail. In order to avoid coal (and keep miners from ever earning their bread) – and oil (possibly allowing Russia to sell some) they are ready to throw more and more money.

ORDER IT NOW

But what about Global Warming? This phenomenon exists, but it has little to do with humans. We should be modest, as we have every reason to be: humans are still unable to influence climate to a great extent. One volcano produces more output than all mankind in century. Climate changes, true, but those changes, cyclical or not, are induced by factors of different order: by sun activity, first of all, and the sun is not susceptible to school strikes. We may fart all we can, and still it will have a very little influence on climate.

Even more modestly I’ll admit: we can’t prove the thesis this way or other way. We still haven’t got a working mathematical model of the earth’s climate. We are very, very far from being able to predict weather on a large scale. You would never know that if you read MSM. They all know. And any scientist that openly argues for agnosticism will suffer the lot of Dr James Watson of DNA fame.

I have no idea whether Watson is right or wrong, but I presume a mature scientist of such a calibre is entitled to hold and express his opinion. Ditto Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winners are entitled to hold and express their opinion about AIDS without being marginalised and hunted.

The Masters of Discourse want to have just one opinion; it is their way or highway. This is what upsets me. My logic, and my conversations with scientists convinced me that we do not know with any degree of certainty whether humanity is able to influence planetary climate, but I wouldn’t ban a scientist who thinks differently. I just ask not to ban any scientist, but that is probably too much.

In 17th century, the advanced scientists believed that the Moon was populated. Johannes Hevelius, an astronomer and a Mayor of a German Baltic city of Danzig (now repopulated by Poles and re-Polonised into Gdansk) gave the Moon-dwellers a name: Selenites. A scientist who doubted (or worse, denied) existence of Selenites would be rejected by his peers as a retrograde exceptionalist, i.e. a believer in exceptionality of Man and Earth (when every scientist worthy of this name knows that Moon, Sun and stars are populated as much as Earth!..)

But belief in Selenites does not call upon our communities to invest in special tools to save them, move them to Earth or build a ladder to the Moon. The belief in man-made climate change is a very costly belief, and it is good that President Trump took his country out of Masters-promoted setup. The wild campaign of promotion for the Swedish girl Greta indicates that the Masters haven’t given up on their plan to impose an undemocratic World government on us, under their control. What else could make us voluntarily freeze in our homes? Like the Fat Boy in Pickwick, they want to make our flesh creep. Scaremongering is the oldest device of population control, and it is the preferred one for the MSM.

They scare us all the time, to get larger budgets and to command more obedience. They scare the Brits that they will “starve among putrefying piles of rubbish after Brexit” according to The Guardian. They scare the Swedes by the mythic Russian submarines. But actually they, the Masters of Discourse and their MSM are the biggest danger for mankind. If we shall succeed in undermining their flagging credibility, we shall save us and our children with more certainty than by sitting in a snowdrift with Greta.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

 
Hide 219 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rational says:

    I LOVE CO2. WE ARE ALL CARBON.

    Thanks, Sir. The whole global warming being caused by CO2 is a hoax.

    CO2 is less than 1% in the atmosphere. How a tiny fraction of 1% change can cause the whole earth to become hot? It cannot.

    What these idiots do not realize is that we are all carbon. We are made from organic molecules (except for water) and organic chemicals are made from carbon.

    The plants and all the food we eat is made out of carbon.

    These idiots do not know the carbon cycle we all learnt in school. Oh, I forgot, there is no more science required on SAT in US, so all these retards are fooled by the conmen.

    They pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow faster. More CO2 = more plant growth = more food = less famines, cheaper food = more shade = more cooling = more moisture in soil.

    That is why I love CO2.

    • Agree: Agent76
  2. I like how he says he doesn’t know. Would that everybody would. On both sides. On all sides.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Blubb
  3. Logic from my blog:

    May 7, 2017 – California Leaders Deny Climate Change

    Climate change (aka Global Warming) is a complex subject. The Earth is becoming warmer, but our climate has always been changing, becoming warmer at times and then colder. Pollution causes warming, but the impact is debatable.

    Denying this threat has become a sin to many Americans. Anyone who expresses doubts is branded a greedy idiot who refuses to accept science. There are many cities, counties, and states whose leaders express great concern about climate change, but they refuse to do anything! They should ban construction in areas that might be flooded and build levees and dams to prepare. Yet none have undertaken any serious preparations.

    For example, California leaders are quick to denounce anyone who doubts the impact of climate change, but are doing nothing to prepare! Their climate change models show that the San Francisco and Oakland airports will be underwater in a few years, and some of downtown San Francisco will be flooded. Scientists tell them this, yet California leaders ignore them, so they are really climate change deniers.

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/The-Bay-Area-must-act-together-against-sea-level-9961153.php

    • Agree: Tom Welsh
  4. pensword says:

    A scientist who doubted (or worse, denied) existence of Selenites would be rejected by his peers as a retrograde exceptionalist

    Not to mention an “anti-Selenite.”

  5. The conventional view is not always wrong.

    The world really is round. Global warming really is happening.

    • Agree: TKK
    • Disagree: DESERT FOX
  6. Wally says:

    ” Scaremongering is the oldest device of population control, and it is the preferred one for the MSM.”

    Only if the population being controlled is euro-white & gentile.

  7. Wally says:
    @Rational

    But notice the lying game played by the neo-Marxists:

    They call it “a carbon tax”, or “carbon footprint”, or “carbon” this & “carbon” that.

    Carbon, C, is a solid.

    Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a gas that life enriching & critically necessary plants love, a gas which we humans exhale.

    Communists lying is their MO, always has been, always will be.

  8. Wild fish is better, healthier, saves a lot of energy.

    That’s watermelon nonsense. It’s like saying we should stop eating farm meat and hunt wild game instead.

    Besides, I doubt many people have actually tasted wild salmon. What’s called ‘wild salmon’ in supermarkets, is a genetically engineered species of farm salmon, cleverly named ‘wild salmon’ (or something to that effect) by the producers.

    I used to fish salmon. A four kilo specimen in prime condition netted us about seventy dollar on the pier. Double that for retail prices, and ask yourself when you last put down $140 for a fish. Every salmon we caught was sold to upscale restaurants. I’ve never seen an actual wild salmon sold in a supermarket.

  9. Good article. Let’s hope that both Mr. Shamir and Mr. Unz continue to cast a skeptical eye on ‘global warming’ (OOPS!–make that ‘climate change’) since climate science is definitely ‘not settled’ as claimed.

    The complex, chaotic, and unpredictable forces which drive climate remain a great–perhaps unfathomable–mystery.

    Indeed, we are presently in basking in an unusually mild epoch (by recent geological standards) and are probably headed towards far colder weather. Fortunately, it may be another thousand years or more before we return to the ‘normal’ semi-frigid conditions normally seen on earth over the past one million years.

    After all, the last glacial period ended only some 13,000 years ago. Before then, the Great Lakes region for instance was buried under a mile or more of ice. Then it got warmer. And then colder–(for about 1200 years.) The sudden, inexplicable, millennium-long cold snap is known as the ‘Younger Dryas’ event. A massive extinction of megafauna (Wooly Mammoth, Saber Tooth tiger, Giant sloth, etc) occurred around this time.

    It’s worth noting that humankind began to flourish with the rise of warm (‘interglacial’) weather. Even today, far more people worldwide are killed by cold-related weather conditions than heat-related ones. Warmth is good for humankind.

    In any event, the hospitable ‘interglacial period’ we are now enjoying typically lasts only around 15,000 years (give or take a few centuries). The longer glacial periods however traditionally last some 80,000 to 110,000 years. So by recent standards (the last million years) we humans are enjoying a lovely, warm but brief ‘interglacial’ beach vacation.

    Why the earth has dramatically cooled and then warmed up some ten times over the past one million years remains a mystery. But CO2 levels are definitely not the direct and sole cause, as often claimed.

    Other factors driving climate include: variations in the solar wind (energy from the sun), changes in earth’s tilt and variations in it orbit (see: Milankovich cycles), major volcanic events and earth’s periodic collisions with large asteroids, jet stream variations, El Nino, La Nina, additional variations in oceanic currents, and fluctuations in levels of atmospheric water vapor as well as other fluctuating greenhouse gasses. The factors are numerous and they also interact with one another in unexpected ways.

    It’s also worth remembering that ‘global cooling’ was a big news story back in the seventies. Yet its been forgotten entirely, even though global average temperatures dropped steadily between 1945 and 1975 (while CO2 levels were rising.)

    Curious, no?

    Climate science still has a long way to go. We must resist its politicization.

  10. Ron,
    Your policy of giving air to controversial views is commendable.

    But… This would have to be the single worst article (or equal worst)
    I think I have seen since following your web page.

    Mr Shamir,
    Writers are a bit like the service industry in as much as your credibility is your ONLY real asset.

    You have just flushed yours down the toilet… That’s a bit of a pity because I did have a degree of respect for you for your previous efforts. Really, you should stick to things you know something about.

    I could point out all the errors here if I thought you would actually retract the falsehoods you are peddling… but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Agree: foolisholdman
    • LOL: Stan d Mute
    • Troll: Tusk
  11. Old Smokey says: • Website
    @Rational

    Text book Chewbacca defense…

    Bravo!

  12. @obwandiyag

    I don’t know either — but I suspect human related climate change exists to some degree. (Exxon studied it until the late 70’s. Once they were sure that human activity did affect climate they shut the research down).
    I agree with Mr Shamir with most of his article. However, he does tend to exaggerate western governments’ (our betters or Masters) commitment to green causes. Sure, “green” is good for excusing tax hikes etc. But our Betters still love old energies: Nordsteam II, the continuing multi-billions spent on subsidies, tax relief etc etc for “old energy” (yes, they also help “new energies”.
    Incidentally, I wouldn’t worry about “climate change” too much. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that climate problems are re worse than predicted, that problematic warming is already “baked in” – when & how much is not known. Anyway, Mr Shamir is right: it really doesn’t matter a damn what humans do now. At best we can fiddle around the edges…

  13. “… and the Swedish Church twitted that Jesus had appointed Greta Thunberg as His successor.”

    I have to ask: Did they Tweet, or did they Titter?

    “Wild fish is better, healthier, saves a lot of energy, but you need qualified fishmongers to sell it, you can’t hire an illiterate immigrant, equip him with a scanner and pay him pennies. So fish became rarity in Sweden.”

    This is seriously good insight into what ails capitalism in the Western World, in which a rapacious few pat themselves on the back for creating what they deem to be good jobs for the needy poor of the world while they degrade the standards of living and health of the poor wretches they might, at least in a gentler time, have considered their fellow citizens, or, more cynically, at least whom they considered the local peasantry to whom they owed some duty of noblesse oblige, if only for the well being of the social ecosystem in which they lived. Now degrading your home while strip-mining the third-world of its talent and future hope is a consideted a virtue worthy of deification by Becky Quick.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  14. We still haven’t got a working mathematical model of the earth’s climate.

    I wouldn’t expect an extremely accurate model, such a model would be more complicated than we can currently manage. The models are simplified and consequently any conclusions drawn from them must be correspondingly cautious. Which is not the same thing as saying they are completely useless: they are useful but not gospel.

    However, calculating the greenhouse effect from a physics viewpoint is not difficult. For example, AP Smith 2008, “Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”:

    A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.

    So Earth average surface temperature is 33 degrees C higher than it would be if it did not have an infrared absorbing atmosphere (1K = 1C) and, from the text of the paper, Venus average surface temperature is 505C higher . Carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases absorb in the infrared. Logically, and empirically when you consider Venus, more greenhouse gases means higher average surface temperature.

    Prior to the Industrial Revolution (mid- to late-1700s), CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, now it is a little over 400. CO2 is a product of the combustion of oil and also combustion of coal. Combustion of oil and coal since then swamps combustion prior. Logically, mankind is partly responsible for the increase from 280 to 400 parts per million and consequently partly responsible for the increase in average surface temperature that we have seen in the past couple of centuries. The first century or so is not reliably measurable but the past few decades is clear – for the sake of argument let’s call it 1 degree C over the past few decades. Mankind is partly responsible for that 1 degree.

    (For brevity, I have made omissions but the argument stands.)

  15. Heros says:

    The Rothchilds, whose puppet Macron is the global warming jester, have been trading extensively in climate derivatives. They control the Weather Channel and Weather Central. One of their bankers is on the board of PG&E. There are HAARP stations across the planet, the one in Norway being magnitudes more powerful than the one in Fairbanks. The US has microwave stations across the planet and who knows how many satellites circling above. There is even a special US navy HAARP ship.

    On youtube there are endless clips showing US aircraft spraying chemicals. There are endless clips showing US aircraft, and naval ships, with various types of directed energy weapons. There are endless clips of companies selling drought ending cloud seeding and other technologies. There are clips of an Australian company bragging about ending the drought in Australia in 2015 using atmospheric spraying.

    “Climate Change” is absolute bullshit, weather warfare is real, and its getting very nasty.

    A couple of weeks ago, <a style=

  16. Blubb says:
    @obwandiyag

    Yeah, but no one knows anything. Yet, we have to act, without any certainty.

    I certainly don’t know, either, but I don’t believe. It seems way too esoteric to be real.

  17. We know very well that global warming is caused by emissions of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The science that explains this is more than 100 years old. There are models that predict the climate of our planet very well. Our governments have been doing very little about that.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    , @anarchyst
    , @Kermit
  18. Even if putting CO2 into the atmosphere had no effect on global climate (which it undoubtedly does) its effect on the acidity of the oceans would be reason enough for drastic action to reduce the amount we produce.

    • Replies: @feral_nerd
  19. Tom Welsh says:

    “Whoever does not agree with Greta, should be punished by the hate laws, says the Austrian Der Standard…”

    Just as, 80 years ago, its predecessors said that whoever did not agree with Hitler should be punished.

    This sums up, in a nutshell, why I am in favour of Brexit. People who can publish such views will not be ready for freedom, democracy, or liberalism for a few more centuries. They simply have no comprehension of the idea that everyone should be free to express their opinions, or that truth may advance through courteous, open debate.

  20. Tom Welsh says:
    @Uncommonground

    Uncommonground, your statement is a little too sweeping. With the following slight modifications it becomes quite acceptable:

    “We know very well that global temperatures tend to be increased by emissions of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels”.

    This avoids the fallacy of begging the question by removing the mention of “global warming” as if that were accepted science – which it is not.

    No one reasonable would doubt that burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases. However, how much that contributes to increasing the Earth’s temperatures (plural, please note, as such a complex system can never have one single temperature) is still not understood.

    If, as many reputable scientists have warned for the past 60 years, the Earth is about to enter a mini Ice Age – possibly because of a tiny reduction in the Sun’s radiation – the incremental greenhouse effect caused by burning fossil fuels might be one factor helping to mitigate the ferocious cold that our children and grandchildren will encounter.

    More research – honest, disinterested research, that is – must obviously be done before we know whether the Earth is tending to get warmer or colder (to the extent that such an assertion is even meaningful).

  21. anarchyst says:
    @Uncommonground

    Far from being “fossil fuel”, hydrocarbons are not only plentiful but are being renewed by yet-unknown processes deep within the earth.
    The term “fossil fuel” was coined in the 1950s when little was known about the processes by which oil is produced. Oil is “abiotic” in nature, as even depleted oil wells are “filling back up” from deep below the earth’s surface.
    Oil interests are drilling wells at 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 15,000 feet and coming up with oil deposits way below the layers where “fossils” were known to exist.
    “Peak oil” is a discredited concept that environmentalists and others are latching on to, in order to display their hatred of oil being a renewable resource as well as to push prices up.
    Follow the money.

  22. Tom Welsh says:
    @Colin Wright

    The world really is “roundish” (an oblate spheroid, so not perfectly round).

    Global warming may or may not be happening – measurements so far are simply not accurate, reliable, or lengthy enough to be sure.

    Apart from anything else, the phrase “global warming” strongly suggests that the whole world is getting steadily warmer. But it isn’t.

    There seems to have been a great deal of fraud in many of the results triumphantly published and claimed to be “the scientific consensus”.

    Twenty years ago (and still today in some especially benighted quarters) it was authoritatively stated that cholesterol, saturated fat and red meat were deadly, and that everyone should stop consuming them and eat more “healthy whole grains”. That advice coincided with the obesity epidemic that has swept the entire Western world. Today, enlightened doctors and scientists are acknowledging that red meat and eggs, foods that our ancestors relied on for over a million years, cannot possibly be harmful – whereas grains and sugar, first cultivated 10,000 years ago, are far more likely to be the culprits.

    If establishment advice on what human beings should eat could reverse itself between the 1940s and the 1970s, and has now reversed itself again, why should we believe that the “global warming” panic is based on sound science?

  23. What about going back to school and studying well ? Immature uneducated minds cannot produce anything of value and with indicrination received all they can do is things for show. Regarding climate change. I think it is real but do not believe we can do anything about it especially under capitalism which derives profits only from constant expansion, waste of resources, privatization of gains and internationalization of losses and waste. Under this system no objective research into climate change causes and remedies is possible. It is just another vehicle to make money.

    • Replies: @yurivku
  24. Tom Welsh says:
    @Felix Krull

    “That’s watermelon nonsense. It’s like saying we should stop eating farm meat and hunt wild game instead”.

    I strongly disagree with every part of your assertion – although, if you live in America, some of it may have merit.

    As for “farm meat”, much depends on what kind of farm and what kind of meat. I enjoy beef, mutton, pork and poultry raised organically on traditional farms – on their natural pasture and foods, out of doors unless forced to take shelter by cold.

    However, meat from the modern factory farm is to be avoided. Animals are born and raised, and spend their whole lives, indoors without natural light, fresh air or exercise. Underfoot they have muck and mud, they are fed horrible synthetic mixtures of vile unnatural foods, and their growth is forced to increase profits. Then, to mitigate the resulting epidemic diseases, they are heavily dosed with antibiotics and other chemicals.

    Venison from farmed deer is admirable, as the deer must be allowed to live outdoors on considerable expanses of grass and natural woodland.

    As for salmon, I enjoy and value it, but never touch farmed fish. They are disease-ridden and flabby. Even here in England wild salmon is widely available in shops, at a reasonable premium.

    • Agree: bike-anarkist
    • Replies: @Felix Krull
    , @Biff
  25. Tom Welsh says:
    @mark green

    Thanks, mark, for your admirably balanced and informative comment.

  26. Tom Welsh says:
    @Old Smokey

    Old Smokey – your condemnation of Mr Shamir’s excellent article might have some credibility had you given even a scintilla of evidence to support your views.

    As you didn’t, I can only conclude that you don’t have any.

    Mark Green’s comment sums up the state of scientific knowledge accurately.

  27. Tom Welsh says:
    @The Alarmist

    “I have to ask: Did they Tweet, or did they Titter?”

    Personally, I think “twit” is a marvellous coinage, and I intend to adopt it myself.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  28. Tom Welsh says:
    @Amber Dekstris

    Models can be extremely useful, but should be handled with the greatest of care. As John Maynard Keynes remarked, “To convert a model into a quantitative formula is to destroy its usefulness as an instrument of thought”. (An observation that destroys most of what now passes for economics, as well as “global warming” theory).

    Freeman Dyson, another of the cleverest and most creative people who ever lived, made some trenchant points about climate models specifically:

    “Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now”.

    – Freeman Dyson, interview with Yale Environment 360 (4/6/2009) http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

  29. mike k says:

    Human caused climate change deniers ae like anti-evolutionists, or racists – they are immune to scientific knowledge. To discuss with them is a waste of time.

    • Agree: foolisholdman
  30. j2 says:

    I like Israel Shamir’s articles, but do not fully agree with this. The earth moves in a space and space is rather empty, so weather changes on the earth are either caused by changes in the space, which means changes in the radiation of the sun or comet/meteor impacts, or changes in the earth (including what humans do).

    There has not been any comet, changes in the sun’s radiation are described by three parameters: obliquity, eccentricity and climatic precession. Of them climatic precession (eccentricity times precession) has a rather good correlation with the global climate as measured from ice cores. Obliquity is decreasing, eccentricity is decreasing and small, and because eccentricity is small, climatic prececession (though slightly increasing) has a small effect. Thus, it is not an effect from the space.

    What can be seen from ice cores is that the earth warms up very fast and cools slowly. Usually there always was a trigger from higher insolation to start the warming, now there is no such trigger. Therefore the reason for warming is on the earth and the almost certain reason is human addition of CO2. Why weather warms so fast and why there are colder winters in the Northern hemisphere is most probably caused by the Bond cycles: when ice on glaciers melts, cold melt water is sweet, so Northern seas contain less salt. This means that they stay on surface and do not sink to deep ocean, which means that the warm sea water from the Gulf steam (and other similar streams) does not come to replace the cold water which is supposed to sink down. The Gulf stream gets weaker and as a consequence the earth warms faster as heat from the sun is not moved to the deep ocean. It also means that less CO2 is moved to the deep ocean. But on higher latitudes in the winter it gets cooler as the warm sea stream is not warming as much. So we see this and think there is no global warming, but it is.

    The models do not correctly describe the global weather on a long time spell, but it is just because there are several earth-related feedback systems, like volcanoes become more active if ice melts and the pressure on the core changes, sea streams move and change in poorly known cycles, winds change, glaciers can melt in a different way than thought and so on. But it does not mean that the big picture is not more or less understood. And in a short time the models may be quite good.

    I do not so much mind warming. It is good if the North gets a bit warmer, it was too cold all my childhood. Global warming causes storms, aridity, too hot summers, too snowy and cold winters and so on, but some latitudes have had it very fine for quite long and nothing lasts forever. Glaciers will not melt in a shorter time than 500 years, and there will not be ice age before 500 years, and if humans manage to stop burning fossils before 2100 the earth will recover to the same equilibrium where it was when the water from glaciers mixes with salt water, absorbs the CO2 humans produced and sinks it into the deep sea. It is not likely there will be any special catastrophe and there is still time to cut down CO2 releases. Looks like the issue has been turned to a sensation, which it need not be.

  31. @mark green

    Great essay by Mr. Shamir, as usual. Mark, the one factor you didn’t mention is the geo-engineering (a/k/a “chemtrail” spraying) that has obviously been going on for some time now. Dane Wigington of geoengineeringwatch.org was interviewed by Kevin Barrett recently and it was really eye-opening. I don’t see how the whole question of “climate change” can be discussed intelligently without consideration of the spraying. Also, see the work of Clifford Carnicom (carnicominstitute.org).

  32. utu says:
    @Felix Krull

    No true. Pacific sockeye salmon is available in stores and is wild.

    Alaska has no fish farms, period: Fish farming is banned in Alaska, so all salmon labeled “Alaskan” (legitimately) are wild. Note that while “Alaskan” is synonymous with wild, it does not necessarily translate into high quality. Alaska is a huge place with hundreds of pristine rivers that annually produce millions of wild salmon. While most are fine physical specimens when they leave the water, there are specie-specific characteristics and other factors that dramatically influence the quality of the fish that arrives at market.

    And your $140 per 4kg is $15.89 per lb which is about right in the Whole Foods.

  33. utu says:

    Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”

  34. @Amber Dekstris

    Venus is closer to Sun. It must be taken into consideration and there is heavier hot house gases there are involved.

  35. Many years ago there were doctors who knew already that sugar was unhealthy. The sugar industry hit back with their lobbysts. Documents which show this are available. They were discovered by Cristin Kearns.

    Now the oil and car industry tried also to discredity scientists working on climate change. It didn’t work so well. The science is quite old (take a look at the names John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius), the measurements are quite precise, global warming is happening clearly every where. There is absolutely no doubt. Why don’t you take the trouble of reading at least one good author?

  36. Mike P says:
    @mark green

    Agree with your comment overall. Just one nitpick:

    Climate science still has a long way to go. We must resist its politicization.

    That horse has left the barn – “climate science” is deeply corrupted; most of the recent bloated growth of that field has been driven by the globalists and their money. Dissenters are marginalised and driven out; journal editors who sin by letting through sceptical papers are fired etc. The globalists have fashioned themselves a veritable academic church of global warming for the purpose of bamboozling the people. In the process, of course, they have helped to undermine the whole scientific enterprise. Trust in science and scientists is trending in the same direction as is trust in the MSM, and for the same reason.

    • Agree: utu
  37. @Tom Welsh

    Given that the Swedish clergy has embraced ordaining if women, I wouldn’t so quickly dismiss Titter.

  38. The thing about always insipid liberals is up close they are meek, mild, dissipated, washed out. Can hardly be troubled to do much of anything, lacking ambition. But they can rant! Bitch! Blame, and complain, denounce and find fault. Really good at mouth moving stuff.

    They’re so nice. They are in favour of random bombing of wedding parties, imposing more, more austerity on the grubby poor, like lots of militarized cops about, tons of debt, higher stock markets, lots of tech toys, fight the evil Russkies. From their upper floor condos, gated communities, southern beach houses.

    Time’s up!

  39. Mike P says:
    @Amber Dekstris

    Most people who study the issue come to the conclusion that you have outlined – man does increase CO2, and CO2 does retain some IR radiation that otherwise would go to space, and thus warm the atmosphere.

    The real disagreements start downstream from that initial effect. If the atmosphere warms, that will in turn evaporate more water, and water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas. Does that mean there will be a positive feedback? Or, will the sky get more cloudy, reflecting more incoming radiation, thus creating a negative feedback? Etc. Note that the warmists, in order to arrive at their scary predictions, stick firmly with the positive feedback option. Empirical data indicate that they are wrong, that “climate sensitivity” – the rise in temperature for each step increase in CO2 concentration – is low, and therefore feedback is negative.

    • Agree: another fred
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  40. utu says:
    @Amber Dekstris

    let’s call it 1 degree C over the past few decades

    It is about only 0.1-0.15 °C per decade according to satellite true global temperature measurement during the “hockey stick” period.

    • Agree: Mike P
  41. Mike P says:
    @j2

    It is good if the North gets a bit warmer, it was too cold all my childhood. Global warming causes storms, aridity,

    As you seem to be aware, the warming affects the circumpolar regions more than the tropical ones. That flattens the temperature gradients which drive the storms. Storms are worst at the depth of the ice age.

    Aridity: The Sahel – the strip of land to the South of the Sahara – was drying up in the 1970s, when it was cooling, and has been greening during the more recent rise in temperatures. That is helped by higher CO2 levels – plants that have more CO2 need less water, and vice versa.

    Some more CO2 is good for plant life, and more plant life is good for humans. Life on this planet was lushest when CO2 was way higher than it is today. With respect to CO2, the “green” agenda is completely misguided; it has been hijacked and perverted by the same serial liars that brought us 9/11, the holohoax, and many other lies.

  42. @j2

    Given that the earth has been pumping out billion of metric tons of a host of gasses since its birth and continues to do so to this day via the miles of undersea and open fissures, volcanoes, etc. I find it a very tough climb that that suddenly the advent of the industrial revolution to this day has tipped the scale.

    It’s a good idea to care for the environment, but beyond local consequence, human contribution to climate — it’s a very tough sell.

    Trade winds, earth’s rotation, amount of atmosphere loss and regeneration . . .

    That is a very active and complex model with far too many unknowns to make predictions or engage in anything that is definitively factual about the advance.

    —————————————

    In my day it was the ozone layer and nuclear war ——–

    “Amazing Grace and Chuck” I like that film.

    I wonder if

    “Amazing Gore and Greta” will be as intriguing. It’s hard to have a beef with environmentally aware youth, but reality s helpful. Amazing Grace and Chuck had more roots in reality.

    • Replies: @j2
  43. yurivku says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    I think it is real but do not believe we can do anything about it especially under capitalism which derives profits only from constant expansion, waste of resources, privatization of gains and internationalization of losses and waste.

    Well, I agree that GW is a fact, but how much it’s a result of human activity and how much other global factors determine the situation – it’s not clear.
    Anyhow, it’s partly a result of human activities for at least last couple of centures and it’s not possible to change something quckly. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do something.

    But as I understood Mr. Shamir’s goal – it’s not to state that GW is a hoax, but to show a just another stupid side of contemporary western society with its diversity, tolerance etc. They do everything to destroy themselves lying to their people on major topics and exagerating any even stupid ones.
    Let them sit in snow…

  44. It is well below zero here in Montana, -8 where I live and has been this way for about a week with more ahead, but here in Montana we have fossils of dinosaurs and fish and other sea life that indicates that at one time millions of years ago Montana was under the ocean and at another time was in a tropical climate and at one time was under glaciers as some glaciers still exist in Glacier National Park, in other words climate change is natural and changed dramatically when no humans were on earth.

    The deep state is spraying Montana with chemtrails containing nano particles of aluminum and barium and strontium to make the atmosphere conductive of micro waves for HAARP in an effort to guide storm fronts and tornados and hurricanes and on the other hand to start fires using DEWs ie direct energy weapons as were used in starting the California fires, and this has been going on for over 30 years by my own observation here in Montana, watching the planes spray the skies of Montana with the white chemtrails day in a day out.

    In regards to CO2 , there is a report by NASA that can be googled that states that CO2 acts as a coolant in the upper atmosphere and totally debunks the global warming theory! Global warming is a lie pushed by UN AGENDA 21 to deindustrialize America and to also install a CARBON TAX on all hydrocarbon use, thus driving America into third world status to make is easier for the elites in control of America to meld America into a NWO!

    See Geoengineeringwatch.org for details on CHEMTRAILS and HAARP.

  45. Kiza says:
    @Rational

    It is a typical elite’s concept to take something from nature and make it payable for others. For example, breathing. Why should you breath for free? Taxes do not come from nature but they are a very similar concept – pay because you exist.

    Charging for global warming/climate change is the next best thing to charging people for breathing, as a gift that never stops giving. Other advantages are that it can never be disproven for the same reason that it cannot be proven (yet the “science” is settled). Nevertheless, the biggest irony is that this elite’s concept of making capital out of thin air is most viciously supported by the militant troops of the left. I feel much respect for Shamir’s leftist views which did not fall for the con.

  46. Kermit says:
    @Uncommonground

    Uncommonground says: “We know very well that global warming is caused by emissions of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels. There is absolutely no doubt about that.”

    Has there been some warming? Of course. I know of no thinking person who disputes that.

    Has man’s activities caused some of the warming? Of course. Again, I know of no thinking person who disputes that.

    I would simply ask someone like Uncommonground, who is SO certain that humans are responsible one question. What does the science consist of that shows human produced CO2 to be a significant factor in any current warming?

    The inconvenient fact is that, according to the late Dr. Joanne Simpson (NASA), the science is based “almost entirely” on computer models. Computer simulations. And, since the modelers cannot get the models to represent the (poor quality) historical (mostly proxy) data, they need to introduce fudge factors into the models. These fudge factors, of course, are not called fudge factors – they are called “sensitivity factors.” Now, if there were minor gaps in the knowledge of the physics, there might be one “sensitivity factor” for all of these government models – but, no – every model has its own sensitivity factor to curve-fit the poor quality historical data.

    Of course, there is never any discussion about the fact that they are clueless about the physics of the non-linear, coupled, chaotic system they are trying to model.

    BTW, anyone who is involved in building models in other non-linear, coupled, chaotic system called financial markets knows – KNOWS – that curve fitting exercises like this are futile and always result in a disastrous balance sheet. Where there is seemingly no accountability in climate science, the opposite is true in modeling markets.

  47. j2 says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “I find it a very tough climb that that suddenly the advent of the industrial revolution to this day has tipped the scale.”

    I tried to check the numbers of the CO2 balance (as you nowadays better calculate everything yourself before believing anything from science, so please, count the CO2 balance your own way)

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/01/26/minor-comments-on-the-climatic-change/

    and to me they seem correct.

    The relation of CO2 in atmosphere and the temperature seems quite solid. That is, it does look like more CO2 warms and does not cool because of creating more clouds or something.

    The problem I saw was only why some natural mechanism is not taking CO2 out. But actually it is, it only works rather slowly, but it does not look to me not so catastrophic. Humans have not yet flipped the balance in an irreversible way.

    There is this thing that warming has been very fast in the past (in the ice core data), that in the post I suspected is due to the Gulf stream and now think that, yes, it is the Gulf stream. If temperatures rise, they may cause serious floods, but then calculating how fast glaciers can melt, it is not so fast in human time scale. Of course, if glaciers melt we have more volcano eruptions, which then cool, but not a nice way to cool.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  48. Arioch says:

    It was raining yesterday in Moscow.
    Today the roads snow had totally melted and flowed away.

    You stole our winter, western cleptocrats, yet another year in the longer and longer row you came for our winter and stole it…

    :'(

  49. Kermit says:
    @j2

    “And in a short time the models may be quite good.”

    Only someone who has no knowledge of modeling, as the IPCC calls it, a “coupled, non-linear chaotic system” would ever make a statement like that.

    Read James Gleick’s excellent book “CHAOS” for an enlightening experience about complex systems.

    The scientists are curve-fitting computer models to poor quality data using fudge factors to make the models work.

    There is no science – good science – that shows that human caused CO2 is a significant factor in any current warming. By “significant factor” I mean one that shows it to be a problem.

    If you dispute this, answer the one question – what is the science that shows man-made CO2 to be a significant factor in any current warming? Science shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a weak greenhouse gas not capable of producing the amount of warming claimed. If you cannot answer that one question, you must admit that your belief if similar to a religious belief – based on faith and not any knowledge of any of the science involved.

  50. j2 says:
    @Kermit

    “What does the science consist of that shows human produced CO2 to be a significant factor in any current warming?”

    I tried to check the numbers of the CO2 balance (as you nowadays better calculate everything yourself before believing anything from science, so please, count the CO2 balance your own way)

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/01/26/minor-comments-on-the-climatic-change/

    and to me they seem correct.

    The relation of CO2 in atmosphere and the temperature seems quite solid based on historical data and the explanation of it by the greenhouse effect.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  51. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    “Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat” ( (“Those whom God wants to destroy , first make them mad , demented “)

    Has the ” west ” lost the favors of the Gods ??

  52. @Kermit

    Forget the models. See my post above, models are useful but they are simple and must be used with caution.

    Instead of models, concentrate on the science, the mechanisms. The sun is adding energy to the Earth’s system continually, 1367 Watts per square metre. That same amount of energy must be re-radiated back into space at the same rate otherwise the energy will build up and up. But our atmosphere temporarily traps some of the energy that is being re-radiated into space. Ask yourself what is the mechanism for this.

    You are right when you say the physics (and chemistry, by the way) is complex but you are wrong when you say that no-one has any idea about the mechanisms. On the contrary, much of it is well understood. Certainly, not all of it is.

    The only thing that is inconvenient about the models is that they enjoy such prominence in the debate. Supporters of the theory of global warming allow too much attention to be given to conclusions drawn from the models and opponents spend too much time saying that the models prove that the theory is rubbish. Both sides are wrong – the models are too inadequate for anyone to base any strong argument on. Focus on the mechanisms. The science in this respect is strong although incomplete.

    More generally, let me emphasise that “global warming” does not literally mean temperature. Thermometers are a proxy for energy meters. Heat is a form of energy and thermometers are used to measure heat and therefore heat energy. But heat is not the only form of energy. There is (visible) light energy, sound energy, microwave energy and many others. The energy that reaches the Earth’s surface from the Sun is converted to heat energy by the surface. But global warming refers to the total amount of energy in the Earth’s system. Because there is a greater amount of greenhouse gas (CO2, CO, CH4, H2O, NOx) in the atmosphere than there was a century ago (say), there is a greater amount of re-radiated energy that is being trapped before it can leave the atmosphere and therefore a greater amount of energy in the Earth’s system. Some of this extra energy is extra heat energy which has shown up in thermometers as higher average temperatures. But the important point is not higher average temperatures but increased energy in the system. With this point noted, it is no surprise that weather events such as cyclones can be more energetic (stronger winds, more frequent, longer lasting etc).

    • Replies: @Kermit
  53. @Kermit

    Your question is easy to answer. Basic physics tell us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been known for almost 200 years. If you show that this is not the case, you will get easily a Nobel prise and become famous in the whole world instantaneously. But nobody showed this not to be the case until today.

    Second, scientists have investigated the possibility that something else could be responsible for global warming, like the Sun, and saw that nothing else could explain it.

    Global warming is certain and indisputable. Models are very good and can predict well our future climate given a certain level of CO2 emissions.

    In the good old times when it was possible to discuss more or less freely in The Guardian, skeptics have tried for 10 years at least to defend their case. They lost all discussions without exception. Reality is not what suits your preferences or ideologies.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  54. wayfarer says:

    High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP): was initiated as an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

    California Wildfires: Directed Energy Weapons Theory

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  55. Kermit says:
    @j2

    “The relation of CO2 in atmosphere and the temperature seems quite solid based on historical data and the explanation of it by the greenhouse effect.”

    Temperature has been rising. CO2 has been rising. The conclusion has been that the extra CO2 must be causing the current warming. Don’t confuse correlation with causality. The mathematics of the CO2 relation to temperature compute to only a fraction of the current warming.

    A simple question. *If* “the relation of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature seems quite solid” – then why the need for fudge factors in the computer models? Why is there a unique “sensitivity factor” for every government model? Why have these “sensitivity factors” been trending down ever since they started building these computer simulations? (Read Richard Feynman’s article “Cargo Cult Science” for a similar example.)

    No, the relation is not “quite solid.” In fact, the only measure that the relation can hope to be measured is how the models work in real time, and the answer to that is that they have been dismal. This is not a surprise to anyone using computer models in the financial world. If a person walked into a trading house and announced that he had a computer model that was curve-fit to historical data, and they could make a lot of money with it, he would be laughed out of the building. Climate modelers are on the government payrolls, and unfortunately, there is precious little accountability for them.

    • Disagree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @j2
  56. Kermit says:
    @Uncommonground

    Your question is easy to answer.

    That’s a relief!

    Basic physics tell us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been known for almost 200 years.

    Svante Arrhenius did the calculations in 1895. Unfortunately for your argument, the calculations only account for a fraction of the current warming claimed. Hence, the need for fudge factors in the models.

    Second, scientists have investigated the possibility that something else could be responsible for global warming, like the Sun, and saw that nothing else could explain it.

    That’s junk science. If you don’t recognize this, there is no use arguing with you.

    Global warming is certain and indisputable. Models are very good and can predict well our future climate given a certain level of CO2 emissions.

    Yes, you are correct here. No one, at least no thinking person, will dispute the fact that we have seen warming. As for your second sentence, you have a religious belief, and I try not to argue religion with people who cannot even see that the way they think is having blind faith in something.

    Disagree with that last statement? Then answer the very simple question about what constitutes the actual science that shows man-made CO2 to be a significant factor in any current warming. It can be explained in very simple terms. But please don’t bother with more religious type thinking based on faith.

    • Replies: @Uncommonground
  57. Negation of climate change, benefits mainly to the US war machine, which need oil to function as humans need air to breath.
    Hence this US administration, expanding on wars further even from other previous ones ( who would had thought this was possile?…), has as part of its political strategy the negation of climate change.

    The fact that there are days which are too cold, does not mean there is not a warming effect, the more when the following day temperature suddenly rises to 20ºC in the harshest of winter, as has happened here this week. What this means is that Earth´s capacity to self-regulate, Earth´s own termostate, is increasingly failing, with which extrems, days of extrem hot along with freezing days, without intervale to gradually assimilate change, will take place more and more often. Another effect of this will be the dissapearing of intermediate seasons, like autumm and spring; in fact, this could well already be tested by the increasingly lack of use of clothes proper of those intermediate seasons of aclimatation, especially where these seasons are more marked, Northern Hemisphere.

    People with half brains spreading propaganda against climate change are for sure in the payroll of Big Oil, MIC and Big Corporations….

    • Replies: @Mike P
  58. Kermit says:
    @Amber Dekstris

    What is the measure of how good the science is?

    Not that computer scientists can curve-fit the poor historical data to simulations, it it?

    That’s exactly what they are doing, and they are forced to use fudge factors to do it, because they do not understand enough of the physics to avoid using those fudge factors.

    Add to this that, even with those fudge factors, their predictions (alright – projections) have been dismally incorrect, now that we have about three decades of real time data to look at.

    “Used with caution?” – You’re kidding – right?

    • Replies: @Amber Dekstris
  59. @Old Smokey

    You haven’t refuted a single statement from the article. Let’s hear your counterfactual arguments to support your views.

  60. @Felix Krull

    I now prefer freshwater fish and farm fish because the fishes in the sea are having a feast of the immigrants.

  61. Mike P says:
    @Fatima Manoubia

    People with half brains spreading propaganda against climate change are for sure in the payroll of Big Oil, MIC and Big Corporations….

    Big corporations are very much into the climate change scam – lots of opportunity for crony capitalist schemes; grain alcohol in fuel, expensive “green energy” technology …

    • Replies: @Fatima Manoubia
  62. Agent76 says:

    12.06.18 Interactive: How climate finance ‘flows’ around the world

    Climate finance is one of the bedrocks of negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the “COP24” talks taking place this month in Katowice, Poland.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/interactive-how-climate-finance-flows-around-the-world.

    Jan 18, 2019 Global Warming & Climate Change ” 10 Year Challenge”: Is It True Or Not? #10YearChallenge

    Millions of people are lying. Again.

  63. j2 says:
    @Kermit

    “Only someone who has no knowledge of modeling, as the IPCC calls it, a “coupled, non-linear chaotic system” would ever make a statement like that.”

    “No, the relation is not “quite solid.” In fact, the only measure that the relation can hope to be measured is how the models work in real time, and the answer to that is that they have been dismal.”

    I have (long ago) studied chaotic systems, like many other fields of mathematics and physics, and modeled all kinds of systems using various mathematical approaches. That the climate is a chaotic system makes it difficult to predict weather accurately, but does not mean that it is not possible to draw simple conclusions and make simple predictions. For instance, I predict that the winter is cooler than the summer, you are OK with that? Even though the equations are coupled, nonlinear and chaotic? Fine, you agree that something simple can be deduced even from climate.

    About the relation between CO2 and temperature, assuming that the following chart has correct data (both the temperature and the CO2 content of the atmosphere are from ice of glaciers, so it should be correct), we see a very close correlation

    https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+and+global+temperature+graph&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=OeFYHz0vSs0XHM%253A%252C1LyCAVK7DBYJEM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kSK7eS9D_uNtaHumx39ZzFCNqTwYg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDqaKTzafgAhVQbFAKHYPWBRgQ9QEwB3oECAIQEg#imgrc=OeFYHz0vSs0XHM:

    Thus, there is a correlation. Correlation is not always causation and does not need to be so here. It is quite possible that CO2 sank while glaciers formed for some reason or another. But that will not ruin the argument since we can continue as follows:

    We can add CO2 to the air of a greenhouse and see that it acts as a greenhouse gas. So, there is for instance this experiment for people who do not believe unless they see

    So, let us agree that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas.

    The causal relation that we got from the experiment is very similar than what was seen in the historical data. Thus we conclude: regardless of how we get the CO2 to the atmosphere, if there is CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature will follow the relation we found in the experiment and in the historical data.

    It follows that as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, adding it to the atmosphere does increase the temperature unless there is some mechanism that removes it. Naturally, there is such a mechanims. Oceans and the biosphere add and remove much more CO2 than what humans produce.

    We also know that humans have added some CO2 to the atmosphere and the CO2 content of the
    atmosphere has risen by about one half of what humans have added there.

    Now your argument is that how do we know that this CO2 that humans have added is the one that raises the CO2 level, could it not be CO2 from the oceans, volcanoes or biosphere?

    If it would be coming from the oceans, we would see carbon decreasing in oceans. It is not seen. It seems that today oceans take more CO2 than release. If it would be coming from the biosphere, we would see carbon decreasing in the biosphere, but again we do not see that. Instead, plants store more carbon. If it would be coming from volcanoes, we would be able to calculate it. We calculate and it shows that only little of the CO2 has come from volcanoes. Thus, eliminating other sources we conclude that it comes from human CO2 releases.

    OK?

    • Replies: @Kermit
    , @Mike P
  64. Slave markets of East? China, Jspan, Korea, Siam, Burma and India bought those children misled by the Boy from Cloyes? Call it Middle East, the land of Afro-Semitic races, whose lecherous progeny, the Jews and Arabs are even now trafficking in illicit goods… don’t be a lazy writer!

  65. @utu

    Why anybody would eat Pacific fish of any kind is beyond me.

    Apparently none of you “experts” has ever heard of Fukushima.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  66. @Mike P

    It certainly rains around here much more than it used to.

    • Replies: @Sowhat
  67. @utu

    Doesn’t anybody know about Fukushima. You are actually having this argument without bringing Fukushima into it? Any farmed Atlantic fish is preferable to any fish from Alaska. Because it probably carries less radiation.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  68. Kermit says:
    @j2

    Now your argument is that how do we know that this CO2 that humans have added is the one that raises the CO2 level, could it not be CO2 from the oceans, volcanoes or biosphere?

    No. You are not reading what I plainly wrote. I don’t really care where this CO2 comes from. The only way the extra CO2 can be made to show the increased warming is to use fudge factors in the global climate computer models. It requires us to assume that the extra CO2 causes a positive feedback with something like water vapor to produce the warming.

    Once again – there is no science that can account for this. It’s very very simple – if there were, don’t you think the scientists would use that science in their models instead of being forced to include fudge factors??

    They do not understand the physics, and so the scientists are lacking any way to verify the science. We would not be having this conversation if this were not the case.

    Don’t the use of fudge factors in the simulations used to project future climate raise red flags for you??

    • Replies: @j2
  69. More warming from my blog:

    Feb 6, 2011 – Most American Dams Lack Electrical Turbines

    As a follow-up to my Jan 19th blog on anti-dam conspiracies, I googled around and came across this:

    A 2006 study by the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Lab estimated that about 60,000 megawatts of potential hydropower capacity could be developed in the U.S. using existing dams alone. That would more than double the capacity of hydro plants regulated by FERC.

    “There are 84,000 dams in the United States in the Army Corps of Engineers national inventory of dams, and there’s something like 2,300 or 2,400 hydroelectric plants,” said Douglas Hall, the study’s author and director of Idaho National Lab’s water energy program. “That leaves an awful lot of dams that do not have power generation.”

    I came across that shocking fact several years ago and wrote about it in article for Sanders Research. The Hoover Dam produces 2000 megawatts, and a typical coal-fired power plant produces 500 megawatts. So this proposal for generating 60,000 megawatts by simply installing turbines in existing dams would produce the same power as 30 new Hoover Dams or 120 new coal-fired plants!

    Most dams in the USA were built over a century ago for flood control before electricity was used by anyone. Their controlled water is routed through spillways and produces no electricity. Others were built this past century in remote areas where few lived, so electrical turbines were not installed, yet most of these areas now have thousands of inhabitants.

    The USA could quickly boost its hydroelectric power 50% by installing electrical turbines at these old dams. This is not simple since a tunnel (penstock) must be cut through the bottom of these dams, yet this requires NO DAM CONSTRUCTION. In many cases these old, small dams require repairs anyway.

    Go to a meeting of local environmentalists and ask these intellectuals why they are not shouting in support of this proposal, and watch them sit in stunned silence for a while, and then digress into mindless diatribes about dams destroying the Amazon rainforest. If they ramble about conservation, agree with that, but point out that this would allow the shut down of 120 dirty, coal fired plants. Ask why they continue to act as dupes for the coal and natgas industry.

  70. And one more:

    Apr, 30 2011 – The Imperial Presidency

    You probably heard about the recent incident where First Lady Michelle Obama’s airplane had to go around for another landing approach because it was a bit too close to a USAF C-17 transport. OMG, it had to go around! We all heard that vital news.

    We also hear President Obama talk about the need to conserve energy and reduce pollution that contributes to global warming, and how the federal budget must be slashed. We did not hear about the hypocrisy surrounding that trip. The First and Second Lady went to New York to appear on “The View” TV show. They didn’t fly first class commercial. But they didn’t even take a small executive jet, but a big military C-40 transport (Boeing 737) for their one hour flight. They burned up more money and fuel than the average American uses in a decade.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  71. Mike P says:
    @j2

    Regarding the correlation of CO2 and temperature in the ice age cycle: CO2 is at best an amplifier, but it does not set the rhythm.

    Firstly, at least in the Antarctica dataset, CO2 seems to lag temperature, although some assumptions about snow compaction rates etc. go into this conclusion. More importantly, however, CO2, on its own, could never bring about a trend reversal – falling CO2 will always promote more cooling, driving CO2 down even further; and analogously rising CO2 will always impose positive feedback on a warming trend.

    In reality, whatever effect causes the very rapid warming at the end of an ice age, it sure can break through the cooling effect of low CO2 with a vengeance. Likewise, some of the warm periods ended rather precipitously, wouldn’t you say? Clearly, some stronger driver than CO2 is in the driver’s seat.

    If we compare decadal or centennial warming or cooling trends between different periods within the Holocene, the recent changes don’t stand out in any way. Clearly, spontaneous shifts happen; but since we have no quantitative theory to account for them, we do not know the baseline relative to which we could begin to measure and understand the human contribution.

    “Climate change” is nothing but a psyop, coming from the same nice guys that brought us all the other ones.

    • Replies: @j2
  72. Kiza says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Michele Obama is the best Presidential candidate that DNC can put in front of demoralised party troops for 2020. No opportunity for adulation level publicity will be missed. We could only imagine the media wailing if the future female Democratic President broke a nail.

  73. Euro weenies freeze due to green energy-?
    Oh come on .Until the Vikings arrived and introduced Kilts, the Scots merely dipped their bare arses in blue dye and trotted off into the fog. All they had was Green energy-Peat and twigs.
    They didn’t freeze too death.Which was/is a Terrible tragedy for Canada.

    Worse-With the Kilts they learned there was a third use for those English sheep they had being sneaking over the wall(Both of them) and stealing.
    Something similar happened when the Vikings went down the Volga and ran into the Bulgars did it not?

    Carbon dioxide and warming-Ocean build up with atmospheric levels need considering. As well-Methane emissions. Methane is lighter than air, a better heat retainer and would tend too turn the lower level of the Ozone layer into a water and dry ice layer that may not be as extensive before the increased emissions. We have No modeling and very poor measurement of this.
    Before the suppressions of real science in these matters went full retard campaign-
    And we lost actual measurements ,indications were Oxygen levels were dropping in both oceans and air-at an accelerating rate. Since we breath what diffuses from the upper air through the slightly denser Nitrogen-this may(not) be No small matter.

    That said in too broad brush strokes- Yes the Green brigade is a Co-Opted mob of whores renting themselves to(now)mainly the Nuclear Mafia.
    The culling required too pull this off has being extreme and has gone on for decades.
    But as you destroy Everything-You corner the market on the remainder.
    Huzzah!
    Inbred Hill Bandit Economics.Yet the Earth isn’t flat.

    • LOL: Mike P
  74. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    You are completely right that the rise of CO2 was not the reason for the ending of an ice age or for the start of an ice age. There is fairly good correlation with the ending of ice ages and insolation in high Northern latitudes, as can be seen from Milankovitch cycles. Ending of an ice age has been a fast rise in temperature and for each peak there seems to be a corresponding peak upward in insolation. If there are exceptions, they must have other reasons. The warming phase must be a positive feedback loop as warming went faster than insolation. This can be a loop where rise in temperature releases CO2 from oceans which causes rising, but it is complicated with Bond cycles and melt water lakes breaking to oceans and not well understood yet. Starting of an ice age seems to be a slower shift to cooler temperatures with some other feedback loops.

    Reversing the warming cycle to a cooling cycle has been caused by a change in insolation, modified by several earth bound feedback loops, and twice by a comet impact, maybe once by volcanoes, and once by blue algae producing oxygen. In all this you are correct. CO2 has not been a driver so far.

    This does not change the conclusions concerning the present global warming. Now there is no clear insolation increase. Indeed, obliquity decreases, eccentricity decreases, climatic precession has only a small upward peak as eccentricity is small. It should not trigger the positive feedback loop. No comet either. No great volcano activity. Thus, there has to be some other trigger. By elimination of possible triggers we come to human CO2 releases. If you can propose some other trigger, please do.
    But there has to be a trigger, else things continue as usual in a stable system as this planet is.

    You are also correct that the present global warming does not stand out from other warming periods. I do not consider the present warming as a special catastrophe, but I do think it is caused by humans. This may finally help humans in preventing a new ice age, but the time scale is long in any case, over 500 years minimum. Climatic change is used today as a psyops by the same people who have made other similar operations, I fully agree with that. It also has political and economic goals, for sure.

    About this that “we do not know the baseline relative to which we could begin to measure and understand the human contribution”, I would say, humans have changed the environment also before. Grazing goats and sheep were one contributing reason why the Eastern Middle east is barren, the natural climatic change was the other part of the reason. With global warming we know how much weather has warmed per ppm of CO2, how much CO2 humans have produced, and what has been the level in the nearest past, say after 8000 BC. I think we know something.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  75. Sowhat says:
    @obwandiyag

    So what? Do you think that, if it rained for forty days and forty nights where you live, that justifies The G W Narrative? GET a grip. Think SUN SPOTS. The earth has just entered another 30 year period of Increased Sun Spot Activity. 30 years…get it? Google it. S.S.A. is THE PRIMARY INFLUENCER of Weather Activity on Mother Earth. This globe is in CONSTANT FLUX (CHANGE). THAT’S the true definition of climate change…how clever of the Socialists. But not really. They’re counting on you ignorance and they WILL insult your intelligence.

  76. j2 says:
    @Kermit

    “Don’t the use of fudge factors in the simulations used to project future climate raise red flags for you??”

    Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that if the model has poorly motivated terms, then it is guesswork and not an explanation of the phenomenon. Predictions cannot be trusted. No, in the sense that I am not asking for predictions of what the weather will be like. I only ask if the reason for the present global warming can be explained, and I think this can be done. Thus, climatologists cannot predict what the future weather will be like, how much temperature will rise and if glaciers will melt or not, but they can conclude that the reason for the present warming is CO2 (unlike earlier, when the reason was a change in insolation, a comet, a volcano, or something else) and that this time the CO2 is from human activity.

    You write:
    “The only way the extra CO2 can be made to show the increased warming is to use fudge factors in the global climate computer models. It requires us to assume that the extra CO2 causes a positive feedback with something like water vapor to produce the warming.”

    I do not think so. A climatic computer model is not needed here. All we need is the relation: that there is some (for us untransparent) connection between the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the global temperature. We do not need to be able to explain what causes this relation, we only need to assume that there is this relation because it is visible in ice core data and can be demonstrated in a greenhouse experiment. How this relation works, whether by water vapor or methane releases from Siberia or whatever, is not essential. As the mechanims is not understood, a model for it must use what you call a fudge factor. But you do not need to model it. A model you need only for getting an estimate of the size of the change. I will try to think of an analogy. Wait. There is an old British military rule “do not march to Russia” based on historic data that it ends to a failure, and then there are battle equations and strength calculation formulas, but as there is the fog of war, they are never accurate. You even use a fudge factor like the spirit of the troops. Does it follow from the use of a fudge factor in the calculations and war games that the British rule is false? No, it is a relation that in some way follows from the huge size of that country.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  77. @Kermit

    So you have an alternative science or maybe a kind of mystical knowledge which tells you that ALL serious scientists are either incompetent or acting in bad faith? I dont care about conspiracy theories specially if you dont even try going beyond arbitrary assertions backed by nothing.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  78. Mike P says:
    @j2

    I think we know something.

    That sums up your post quite well 😉

    You are correct that high Northern Latitude insolation is necessary to induce a glacial termination – but it is not

    sufficient

    . There are very clear-cut examples of very high Northern insolation maxima that did not break out of the ongoing ice age.

    The ongoing warm spell, which might be termed the “modern warm period”, fits the ~1000 year rhythm set by the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval warm periods; the maxima of these show a declining trend, and we are currently still below the maximum of the Medieval warm period (as witnessed by remnants of Norse farms found in permafrost on Greenland).

    Again, while it is plausible that human CO2 emissions should have had some effect, it is likely small, but difficult to quantify exactly.

    • Replies: @j2
  79. @foolisholdman

    Um, no.

    PH is not a linear scale. Recall from your high-school chemistry that a change in one pH unit signifies a ten-fold change in the hydronium-ion concentration. All other things being equal, lifting the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm lowers the pH of ocean water from about 8.4 to about 8.15.

    Bear in mind, though, that the solubility of CO2 in seawater varies inversely with temperature, so as the ocean warms up, it actually releases dissolved CO2. This raises the very real possibility that our mildly elevated atmospheric CO2 (compared to the very recent past) could be almost entirely natural, driven by outgassing from the oceans due to rising temperatures.

    Just as a point of reference, humans release about 36 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. But the total amount is over 800 billion tons, a large part of which cycles into and out of the atmosphere every year. The human contribution is relatively small, and most of it is quickly gobbled up by plant growth and other natural processes. If plants could speak they would say, Thank you, please send more.

    Geologically speaking, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is near historic lows. The pre-pleistocene (i.e. before the current ice age) average was about 4 times its current level. Fifty five million years ago, it was about 5 times higher than that, and the planet teemed with life from pole to pole.

    Those white splotches on both poles mean that we are still very much in an ice age. We are bloody fortunate to be alive during a temporary lull. Ice-age conditions are likely to continue, with occasional remissions, for many millions of years more, until such time as plate tectonism rearranges the continents sufficiently to improve heat flow between the equator and the poles. That’s going to take a while.

  80. @Tom Welsh

    I enjoy beef, mutton, pork and poultry raised organically on traditional farms – on their natural pasture and foods, out of doors unless forced to take shelter by cold.

    Well, you should be ashamed of yourself. Organically grown produce require upwards of 20% more acreage put under plow, and there is no discernible difference, except when it comes to milk, where organic milk have more vitamins or something.

    Organic produce is lifestyle consumption, virtue signalling requiring that more rain forest is cleared to allow for your affected first-world concerns.

    However, I agree with you on farmed meat, but as long as it’s a choice between factory farmed meat and organic, factory farmed is the ethical choice, because wildlife welfare takes priority over pork production machines.

    The same goes for fish: you can choose between farmed fish – and I admit farmed fish are inferior to wild ones – or you can have over-fishing.

    And true, the price of wild salmon has gone down considerably since I was a fisherman. I had forgotten that, my mistake. But that’s entirely due to the market being saturated with farmed salmon, which was only in its infancy back then.

    Farmed salmon is a godsend, just ask Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.

    Venison from farmed deer is admirable, as the deer must be allowed to live outdoors on considerable expanses of grass and natural woodland.

    Let them eat cake.

  81. @utu

    Well, I’m from Denmark, so I don’t know about that. But I forgot to mention that this was back in the eighties. The dollar was worth more back then, and there was (almost) no competition from farmed fish.

  82. Sean says:

    Scientific research will soon explode the notion of racial and sexual equality. And mass immigration into Western nations is provoking a populist backlash, not rendering Whites docile and ready to accept the rainbow future promised by the lying liberal elite. Dogmas of human equality and strength-thru-diversity lie at the heart of Holocaustianity, but the dogmas are doomed to die.

    It would be much better if Israel and their lobby had real moral superiority, because that could be dealt with. Unfortunately, what they have is the ability to best gentiles, even elite ones (eg the Argentinean government, Samsung vice chairman Jay Y. Lee, who ended up in a South Korean prison, and the string of CEOs Paul Singer took down that included Jonathon Bush http://fortune.com/2018/06/06/athenahealth-jonathan-bush-elliott-management/)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  83. @Kermit

    I said ignore the models and focus on the mechanisms.

    Instead, in your post you ignored the mechanisms and focused on the models.

    Please discuss the mechanisms.

  84. @Mike P

    I do not know about Big corporations, but here at local level what we have is increasing little to medium business/enterprise in the renovable/ green energy field.

    I think that Big corporations by large are full into the oil/carbon economy, if not because due their size they need oil for transportation of produced goods.

    Big corporations are by far the responsible of the major environmental disasters in the world have been, be them accidental, be them consciously volunteer out of pure greed, by pressing and bribing own and foreign governments so as to save the costs a cleaner production according to legal standards would have.
    We all have heard about sea disasters like that of Exxon Valdez and the current waste and polution of African land by Western corporations….

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Wally
  85. Antipropo says:

    I’m (easily) confused Izzy, is this drollery, light hearted facetiousness on your part or are you serious? In Australia renewable energy is already cheaper than polluting coal and that downward pricing will continue. If -as there are- thousands of scientists who say global warming IS influenced by us and some bought and paid big polluters say they are not I call that a slam dunk for anthropogenic warming. Wild caught fish is better and saves lots of energy! please. Wild caught on a handling from a small
    boat maybe, for on a huge ocean going purse seine trawler where typically a fair bit of the trawl is crushed I think not.

    • Replies: @RoHa
  86. Capn Mike says:
    @mark green

    Great comment, Mark! Worthy of article status.

    • Replies: @mark green
  87. @mark green

    carnicominstitute.org also consider HAARP..

    Making rain is maturing science.. It is being used in deserts all over the world. .. it has been weaponized and I understand it can be used to start or enhance hurricanes, rain and even to deny rain..

    I think the next project of Zionism might be to subordinate mother nature to its wishes. .

  88. Kermit says:
    @j2

    No, in the sense that I am not asking for predictions of what the weather will be like. I only ask if the reason for the present global warming can be explained, and I think this can be done.

    This is getting plum ridiculous. You expect the causes of current warming to be understood, but you don’t expect that understanding to provide any indication of future climate??

    but they can conclude that the reason for the present warming is CO2 (unlike earlier, when the reason was a change in insolation, a comet, a volcano, or something else) and that this time the CO2 is from human activity.

    So, CO2 caused global warming can be concluded, but it takes a FUDGE FACTOR to do it?? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds??

    We do not need to be able to explain what causes this relation, we only need to assume that there is this relation because it is visible in ice core data and can be demonstrated in a greenhouse experiment.

    It CAN’T be “demonstrated in a greenhouse experiment.” We’ve covered that. The CO2, while causing some of the greenhouse effect, comes nowhere near causing enough to account for the recent warming. THAT’S WHY A FUDGE FACTOR IS NECESSARY. The physics is NOT understood. We cannot explain what causes this relationship.

    Well, I’ve spent too much time on this already, so I’m signing off on this thread.

  89. Kermit says:
    @Uncommonground

    So you have an alternative science or maybe a kind of mystical knowledge which tells you that ALL serious scientists are either incompetent or acting in bad faith? I dont care about conspiracy theories specially if you dont even try going beyond arbitrary assertions backed by nothing.

    Not all “scientists” are incompetent or acting in bad faith. Not even all climate scientists can be put in that category. Just the ones who, essentially, walk around with signs around their necks saying THE END IS NEAR! There are climate scientists that acknowledge the uncertainties of this coupled, non-linear chaotic system called climate.

    BTW, it’s you who either cannot answer my simple question about what the science consists of – or – refuses to do so.

    What I’m upset about it how science has been, and is being, prostituted to politics.

    Again, without a rudimentary knowledge of science and computer modeling, this topic is pointless to continue.

  90. Kermit says:
    @mark green

    You mentioned “El Nino, La Nina.” I have watched the efforts to understand this phenomenon for many years now. Klaus Wolter over at the NOAA Earth System Research Lab has worked on this and maintained a webpage for a long time. A few years ago, he finally pretty much gave up on making predictions, and he started to conclude with “stay tuned . . .”

    What does it say when a very small subset of the climate problem cannot be successfully analyzed?

    But, CO2 is going up. Temperatures are going up. How hard can it be??

  91. Wally says:
    @Old Smokey

    Talk is cheap, get going and show us the claimed problems.
    Specifics please.

  92. @Capn Mike

    Thanx, Mike. And besides the financial bonanza that goes to Big Government agencies due to ever-increasing taxes on oil and coal (in addition to the subsidies that benefit various ‘green’ ventures ) there’s an Israeli angle to the ‘climate change’ scam as well.

    Not only are there many Israeli-based solar firms that stand to get a competitive advantage over their fossil fuels rivals (due to government subsidies and tax schemes) but the various foes of the Zionist entity (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia and numerous Arab states) are all being economically damaged as the West shifts it research and buying preferences to expensive, ‘renewable’ technologies such as wind and solar.

    The revenue stream of OPEC and other oil-exporting countries is will shrink as government-subsidized electric cars push the internal combustion auto off the road, even though gasoline remains an inexpensive and highly efficient source of energy.

  93. Mike P says:
    @Fatima Manoubia

    Small business likes crony-capitalism, too. They are not more moral just because they are small. But three are some really big companies into this as well (Siemens, GE).

    But more importantly, your whole premise is flawed – you just assume that “climate change”, or rather, dangerous, man-made global warming, is real, just because you have read it in the newspaper a thousand times, because you “care,” and your best friend believes it, too. In reality it is just another globalist psyop. That explains why the mass media and all the globalist puppets – Macron, Merkel, Trudeau, Obama – love it so much.

  94. Wally says:
    @Fatima Manoubia

    said:
    “I think that Big corporations by large are full into the oil/carbon economy, if not because due their size they need oil for transportation of produced goods.
    We all have heard about sea disasters like that of Exxon Valdez and the current waste and polution of African land by Western corporations…”

    – Why do you say “carbon”, C, a solid? And avoid calling it carbon dioxide, CO2, a gas?

    – It’s indeed a fact that humans need to be ‘full into oil economies’ for efficient & plentiful energy, heat, and countless other products and services we require for life.

    – Are you saying that Africans aren’t responsible for their own countries?
    Are you saying they do not elect their own leaders?
    Are you saying they are too stupid to fix Africa’s problems?

    – Indeed Exxon Valdez emphasized the need for pipelines and encouraged boat captains to not drink on the job.

  95. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    The racket that “activist investors” like Singer have been running depends on having your co-ethnics take over the financial, legal, political, and media “commanding heights” infrastructure of American society that had been built up by gentiles. Ethnic nepotism in high places running interference and cover for you while you shakedown domestic industry at home and use American power against countries and companies abroad is the main factor. “Activist investing” itself is not much more sophisticated than the provocative political and social agitation and activism leftists engage in, or the shakedowns black activist leaders perpetrate against corporations, or what mafia loansharks do.

    • Replies: @Sean
  96. No matter what you believe as far as man made climate change you cannot deny that oil has been and is a major cause of war/conflict as well as pollution/destruction of environment. Personally I know things are changing, the weather is much less predictable than it used to be here, what causes it, I don’t know. Reducing our dependence on oil would be a good thing for everyone if done right. Car exhaust is not something you want to breathe. Less is good.

    As much as conservatives are for hunting and fishing they should be able to get with the hippies on the environment, but most are programmed by Fox News to think that protecting our environment is somehow a bad thing, makes you a hippie liberal fag. When the shit hits the fan wouldn’t you like to be able to eat the fish you catch without growing a 3rd testicle? I would. Wouldn’t you like there to be edible wildlife around to eat if things go south, or would you prefer to feast on nasty tainted humans? I’d prefer munching on a deer over a lawyer. Just muh opinion.

    It’s Time to Try Fossil-Fuel Executives for Crimes Against Humanity
    https://jacobinmag.com/2019/02/fossil-fuels-climate-change-crimes-against-humanity

  97. “My logic, and my conversations with scientists convinced me that we do not know with any degree of certainty whether humanity is able to influence planetary climate”

    Here’s the thing about pronouncements ex cathedra like Shamir’s. Any shitfaced ‘tard in a bar could say the same thing, secure in the knowledge that no one’s going to ask him,

    “So have you read IPCC SR1.5 Chapter 1 supplementaries?”
    https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter1_supplementary_materials.pdf

    much less

    “Oh, you did not. How then do you know which model parameters or relationships are incorrect? Because, as you doubtless know, having philosophically satisfied yourself, the results are the model outputs, everything else is words, words, words.”

    or

    “Oh, you don’t know. Well, can you solve this first-order linear differential equation? dy/dx + (2x**2/(1+x**3))y = sin**2x/(1+x**3) I’ll wait.’

    or

    “Oh, you can’t. I see. Then how, exactly, did you check the work on the thousands of simultaneous differential equations, the cutting-edge numerical methods used to approach solutions, and the specialized statistics that quantify their significance?

    or

    “Oh. That’s not important. I see. What’s important is your smart Jew opinion you pulled out your ass with an audible pop. Buy this bigmouthed hebe another beer, he cracks me up.”

    • Replies: @Mike P
  98. Sean says:

    I have no idea whether Watson is right or wrong, but I presume a mature scientist of such a calibre is entitled to hold and express his opinion.

    Watson is merely guilty of being explicit, there is a great deal of agreement both in the anonymous respondents to The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy

    The question regarding this in the survey asked “Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?” Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was “due entirely to genetic variation”, 15% voted that it was “due entirely to environmental variation” and 45% voted that it was a “product of genetic and environmental variation”. According to Snyderman and Rothman, this contrasts greatly with the coverage of these views as represented in the media, where the reader is led to draw the conclusion that “only a few maverick ‘experts’ support the view that genetic variation plays a significant role in individual or group difference, while the vast majority of experts believe that such differences are purely the result of environmental factors.”[7]

    In his WW1 memoir Storm Of Steel Ernst Junger remarked how even during intensive trench warfare the talk was not about how to avoid being killed or how to fight better but gossip about fellow officers. That is always the way. Most talk is about the weather because the master discourse is not communication of factual truths but polite social grooming and reputation burnishing or put downs of peers directed towards getting everyone on the same page.

    I don’t think the discourse among scientist is very different. I have been told that at scientific conferences when the participants debate what theories (about the details of flower pollination ect) are correct. It simply is not the case that one person makes his case and all the other flip in the face of the truth. If the correct theory was known yet never publicly acknowledged to be true there would be a reason. But in these cases a clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know what the truth is.

    Grice proposed a fairly sophisticated logic for working out implicature content (from Logic and Conversation, 1975): “He has said that P; there is no reason to suppose that he is not observing the maxims, or at least the Cooperative Principle; he could not be doing this unless he thought that q; he knows (and knows that I know that he knows) that I can see that the supposition that believing q is required; he has done nothing to stop me thinking that q; he intends me to think, or is at least willing to allow me to think, that q; and so he has implicated that q.” (For important details and clarification about the difference of what is said and what is meant, in relation to the concept of implicature, see Bach, 1994, 2006).

  99. @Felix Krull

    You have no idea what you are talking about. There are tons of wild salmon (Pacific etc.) sold in super markets across this country. If you knew anything about salmon you would know that you can easily see the differences in wild versus hatchery salmon by the meat. Wild Salmon is very lean compared to farmed salmon. Furthermore, farmed or hatchery salmon are fed fish meal and much of it contains PCBs which end up in the salmon. Almost all Atlantic Salmon are farmed unless you are catching them from waters on the East Coast of Canada and many of these streams are catch and release.

    Atlantic Salmon is farmed in parts of Alaskan bays in pens and nets. They are not native to Alaska. If you are buying Atlantic Salmon it’s almost always farmed. The effluent from such farming salmon seriously degrades the water quality. There have been a bunch of lawsuits over this. It’s just like dumping chicken manure in the water. There are also problems with these salmon escaping and competing for resources. You can walk into any supermarket in the US and buy wild salmon in cans or from the freezer sections, and in some places fresh too. You can also buy Pacific Salmon that are farmed and in most places it tells you right on the package.

    Where are you getting your info from?

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Felix Krull
    , @Kermit
  100. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Jonathan Bush is not without friends in high places one might think.

    Ethnic nepotism in high places running interference

    And succeeding.
    Knowing it is true does not change anything. To displace this power, which stems from superior intellectual ability, is infeasible. You cannot outwit something smarter than you are.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Anonymous
  101. Mike P says:
    @MIT snowflake watch

    You conflate the problem of solving systems of equations with correctly describing and predicting the behaviour of an actual physical thing. The two may look very similar if the behaviour of that thing is thoroughly understood, and similar predictions have proven successful many times in the past. This, however, does not apply to the Earth’s climate; there, correctness of the math alone does not give you any guarantee of physical validity.

    An elementary mistake like this shows that you are, in your own choice words, a “shitfaced ‘tard.” No amount of beer or crack will actually cure that, but it might be a good idea to have some more just the same instead of bothering the grown-ups.

    And before you start with the IPCC again – they agree with me, at least implicitly; for they can never make up their minds just how much warming we will see, they are just always sure it will be terrible.

  102. Biff says:
    @Tom Welsh

    Even here in England wild salmon is widely available in shops, at a reasonable premium.

    Bwaaah!! How do you know it’s wild? Because it has a label on it that says so? Do you want some swamp land to go with it?

  103. @niteranger

    Where are you getting your info from?

    The eighties. I forgot that in my original post, but clarified further down.

    It’s just like dumping chicken manure in the water.

    Good thing wild salmon don’t shit, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @niteranger
  104. Anonymous [AKA "MrBoompi"] says:

    They need an enormous amount of new tax revenue (carbon-based green deal taxes will do just fine, thank you) in order to finance the wars they have planned to take more oil and natural gas from the last few countries that haven’t already handed over their resources to the globalists. I’m sure the climate alarmists can’t see the irony or the scam.

  105. utu says:
    @Sean

    To displace this power, which stems from superior intellectual ability, is infeasible.

    I am glad you know your place.

  106. utu says:
    @redmudhooch

    As much as conservatives are for hunting and fishing they should be able to get with the hippies on the environment, but most are programmed by Fox News to think that protecting our environment is somehow a bad thin…

    Very good point. Which brings me to populism. The polarization we have is artificial purposefully created by TPTB. Only populism could fold together what is good on left and right sides and play them against the middle. And what is in the middle? The financial power and its useful idiots which are (1) playing identity politics on the left and (2) libertarians who won’t touch corporation and money elite on the right. Both (1) and (2) are pro immigration.

  107. @Felix Krull

    Wild Salmon do shit but they don’t put 20,000 in a pen and let them shit all together. Fish hatcheries are some of the most environmentally destructive systems in the world. Raising a million trout or salmon in a hatchery or pens in a confined area of a few acres is the equivalent of sewage from a city of around 300,000 people. You don’t find 20,000 trout or salmon in the wild in a few acres of water.

    • Replies: @Felix Krull
  108. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Jonathan Bush is not without friends in high places one might think.

    Yes, his uncle was a one term President of the United States of America, who lost reelection because he angered Jews. His cousin was also President of the US, but one surrounded by neocon Jewish Republicans like Singer. His most powerful connections were trumped by guys like Singer.

    Knowing it is true does not change anything. To displace this power, which stems from superior intellectual ability, is infeasible. You cannot outwit something smarter than you are.

    As I pointed out, blacks engage in the same basic scam to shakedown and extract money from corporations and other institutions in society. I think you’d agree that blacks aren’t known for “superior intellectual ability”. Clearly intellect is not what drives and enables this sort of behavior.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Sean
  109. niceland says:

    Few yeas ago I was wondering if there was any way to understand in perhaps more meaningful terms how much Co2 has been added to our atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, here is one view I came up with.

    Earths surface area is according to Wikipedia 510.072.000 km2

    I did quick estimate of the increase of Co2 in our atmosphere. From 210ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution to current levels of 410ppm. The increase of Co2 in this period is roughly ~ 1.000.000.000.000 tons
    See for example: https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/

    This equals addition of ~2000 tons of Co2 per square kilometer of earth surface. Or ~2 extra kilograms of Co2 per square meter. (assuming the tons are metric)

    If we assume your “personal space” covers 0.5 square meters of the earths surface the addition of Co2 into the 0.5m2 air column over your head and up to space is; one kilogram.

    So, if someone placed 0.5 m2 aluminum plate, 0.7mm thick, weighing 1 kilogram above your head – you wouldn’t get much sun, and heat radiation from your body would be totally blocked upwards as well. So clearly this mass of solid aluminum would have catastrophic effect on our climate. But thankfully co2 gas has very different properties than solid aluminum. Ok, lets try 2lb of black soot spread into the air column covering area of 4-5 sq.ft above your head, would this effect your view to the skies or sun-rays hitting you? Are you getting the idea? And of course Co2 isn’t black soot. But it has very different properties than nitrogen and oxygen who make up most of our atmosphere.

    If this back of a napkin calculation is correct – it’s not hard to see this might have some effect on our climate even if the ratio of Co2 in the atmosphere is “tiny” or only 0.04% by volume. Perhaps even serious effect like the climate scientist warn us about. After all there is no disagreement that Co2 is a “greenhouse” gas

    • Replies: @utu
  110. Adrian says:

    I have a high regard for Israel Shamir and his writings, but I must confess that this latest article of his has eroded it. It is downright silly. He starts by referring to the recent low temperatures in the US and Britain as indicating that there is something wrong with the global warming thesis. Now this is richly ironical for us here in Australia because we have been struggling the last few months through the hottest summer I can remember. To quote a recent news report:

    “In January, the days were sweltering, the nights were sticky and the humidity meant we were all a hot mess — just another summer in Australia, right?

    Well no. January 2019 was not just the hottest January ever recorded, it was the hottest month ever recorded in Australia, weather boffins at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) said today.

    The scorching January followed on from the hottest December ever which means Australia is possibly having its hottest summer ever. Last year was Australia’s third hottest year on record.”

    https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/january-2019-was-australias-hottest-month-ever-recorded/news-story/fb87ee6a9840fc2d403776712a58905e

    In short Shamir came up with an error one would not expect from him: confusing weather with climate..

    One other contributor who protested against this article was reproached for not having refuted one single fact mentioned by Shamir. Well one cannot refute facts that aren’t there. The paper is rich on waffle but singularly short on facts. But yes there is one.

    Shamir says: “One volcano produces more output than all mankind in (a) century”. He must be referring to CO2.

    Here is a relevant article in the Scientific American:

    “This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
    According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

    Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.” “

    One finds the same question dealt with in the debate on the Australian ABC (“Lateline” 12/15/2009) between the Guardian journalist George Monbiot and the Australian geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, a darling of the mining industry. I leave it to readers to judge the good faith, or otherwise, of Plimer.

    video:

    transcript: https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/plimer-monbiot-cross-swords-in-climate-debate/1179922

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
    , @Adrian
  111. utu says:
    @niceland

    Why don’t you learn what greenhouse effect is really about? Look up absorption and emission X-sections for short wave and long wave regions of EM radiation.

    • Replies: @niceland
  112. @niteranger

    You don’t find 20,000 trout or salmon in the wild in a few acres of water.

    No, but you do with other species, like mackerel, and with schools bigger than most salmon farms.

    If your salmon rings are placed where there’s reasonable movement in the water, the problem is negligible, beneficial, even: to the sea, shit is not icky, it’s nourishment.

    The biggest problem with salmon farms, is that they produce huge amounts of sea lice as well, infecting wild stocks.

  113. utu says:
    @Anonymous

    Sean’s hasbara: Your resistance is futile. Accept the power of your masters.

  114. @redmudhooch

    OIL

    When Dubai wanted to own the ports, the US simply refused by using terrorism as an excuse.

    The idea that Israel wanted Bush to invade Iraq, thereby strengthening the position of Iran and creating a domino effect into Syria is stupid.

    Of what use was the invasion of Iraq to Israel compared to the bank accounts of Haliburton.

    Did Jews elect Bush or was it oil interests-a last non-Jewish bastion of WASP power in the United States.

    And now of course, the WASPS are powerless. Iraq was the death knell for Skull & Bones Yale alumni and no Bush will ever be reelected.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  115. RoHa says:
    @Colin Wright

    The Earth seems to have warmed up a bit since 1851. But that does not mean that man-made CO2 had any role in the warming.

  116. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Swashbuckling CEO Bush furiously pushed back yet lost control of his innovative and increasingly profitable company because he was unable to convince his shareholders that he was going to make them more money that they could get from Singer breaking it up and selling it off. It was a scientific concentration of superior PR and financial acumen that defeated Bush. He tried and failed but not because he was an appeasing white gentile scared to take his own side. His uncle also tried to fight back saying the he was ‘just one guy’ against the Israel Lobby if I recall rightly.

    The white gentile billionaires are at best neutral (Warren Buffett is definitely on Singers side as regards squeezing immediate profits out of companies even if it leaves them less able to compete in the future), and so it is billionaires and their market minding hirelings against populists and the pauperised masses minus minorities. One side has all the financial and media resources, PR expertise, and allegiance of the managerial class and judiciary. The other has no one willing to actually risk ruin and defeat by wagering against the odds. That is why there is what Paul Krugman calls The Empty Quarters of U.S. Politics. Or, maybe you think widespread anonymous fulmination on the internet is a substitute.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Anonymous
  117. RoHa says:
    @Antipropo

    “In Australia renewable energy is already cheaper than polluting coal”

    And from having very cheap electricity Australia is getting close to the most expensive in the world, largely because the reliable, stable, supply from coal is being replaced by the unstable, unreliable “renewables”.

    “If -as there are- thousands of scientists who say global warming IS influenced by us”

    And thousands who say that our influence is tiny. don’t fall for the 97% scam.

    But reality doesn’t care who says what, and consensus is not science.

  118. RoHa says:

    And before you start whining too much about Marxists, remember that it was Margaret Thatcher who pushed the idea of Man Made Global Warming into international politics.

    https://john-daly.com/history.htm

    (Yes, Al Gore spoke about it to the US Congress, but no one in the real world pays any attention to those idiots.)

  119. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    “The ongoing warm spell, which might be termed the “modern warm period”, fits the ~1000 year rhythm set by the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval warm periods; the maxima of these show a declining trend, and we are currently still below the maximum of the Medieval warm period (as witnessed by remnants of Norse farms found in permafrost on Greenland).”

    There has been a warming period of 2000 years and inside it a weaker warming period of 1000 years after the last ice age. Thus, around 0 AD it was a warm period and today is also. This fits to the cycle. I used to think that this can explain the present global warming, but then I changed my mind because in the previous warm periods since 8000 BC there was no sharp rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, the present warming period is not similar to the one in the first century, or the Medieval warm period. If the trigger of the present warming is the warming cycle and the CO2 that we see was released from oceans (as has happened with prehistorical ends of the ice ages), then I would expect that CO2 would also have risen in the first century. There is the cycle, and additionally CO2 has been added by humans. This increases warming.

    “There are very clear-cut examples of very high Northern insolation maxima that did not break out of the ongoing ice age.”

    I see one such case in the three last plots of this picture, a minor peak in insolation around 370 ka ago does not have a corresponding peak in Vostok ice core

    There can be many reasons, e.g. volcano eruptions at the same time. It is certainly true that the mechanism has many feedback loops and cycles and cannot be explained precisely by insolation only.

    As one commenter gave his opinion and left the thread, I will comment his opinion here. There are many fields, like for instance military tactics, where the phenomenon to be studied cannot be precisely modeled, yet models are used and their drawbacks are acknowledged. Still, even though models are not especially predictive, the phenomena is understood to some extent. Like, the side with better weapons will almost always win, but to say what the losses are you need some models, you calculate from the models and play wargames to see what might happen, though it is not a good prediction for the real event. Scenario simulation has its usage, do not take it as a numerical solution of the actual situation. There are rules of thumb, which are not equations, but often work better, like the side with experienced commanders has an advantage. It is a fudge factor, as we cannot assign a precise value to it and do not know what it causes in practice, but quite real.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Kermit
  120. @redmudhooch

    As much as conservatives are for hunting and fishing they should be able to get with the hippies on the environment

    The problem is that the hippies are not environmentalists, they’re watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Their true goal is to destroy capitalism and have us all back in the Stone Age, poking the mud with a stick.

    Virtually everything Greenpeace promotes damages the environment immensely, and everything they oppose, is of invaluable benefit to both the planet and every person on it. I am fairly certain that since the late seventies, Greenpeace has been responsible for more deaths than the Commies. Their opposition to Golden Rice alone, costs almost a million lives a year, and their opposition to nuclear hundreds of thousands.

    Greenpeace is against fusion, just to give you a measure of how evil they are.

  121. @Colin Wright

    The conventional view is that environmentalists are either religious fanatics or would-be thieves, both with runious policies [1]. As you say, the conventional view isn’t always wrong.

    1] such as preventing all forest fires until enough fuel accumulates to make an unstoppable fire over a vast area that kills the forest. _And_ to subsequently practice barratry [1] on such a vast scale as to bankrupt the electrical power company, thus making power grid maintenance much worse.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Yes, I said ‘barratry”. But I know what it’s like by reading about it, not practicing it like the Californians do.

    • Agree: 95Theses
  122. niceland says:
    @utu

    I wrote in the beginning of the post;

    Few yeas ago I was wondering if there was any way to understand in perhaps more meaningful terms how much Co2 has been added to our atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, here is one view I came up with.

    This was the point of the exercise. How much, not how this effect the climate. My example about aluminum plate was to explain the mass of Co2 added is not insignificant and can have effect – depending on what kind of animal Co2 gas is.

    This popped up in my mind several years ago after reading people claiming addition of Co2 from 0.021% too 0.04% is so tiny it can’t make any difference.

    How all this extra Co2 effects the climate is another discussion.

  123. @Mike P[103] I see. The consistency, coherence and completeness of a mathematical model agreed by a numerate community is not good enough. And you figured that out that with your words, words, words. Especially that big one, conflate! Hey, tough luck about that high-school D in pre-calc.

    Studies show that people with a high need for affiliation don’t actually think up their opinions, they simply adopt those of their chosen group. Just like all Democrats are convinced Putin rigged your election, all Republicans think what you think.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  124. AaronB says:
    @Sean

    You are right, Sean. We Jews are simply smarter than you. You are wise to recognize you cannot fight us. IQ tests and HBD, cutting edge science, prove that we are superior to you. We dominate all the institutions and all the power. That is not an accident. You cannot fight something smarter than you. Spread the message, Sean.

    If you serve us well, we may reward you. And I am pleased to report that you are serving us well. Bravo. Along with Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, and Anatoly Karlin, you are one of our best foot soldiers.

    Keep up the good work.

    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Sean
  125. E says:
    @Colin Wright

    Even if it’s NOT happening, it WILL happen as long as our doctrine is “infinite growth”. It’s inevitable. It’s immoral to do like the Baby Boomers and think only of your own generation.

    Since 1650, U.S. energy use has been increasing by 2.9% every year, and everyone believes that this can continue forever. I highly recommend people, Israel Shamir as well, read this (warning: math and sarcasm in that link):

    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

    Even if we cover 100% of the Earth’s land surface with solar panels, we get under 300 years. And in a millenium or so, we’d have to produce, on our planet, as much energy as the entire sun. Even if we were to find and use infinite reserves of oil & coal, or nuclear fusion, we’d be fried to a crisp and dead as a species. The current trajectory is ridiculous.

  126. Mike P says:
    @j2

    If you use the the Northern insolation peak that set off the Holocene as the yardstick (and maybe a higher resolution graph), you will find, during the last 600 thousand years, some 5-7 peaks of similar or greater height that failed to trigger a glacial termination. Also, the after-effects of volcano eruptions would simply not last long enough to suppress a glacial termination, which still takes several thousand years to complete; thus, even one such “failed” insolation peak would indicate that something else is needed to bring about deglaciation.

    The overall temperature trend of the last 3,000 years has been down, with a super-imposed rhythm of alternating cold and warm periods. The “Little Ice Age” occurred between the Medieval and Modern warm periods, the “Dark Age” cold period between the Roman and the Medieval warm periods. The point I was trying to make by pointing out those warm periods is precisely that all previous ones occurred without the help of human-produced CO2. Therefore, we need to take seriously the possibility that modern warming is again driven, at least in part, by the same underlying, CO2-independent rhythm, even if we don’t have a quantitative theory to account for this rhythm. When it comes to estimating human effects on the climate, the problem of the unknown natural, spontaneous baseline drift is very real.

    • Replies: @j2
  127. Climate models work pretty well. From The Guardian: “30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction. Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie.” From the article: “The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, (….)”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

    And more: “Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming.”

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

  128. Kermit says:
    @niteranger

    Everything you’ve said sounds true to me. I’ve boated past the pens holding these Atlantic salmon. Keeping fish in small pens that normally roam the ocean and feeding them whatever is cheapest – why – what could possibly go wrong?? Most of the salmon I consume are ones I caught and processed myself, but there is a huge fleet of boats in the Pacific every summer harvesting wild salmon.

    I’m amazed at the ignorance here on this forum. I’m afraid that the “I’m OK, you’re OK” approach has been a real disaster. They taught that anyone’s opinion was as good as any other’s opinion, but they neglected to add – as long as you’ve studied what you are talking about and are at least somewhat knowledgeable. I see this in discussions of climate science all the time. The science is almost entirely based on computer models, and even scientists are woefully ignorant of using computers to model chaotic systems.

  129. Kermit says:
    @jeff stryker

    The idea that Israel wanted Bush to invade Iraq, thereby strengthening the position of Iran and creating a domino effect into Syria is stupid.

    Of what use was the invasion of Iraq to Israel compared to the bank accounts of Haliburton.

    Have you not heard of the “Yinon Plan”? There is a pdf online, and it is an eye-opener to what has been happening in the ME. This made more sense after reading “The Undoing Project” by Michael Lewis. Daniel Kahneman was talking about the 70s war and how it was such a shock to the Israelis. They realized that they could easily be overrun by neighboring countries and destroyed. In my mind, this had to be the impetus behind drafting the Yinon Plan in the early 80s.

    I believe it was right here on this site that I read a comment (I should have written down the author) about what the Israeli battle cry was –

    Onward Christian soldiers.

  130. Kermit says:
    @j2

    As one commenter gave his opinion and left the thread, I will comment his opinion here. There are many fields, like for instance military tactics, where the phenomenon to be studied cannot be precisely modeled, yet models are used and their drawbacks are acknowledged. Still, even though models are not especially predictive, the phenomena is understood to some extent.

    The drawbacks are not acknowledged in climate science. That is the problem! The models are not especially predictive, but they are used by politicians to force changes to the way we live.

    How do you measure whether science is good, or even useful, unless that science gives useful results on data that was not used in the creation of the models?

    It is a fudge factor, as we cannot assign a precise value to it and do not know what it causes in practice, but quite real.

    How do you know that it is “quite real”?? What you are talking about here is curve-fitting – and then making a huge assumption that the curve will continue to be useful into the future. Doesn’t it make more sense to let the data accumulate in real time and do some actual testing on that curve? Even if the data continues to follow the curve, that does not mean the curve will continue to be useful, but at least you have a little more confidence in it.

    Take up computer modeling of the commodity markets – and bet your own money on the projections of your models! I guarantee that you will have a changed view of how valuable computer models of a chaotic system can be.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  131. I would explain it to you but nobody would understand it anyway.
    I did wrote an comment about it on Romans but it was deleted.
    In short Earth goes through ice age and worm age due changing its orbit around the Sun.
    One cycle is about forty thousand years.
    Now we are about in warmest years. Eventually we will go back to ice age.
    That the warming is caused by carbon monoxide is an idiotic nonsense.

  132. @Kermit

    The answer to your question about how you know that climate models will be useful in the future is that they agreed with data about the past, and second because they made predictions in the past that were shown to be basically correct. That’s the case of James Hansen. The models consider what we know about factors that influence our climate. They also follow basic science. So, it’s no wonder that they are accurate and useful, even if not perfect and even if there are some questions that aren’t solved definitively. What’s amazing is that you don’t notice this. Why don’t you read the links I provided and comment on them? I believe that J2 finds them useful.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Kermit
  133. Mike P says:
    @MIT Snowflake watch

    We can indeed hope that your “complete model” is consistent, but the problem remains that it is not one built from first principles alone.

    Ask yourself: if the predictions of the IPCC turned out to be wrong – if, say, the Earth actually cooled over the next 30 years, despite a continuing rise in CO2 – would you consider the climate models falsified, or physics itself? Say, would you be inclined to toss out the principle of energy conservation? Of course not – you would instead blame the failure on the approximations and unproven assumptions that went into the models, in addition to textbook physics, and not on the textbook physics itself.

  134. Sparkon says:

    Increased levels of atmospheric CO₂ are a result or effect of global warming, and not its cause.

    The oceans outgas CO₂ as they warm in the same way your soda or beer goes flat as it warms up because it is losing its carbonation, or CO₂, to the atmosphere. It is the CO₂ in your carbonated beverage that gives it its sparkle, at least while it is still cold.

    This cause and effect relationship is clearly evidenced in the Vostok ice core proxies where CO₂ lags temperature.

    In any cause and effect relationship, cause comes first and effect follows.

    Arrhenius’s work was done in the laboratory, but it is not possible to build an accurate model of Earth’s climate in a lab, either mathematically or physically.

    Virtually all warmth on Earth comes from our Sun. Therefore, small variations in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) are the most likely agents of climate change on planet Earth. Many stars, perhaps most, are variable.

    Indeed, I submit evolution itself is driven by changes in the Solar output, not by random mutations or changes in the DNA, but rather by systematic ones that affect most creatures simultaneously.

  135. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    “The point I was trying to make by pointing out those warm periods is precisely that all previous ones occurred without the help of human-produced CO2.”

    This is true. And there has been since the last ice age a period of 2000 years of small warming and in the middle of it (at 1000 years) a smaller warming. Thus, as 0 AD there was a short warm period, we should now have a short warm period even without human CO2. In this warm period CO2 in the atmosphere would rise because warming oceans would release CO2. This can very well be how the present warming started. It is a small cycle that is not insolation, it is some other cycle, maybe sea stream or glaciation cycle, or something else. But the small warming did not raise CO2 as high as it is now, so the reason why it is so high now is easiest explained by human activity. As there is a relation between the temperature and CO2 and CO2 can raise the temperature as a greenhouse gas, it follows that if human activity added CO2 to the atmosphere, this warming period will be stronger than the ones before in this natural 2000 year cycle. Thus, humans have made the warming cycle stronger and at the moment CO2 seems to be driving the warming, as it is a positive feedback loop with CO2 and temperature, either term can drive it depending on the situation.

    “If you use the the Northern insolation peak that set off the Holocene as the yardstick (and maybe a higher resolution graph), you will find, during the last 600 thousand years, some 5-7 peaks of similar or greater height that failed to trigger a glacial termination.”

    Agreed. Milankowitch cycles do not completely explain ice ages. In some earlier thread I gave the 100 ka ice age cycle as an example where there is correlation but causation cannot be established since any way you want to put the causal relation, there are always unexplained cases. I concluded that the actual cause is insolation (if there is no sun energy ice does not melt, so ice age does not stop, and there is no periodic ice age cycle, so insolation is a causal reason), but there are other mechanisms that mess it up so badly that a satisfactory causal relation has not been found.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  136. @Sparkon

    What you say is wrong. I quote an explanation which will show this (the rest you can read opening the link bellow):

    But more to the point, the physics of the greenhouse effect are well-understood and entirely uncontroversial. A guy named Joseph Fourier had it pretty much figured out all the way back in the 1820s (Pierrehumbert, 2004). This is about as solid as science can get, the climate scientists insisted. Our present increase of greenhouse gases will result in increasing temperature, and no amount of arguing about ice cores can negate that. You can’t cheat physics. The contrarians, convinced of their out, were unpersuaded. The arguments in comments sections of blogs and news articles raged on.

    And then a funny thing happened- the lag disappeared.

    Jeremy Shakun and some of his colleagues had an idea. Noting that the temperature data “leading” the CO2 in the ice core record were an estimation of local conditions near the core site in the Antarctic interior, they set out to reconstruct regional and eventually global temperature change as we thawed out of the Last Glacial Maximum (what most people call “the ice age”). Last year, they published a paper showing that global temperature change followed changes in CO2 rather than the reverse (Shakun et al., 2012). Milankovitch cycles initiated warming of the Northern Hemisphere, which melted a great deal of freshwater previously locked up in ice. This freshwater melting disrupted a global oceanic heat pump, resulting in a cooling of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and warming in the Southern Hemisphere. This hemispheric heat switcheroo is known as a “bipolar seesaw”. As the Southern Ocean warmed during this seesaw, it released CO2 into the atmosphere. This increase in CO2 then warmed the rest of the globe. CO2 was driving warming globally, even though it wasn’t the initial trigger. Shakun et al. further found that the Southern Hemisphere warming and CO2 increase were closely coordinated, happening within a few hundred years at most, and possibly simultaneously. (….) in doing so they found, like Pedro and colleagues, there was essentially no lag between Antarctic temperature increases and CO2 increases.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/coldcomfort.html

    • Replies: @Mike P
  137. j2 says:
    @UncommonGround

    “I believe that J2 finds them useful.”

    I did, thanks. Hansen made three scenarios and one was close to the reality. It is usually so with scenario simulations, only to know what scenario is followed. It should be possible to predict global temperatures in a relatively short time scale. I still do not know it and when the glaciers melt.

    But I think it will take quite some time and though a global weather change IS the end of the world (end of an era) in the old sense, there are such ends of the world and that is life. The last ones were 10,800 BC a comet burned 1/10 of the earth and in 9,600 BC there come the floods, remembered as two ends of the world when the gods wanted to destroy the world. After that time people were looking at the night sky and seeing the dragon (Draco) and Hercules and explaining what they saw in myths. It is also in Christianity, there is the vision in the sky John saw in The Revelation: Draco and Ursa Minor (the pregnant woman, Polaris the head and Kocbah and Pherkad as legs, that the dragon pursues).

    They were incidentally very close being correct: insolation depends on the position of the planets as planets cause the changes in obliquity and eccentricity, and they also tracked precession, which is the third parameter. So their science was basically correct, only the interpretation was too religious for our tastes and human sacrifices did not really help in postponing the end of the world, as Azteks thought. But basically, correct science, just like today.

  138. Mike P says:
    @UncommonGround

    And then a funny thing happened- the lag disappeared.

    Like the Medieval Warm Period before it, like many weather station records before it, like the ARGO floating buoy readings more recently, which were replaced by ship water intake readings, because those trended in a more alarmist direction … this is called “cherry-picking.” The entire field of “climate science” is one big cherry plantation.

  139. Mike P says:
    @j2

    But the small warming did not raise CO2 as high as it is now, so the reason why it is so high now is easiest explained by human activity.

    Fine.

    As there is a relation between the temperature and CO2 and CO2 can raise the temperature as a greenhouse gas, it follows that if human activity added CO2 to the atmosphere, this warming period will be stronger than the ones before in this natural 2000 year cycle.

    But it isn’t stronger. Those Norse farms in Greenland from 1,000 years ago are still in permafrost! Between those frozen farms and the IPCC’s computer whizzes – who do you believe?

    • Replies: @j2
  140. Kermit says:
    @UncommonGround

    The answer to your question about how you know that climate models will be useful in the future is that they agreed with data about the past, and second because they made predictions in the past that were shown to be basically correct.

    This is called curve-fitting, and if you don’t know what that means, you don’t have enough knowledge to even discuss this.

    They also follow basic science.

    No, they try to follow basic science. Now, I’m going to put this in bold print. If you don’t understand this, again, you don’t have enough knowledge to even discuss this.

    Any science that proposes to explain the physics of a system that must use fudge factors to make it fit the historical data is not useful. The existence of fudge factors in a computer simulation is clear evidence that the physics is not understood.

    So, it’s no wonder that they are accurate and useful, even if not perfect

    They are NOT “accurate and useful.” Have you even looked at a chart of all of the computer models’ projections together with actual temperature records now that we have some real time data? The results of the models are proof that the physics is not understood.

    “if not perfect” is a joke. The performance of the models – running in real time – is terrible.

    Get out of the echo chamber!

  141. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    His uncle also tried to fight back saying the he was ‘just one guy’ against the Israel Lobby if I recall rightly.

    That’s the point. “Just one guy” can’t fight back against ethnic nepotism in high places.

    • Replies: @Sean
  142. Mike P[135] “First principles alone.” More of your soaring flights of poesy squeaked out your butt – while using the Republican NPC’s trick of running like hell from any specific mention of model structure. Because it’s over your head. You lack the mathematical maturity to talk about it. You’re not smart enough to evaluate the evolving strengths and weaknesses of the ensemble.

    So you make up a hypothetical case, and, using your Yuri Geller telepathic spoon-bending mental powers to read my mind, magically determine that your interlocutor does not believe in falsifiable results. Because you never heard of DCPP Component A. You haven’t the foggiest idea what that is, or how it works.

    You can’t even tell when you’re emitting Dunning-Kruger, old-drunk-grampa-who-saw-it-on-Fox-level pap. It’s the American Way: say any embarrassing baby talk you want – it’s OK cause no one gives a shit what you think. Exxon already decided that for you.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  143. @Rational

    That is why I love CO2.

    Arctic ocean phytoplankton declined from 4.5 mg/ cubic metre to just 0.5 mg/cubic metre in the period 1960-2010. Yet each year during that period carbon dioxide levels increased in the oceans. So clearly, CO2 is not the plant food magic solution you seem to think it is.

    Phytoplankton are at the very base of the food web. When they die, everything above it dies, and that includes humans.

    • Replies: @utu
  144. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    “But it isn’t stronger. ”

    Let’s wait for some hundred years, then we know. Those fast warming periods look so fast in a plot of kiloyears but were not shorter than 500 years, I think.

  145. Mike P says:

    … magically determine that your interlocutor does not believe in falsifiable results.

    If you reread my comment, you may notice that I treated the concept of falsification as common ground.

    You’re not smart enough to evaluate the evolving strengths and weaknesses of the ensemble.

    If your models were physically exact, you wouldn’t even need an “ensemble” – just one model would be enough. Maybe you understand math, as you claim, but you don’t seem to understand science.

  146. @Sparkon

    Therefore, small variations in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) are the most likely agents of climate change on planet Earth. Many stars, perhaps most, are variable.

    The initial boost in solar insolation caused by the Milankovic cycles is not enough to account for the total observed warming. There is a multiplier effect at work, and that multiplier is carbon dioxide.

    Without a greenhouse effect, earth would be too cold for life as all the heat received from the sun would simply be re-radiated back into space during the night. However, you can have too much of a good thing. Carbon dioxide makes life on earth possible by preventing us from freezing, but put too much of it into the atmosphere and you get too much heat trapped near the earth’s surface.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  147. Just spent about 30 minutes reading all the pro and con arguments re:Global Warming in Mr Shamir’s article. As I’ve seen in past discussions both sides seemingly present lots of “facts” theories, etc. to support their position. And one tends to get overwhelmed with too much stuff.

    So what I do when confronted with a blizzard of such info is to pause, step back, take a deep breath, and ask some simple questions.

    ?regarding Modeling. They can’t even get 7 day forecasts right to any reasonable degree for my location.. So it’s sheer lunacy to expect accurate Global temperature forecasts for tens of years from now.

    ? Who or what popularized this Global Warming hypothesis? Answer. Al Gore. And who or what is an Al Gore? Answer. A Politician. QED.

  148. utu says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    Where does the need to exaggerate come from? Watch out. New Yakov Yurovsky may come and get you, Nick.

    We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ∼1% of the global median per year.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268

  149. Sean says:
    @AaronB

    IQ tests and HBD, cutting edge science, prove that we are superior to you. We dominate all the institutions and all the power.

    Cutting edge science merely confirmed for HBD a long standing widespread perception thoughout society that Ashkanizic Jews are of not inconsiderable intelligence. (even Sephardic Jews were capable of dominating Spanish institutions once the were allowed to compete on equal terms as New Christians ).

    If you serve us well, we may reward you. And I am pleased to report that you are serving us well. Bravo. Along with Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, and Anatoly Karlin, you are one of our best foot soldiers

    I have news for you, those people are only unusual for daring to publicly say under their own names what everyone else already knows. Except Jews themselves of course, which is why Jews congratulate each other with the complement ‘gentile-head’.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  150. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    He was not alone because most of the foreign policy establishment were with him, and saying he was one guy was obviously alluding to the Israel lobby. So he was powerful white gentile who tried and failed. Reagan had a similar experience.

  151. Kermit says:
    @MIT snowflake watch

    Mike P[135] “First principles alone.” More of your soaring flights of poesy squeaked out your butt – while using the Republican NPC’s trick of running like hell from any specific mention of model structure. Because it’s over your head. You lack the mathematical maturity to talk about it.

    Mike P gives a rational analysis of where the science currently stands, and all you can do is to generate smoke and mirrors. It is so obvious that all you are doing is trying to muddy up the waters.

    You’re not smart enough to evaluate the evolving strengths and weaknesses of the ensemble.

    You don’t have to be all that smart to understand what the weaknesses are of the existing climate models.

    Because you never heard of DCPP Component A. You haven’t the foggiest idea what that is, or how it works.

    I haven’t the foggiest idea either about what it is, or how it works. And, that fact is totally immaterial to knowing whether or not the climate models are reliable enough to pay attention to their projections. To knowing if the physics really is understood.

    You can’t even tell when you’re emitting Dunning-Kruger, old-drunk-grampa-who-saw-it-on-Fox-level pap. It’s the American Way: say any embarrassing baby talk you want – it’s OK cause no one gives a shit what you think. Exxon already decided that for you.

    Yes, of course, throw Exxon in here. That sure put Mike P in his place. (sarc – in case you missed it)

    You’re so full of yourself that I’m sure you don’t even realize how idiotic you sound when you try and fail so miserably to discredit Mike P.

  152. AaronB says:
    @Sean

    I have news for you, those people are only unusual for daring to publicly say under their own names what everyone else already knows.

    Exactly. Those guys are merely being honest. It is a known fact that each year in America, far more high IQ Jews are born in America than whites. Since there are more high IQ Jews than whites in absolute numbers in America, it is a mathematical certainty that Jews will dominate everything. Nor can it be resisted. If HBD and IQ has taught us anything, it is that the group with the higher IQ will dominate.

    You are a good and loyal foot soldier spreading the message among his fellow whites not to resist what is inevitable, as are the other people I mentioned. You will not be forgotten .

    • Replies: @Sean
  153. @Adrian

    When you speak of “the hottest summer I can remember,” it implies that you’ve only lived in Australia for a few years, that you are green; a novice; inexperienced.

    Every year the highly politicized Bureau of Meteorology, regardless of how tepid or cold temperatures have been throughout the year, no matter how mild the summer has been, faithfully declares Australian average temperatures to be the “hottest ever on record”. When you have a few years experience and a fine memory to call upon, you will get sick of hearng these lies regurgitated ad nauseum.

    Hear are some prosthetic memories of the past in Melbourne for you to contemplate….

    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/12097019/595953
    The Argus, Tue 14 Feb 1939

    SWELTERING HEAT
    106.8 Deg.In City
    Victoria sweltered again yester-
    day in the heat wave, and north-
    erly winds brought temperatures of
    more than lOOdcg. in many parts
    of the State.
    Melbourne’s maximum of 106.8
    deg. was only 2.7deg. lower than
    the highest February temperature
    ever recorded. That was in 1901.

    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/11128099/583930
    The Argus, Mon 29 Nov 1937

    HOTTEST DAY
    99.4’DEC ON
    SATURDAY
    MAY CONTINUE
    SULTRY
    Melbourne thermometers had
    their ups and downs during the
    week-end. The maximum tempera-
    ture on Saturday was 99.4deg.-the
    highest recorded this season, and
    28deg. above the normal maximum
    for November – but when a cool
    southerly change came about 4.30
    p.m. the mercury made a
    sudden descent, falling 20deg. in 10
    minutes.

    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/12100458/596137
    The Argus, Thu 23 Feb 1939

    FIRES MAY SPREAD
    In Hot Winds Today

    Northerly winds, temperatures
    above 100 degrees, and low humidity
    may provide conditions favourable
    for the rapid spread of bush fires
    to-day.
    A warning to all parts of
    the State was Issued by the Weather
    Bureau yesterday.
    The Commonwealth Meteoro-
    logist (Mr. Watt) expects a tem-
    perature of more than 100 degrees
    in Melbourne and considerably
    higher readings in the northern dis-
    tricts of Victoria.

    The Argus, Sat 8 Feb 1851
    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/4776072/505198

    THE WEATHER. — Thursday was one of the
    most oppressively hot days we have experienced
    for some years. In the early morning the at-
    mosphere was perfectly scorching, and at eleven
    o’clock the thermometer stood as high as 117°,
    in the shade ; at one o’clock it had had fallen to 109 °
    and at four in the afternoon was up to 113
    The blasts of air were so impregnated with
    smoke and heat, that the lungs seemed ab-
    solutely to collapse under their withering in-
    fluence ; the murkiness of the atmosphere was
    so great that the roads were actually bright by
    contrast. The usual unpleasantness of hot
    wind was considerably aggravated by the exist-
    ence of extensive Bush fires to the northward,
    said by some to have an extent of 40 or 50
    miles.
    [this was Melbourne’s hottest day on record – Feb 07, 1851]

    A terrific documentary:

    The purpose of the gl9obal warming scam is to literally disempower the poor by making power unaffordable – especially for Europeans. (Chinese, for example, get a free pass to burn Australian coal at a cheaper price than Australians. 100 new coal fired plants due to open soon in China – no worries mate.)

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Adrian
  154. Ditto Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winners are entitled to hold and express their opinion about AIDS without being marginalised and hunted.

    Refreshing, to also read on this site a reference to the long running HIV-Hoax (since 1984), which has cost thousands of lives, yet remains a taboo.

  155. Sean says:
    @AaronB

    It is a known fact that each year in America, far more high IQ Jews are born in America than whites.

    An outdated concept this IQ, and HBD is more of an explanation for the actual smart Jews observably cutting a swath through business, science and especially construction of culture than a theoretical prediction of what reality looks like. Above the cutoff mark for the very highest level of intelligence Jews approach the representation of white gentiles, and at the summit of intellectual Everest you may well be as likely as not to find a Jewish person.

    It is a mathematical certainty that in a meritocratic system Ashkenazim will be represented as a substantial minority (let us say 40%) within the higher reaches of the ruling class. While the going gets progressively tougher once beyond fair representation, it is plausible that once white gentiles began handicapping themselves in any way the Ashkenazim might begin to dominate far beyond what their representation as a proportion of highly intelligent Americans would suggest.

    However the essential point to grasp in understanding why Jews must become more powerful rather than less is that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates ect ect are not part of a white gentile blok and neither is any politician. Trump opposes established policy by an elite with a large minority of Jews, and indicts them that elite as having presided over a decline in America’s power relative to China, but that is all.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  156. Sparkon says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    Without a greenhouse effect, earth would be too cold for life as all the heat received from the sun would simply be re-radiated back into space during the night. However, you can have too much of a good thing. Carbon dioxide makes life on earth possible by preventing us from freezing, but put too much of it into the atmosphere and you get too much heat trapped near the earth’s surface.

    Water vapor (H₂O) is the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere, not CO₂. There is about 60x more water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere than there is CO₂, but somehow you neglected to mention it.

    All else being equal, cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights because water vapor blocks some outgoing IR radiation.

    On a frosty morning, frost melts and/or sublimates virtually instantly as soon as the Sun hits it, but the vaunted back radiation from CO₂ has no effect on nearby frost as long as it remains in the shade.

  157. AaronB says:
    @Sean

    You’re numbers are off. High IQ whites outnumber Jews at something like 8 to 1 in America. Jewish average IQ is around 109, which means even at the stratospheric level where tail effects dominate, Jewish are nowhere near 40%.

    However people at these rarefied heights do not dominate culture, business, media, or politics – they are either dysfunctional or do very high level theoretical work.

    The practical professions are dominated by people with medium to high IQs, where tail effects are much less evident, and where Jews are vastly outnumbered. Journalists are not geniuses. A glance at the NYT should suffice.

    This has all been gone over extensively on this site.

    However the essential point to grasp in understanding why Jews must become more powerful rather than less is that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates ect ect are not part of a white gentile blok and neither is any politician.

    Ah, now you’re getting at the real reason.

    once white gentiles began handicapping themselves in any way the Ashkenazim might begin to dominate far beyond what their representation as a proportion of highly intelligent Americans would suggest.

    And again, you are getting at the real reasons.

  158. Sean says:

    However people at these rarefied heights do not dominate culture, business, media, or politics – they are either dysfunctional or do very high level theoretical work

    I think you are talking about the cognitive dis-inhibition of artistic creativeness (associated with schizophrenia) rather than high intelligence. A great mathematician has the ability to be great at other things. I do not see the construction of culture as being a sphere in which the highest intelligence would lack incentive to participate or decisive advantages in attaining any objective they might set themselves. You virtually admit that Western culture has been turned against itself, but with an 8:1 superiority, how? Precious little evidence of 8:1 in the cultural realm. The eight are supposedly at the same level as the one, but are convinced by their argument?

    • Replies: @AaronB
  159. wayfarer says:

    “New Green Deal Mocked Widely, Triggers Predicted Dem Civil War”

    • Replies: @utu
  160. AaronB says:
    @Sean

    The 8-1 is simply a mathematical fact based on IQ scores and population size. Have you not read Ron Unz’s essays on meritocracy? You should. Or do the math yourself.

    You virtually admit that Western culture has been turned against itself, but with an 8:1 superiority, how?

    How? Lack of motivation. Jews are highly motivated. Whites are pessimistic, atomized, and unmotivated. Motivation is probably the key factor in understanding life after ability. Maybe more important than ability. Jews and Asians believe it is.

    Why do nations become decadent? They do. It is a law of life.

    Starting in the 17th century, white Western intellectuals began developing a culture of self-hate. This was before Jews, and is easily documented. It got bigger and bigger as time passes.

    Why? The 17th century turn to science, and the resultant materialism and amoralism, made sensitive and intelligent people disgusted with themselves. Yet since science gace tremendous power, it could not be given up.

    The eight are supposedly at the same level as the one, but are convinced by their argument

    The 8 invented the argument. Whites invented self-hate. Jews merely jumped on the bandwagon.

    A great mathematician has the ability to be great at other things.

    It is not at all clear that a great mathematician would be a great journalist or businessman. The average IQ of Fortune 500 companies is 115.

    I do not see the construction of culture as being a sphere in which the highest intelligence would lack incentive to participate or decisive advantages in attaining any objective they might set themselves.

    Possibly, but their ability to influence average people is limited. Their thinking is esoteric and rarefied.

    In any event, a glance at the Jewish culture shapers of the NYT like David Brooks or Krugman do not reveal brilliance. And Hollywood producers like Harvey Weinstein do not seem particularly brilliant.

    You seem to be arguing from an unquestioned assumption that the only force shaping human outcomes is raw ability – ergo, whatever the outcomes happen to be in a relatively free system, is ipso facto reflective of raw ability.

    You are neglecting psychological factors like motivation and national pride, need to prove oneself, and you are forgetting factors like cultural beliefs about accomplishment, or nepotism, and factors like relative decadence and demotivation of competing group, etc.

    Ironically, the one thing we KNOW based on IQ averages is that recent Jewish dominance cannot be based on raw ability.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Sean
    , @jeff stryker
  161. utu says:
    @AaronB

    Starting in the 17th century, white Western intellectuals began developing a culture of self-hate.

    You are still at it. Total nonsense. Europe was blooming. There was so many thinkers. It was an explosion and then even more so in 18 century and so on.

    They even did not know what the self-hate was. The word become popular as Jewish false invective to castigate Jews who did not want to toe the tribal line who certainly were not self-hating – quite the opposite.. Usually they were the ones who were ready to embrace universalism of Western civilization.

    Theodor Lessing’s 1930 book Der Jüdische Selbsthass

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @AaronB
  162. utu says:
    @wayfarer

    A typical shortsighted right winger. Ocasio-Cortez created an opening, a perfect window of opportunity for the new right to step in and create the populist movement. Ocasio-Cortez is not hated by Democrats because she talks nonsense but because she broached the taboo subject which is the economical power structure, financial elites, workers right. If the new right wants to become successful and turn into a populist movement it has to adopt this part of Ocasio-Cortez platform. Trump won because he alluded to these issues. The border security and the crimes of illegals was just salt and pepper added to the main dish. Do not believe whatever the the horse faced Ann Coulter is saying.

    • Replies: @wayfarer
  163. wayfarer says:
    @utu

    As a fatalist it appears to me, at this point there isn’t a single “leader” in America’s debased beltway, who’ll be able to keep our ship from going down. As unchained anarchy, is soon to be at our doorstep.

  164. AaronB says:
    @utu

    I said it began in the 17th century. Not that self-hate was a fully developed thing by then. The seeds were planted.

    The mechanical view of life unleashed tremendous vitality at first. But soon after misgivings began to emerge.

    As the mechanical view of life grew, it led to counter movements like the Romantic Revolution, which rejected the mechanical view of life.

    For a while these currents of European culture existed in creative tension. The mechanical view of life gave tremendous power but undermined happiness.

    As European power grew, do did unhappiness, until by the end of the 19th century pessimism and boredom was widespread.

    But I get the sense you are far more ignorant of European culture than I had thought, so this isn’t a worthwhile conversation.

    Its the Jews, who somehow, as Sean says, despite being numerically vastly inferior in terms of high IQ people, managed to wreck a perfectly healthy and vital white culture that did not undermine itself.

    That’s a completely rational and consistent explanation, and I hope you derive much comfort from it.

    What it means, of course, is that you are powerless before Jews even when your culture is healthy and vital – Jews have the power to wreck it, just like that.

    You are doomed then. You are no different in your own way from Anatoly Karlin and the HBDers, and one more expression of modern pessimism and passivity.

    A typical decadent 🙂

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  165. Adrian says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    I came to Australia in the time of Menzies, so probably before you were born. I can find nowhere in the quotes you give the formula “the hottest ever on record” which according to you the bureau of meteorology says every year. So that bureau is in the plot to make power unaffordable for the poor? Yes I know that implicit defence of the coal industry. Ian Plimer who has made millions on his defence of mining comes up with the same humanitarian noises from time to time.

    • Replies: @AlreadyPublished
  166. Sean says:
    @AaronB

    How? Lack of motivation.

    Plenty of white gentiles are motivated to be having the access all areas life that a big Hollywood producer has. Gregory Cochran thinks young academics pretending not to believe in HBD are like aspiring actresses to the scientific establishment’s Harvey Weinstien (bad analogy: Weinstein has been accused of multiple rapes). Steve Bannon made good money on a Seinfeld deal , but he admits it was more or less by accident. If there is 8:1 at top level then there is at least that at whatever level is right for Hollywood success.

    It is not at all clear that a great mathematician would be a great journalist or businessman. The average IQ of Fortune 500 companies is 115.

    The young Bill Gates fancied himself as a outstanding mathematician, he is a good businessman. Anyway, we are talking about Ashkenazim and their strongly skewed performance on verbal intelligence tests is suggestive. Charles Darwin was not a particularly good writer. Sigmund Freud was perhaps the greatest prose stylist of his time, and had he not been such a superlative writer he would not have influenced culture to the extent he did.

    Ironically, the one thing we KNOW based on IQ averages is that recent Jewish dominance cannot be based on raw ability.

    If the reproductive fitness enhancing emoluments accruing to victors in Talmudic disputation have not selected Jews for the power to convince others, rather than selected for the mechanical manipulation of objects. Darwin was descended from Joshua Wedgwood a skilled potter. Freud had “generations of distinguished rabbis and scholars on both his maternal, paternal and marital sides”.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  167. @AaronB

    Aaron-

    I assume you are Jewish so you know when a Jew is a drug addict or criminal everyone in his community knows. In college I met a Jewish guy who sold me a bike and immediately Jews on my dorm floor warned me that he was a cocaine addict and all-around bad seed and to keep away from him.

    I’m not Jewish myself, so I did not know.

    My point is Anglos are atomized like you mentioned. Jews all know one another.

  168. Kouros says:

    The Global warming associated with the inherent Global Climate Change has for long predicted such patterns of change in various places.
    Overall warming mostly experienced in the Arctic regions will end up affecting the Gulfstream and the haline conveyor. As such, the warmth coming from south will decrease. Therefore, one should not be surprised that countries in Western Europe situated at the same latitude or north of Labrador will experience similar climates.
    Also there were predictions on how the cycle of arctic influxes of air towards south will be disrupted. It is happening.
    So get a grip in physical reality Mr. Shamir: “Sutor, ne ultra crepidam”!

  169. Annals of global warming: “mass invasion of polar bears” on Novaya Zemlya, northern Siberia…

    • Replies: @Fatima Manoubia
  170. @obwandiyag

    Yes. I was there for three months and have since grown a third testicle.

  171. @AaronB

    Fine, but in your opinion what is DIFFERENT about Jewish culture that immunizes them from this?

    MacDonald wrote about the Culture of Critique but why does this not affect Jews?

    Lets take more obvious examples. Much is made about porn being a Jewish plot to destroy Gentiles. But why doesn’t porn destroy Jews themselves? How are they raised differently?

    What do they teach their children that somehow protects them?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  172. @Adrian

    https://www.google.com/search?&q=Australian+Bureau+of+Meteorology%2C+”hottest+on+record&#8221;

    This summer’s sea temperatures were the hottest on record for Australia
    http://www.bom.gov.au
    “The summer of 2015–2016 was one of the hottest on record in Australia.”

    [MORE]

    Climate updates
    http://www.bom.gov.au
    Issued April 2016; This summer’s sea temperatures were the hottest on record for Australia

    2016 crowned hottest year on record: Australia needs to get heat smart
    “Aunty” ABC:
    https://www.abc.net.au
    It’s official: 2016 set another record for being the world’s hottest.

    Extreme heatwave: all-time temperature records fall across parts of Australia
    The Guardian, Jan 16, 2019

    Weather News – Last night was Australia’s hottest on record
    http://www.weatherzone.com.au, Jan 18, 2019

    The Last Four Days Are All In Australia’s Top 10 Hottest On Record
    https://www.fiveaa.com.au
    Jan 16, 2019

    April maximum temps hottest on record | Newcastle Herald
    https://www.theherald.com.au, May 1, 2018

    Dry July the second-hottest on record | SBS News
    Aug 1, 2018 – Across Australia, the mean maximum temperature was 2.22 degrees … The figures from the Bureau of Meteorology are below last year’s record …

    2014 third-warmest year on record: Bureau
    Jan 6, 2015 – Uploaded by Bureau of Meteorology

    Why do you suppose a dedicated team within the global warming cult are perpetually adjusting past temperature records, Adrian?

    Does global warming make winters
    a) milder?
    or
    b) colder?
    or
    c) the answer is contingent on today’s weather?

    How many false prohesies can a religion produce without losing adherents?

    ==============================
    Scientists blame sun for global warming – BBC, Feb 1998
    “The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.”

    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
    Independent, March 2000

    Scientists predict milder winters in Britain and an end to Europe’s ski industry
    Guardian, Jan 2001

    NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
    NASA/GISS, March 2003

    Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high – BBC, July 2004
    “A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.”

    Is Mild Winter a Sign of Climate Change?
    NPR, Jan 2007

    No more drought: it’s a ‘permanent dry’
    TheAge Sep 2007
    “Drought will become a redundant term as Australia plans for a permanently drier future”

    A First! Snow Falls in Baghdad
    AP, Jan 2008

    Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts
    Telegraph, May 2008

    Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
    NASA, Sep 2008

    Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for 70 years
    Evening Standard, Oct 2008

    The Alps have best snow conditions ‘in a generation’
    Telegraph, Dec 2008 [published 4 months after “Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts,” and in the ame propaganda outlet!]

    ‘Quiet Sun’ baffling astronomers
    BBC, April 2009
    “If the Sun’s dimming were to have a cooling effect, we’d have seen it by now.”
    – Professor Mike Lockwood

    Children die in harsh Peru winter
    BBC, July 2009

    World’s climate could cool first, warm later
    New Scientist, Sep 2009

    Beijing’s Heaviest Snow in 54 Years Strands Thousand
    Bloomberg, Nov 2009

    Heavy snow continues as temperatures set to plunge minus 20C
    Herald (Scotland) Jan 2010

    Quiet sun puts Europe on ice
    New Scientist, May 2010

    Freeze Challenges Power Supply
    Xinhua (China), Jun 2010

    Scientists see climate change link to Australian floods
    Reuters, Jan 2011

    Scientists:Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument
    WaPo, Feb 2014

    ‘Polar vortex’ brings big freeze to North America
    Telegraph UK, Aug 2014

    Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research
    Telegraph UK, Oct 2014

    Why global warming does not necessarily result in warmer winters
    Economist, Mar 2015

    Global warming will make winters in Britain even COLDER
    Sun UK, Oct 2016

    Climate change could make summers hotter and winters milder
    SanDiegoTribune, Jan 2017

    Is It Okay to Enjoy the Warm Winters of Climate Change?
    Atlantic, Feb 2017

    A warming Arctic can actually make our winters colder
    Poopular Mechanics, Sep 2017

    Climate change at work? Weather Service calls for third straight mild winter.
    WaPo, Oct 2017

    It’s cold outside. But that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real.
    USA Today, Dec 2017

    Big snowfall, a cooler ocean and, yet, more signs of global warming
    NBC, Jan 2018

    Why climate change may be to blame for dangerous cold blanketing eastern U.S.
    NBC, Jan 2018

    Q&A: What does all this snow mean for climate change?
    Guardian, Feb 2018

    Why a Warming Arctic May Be Causing Colder U.S. Winters
    NatGeo, Mar 2018
    ==============================

    from Chilling Possibilities, Science News, 1975

    The winter of 1780-81 was a particularly bitter one for the American Revolutionary forces. Washington’s troops hunkered down, ill-clothed and ill-fed, around their campfires at Morristown, N.J., while a few miles away British troops enjoyed the relative luxury of an occupied New York City. But even the British had their problems, for the win- ter was so cold that parts of New York harbor froze for weeks at a time, blocking movement of their powerful fleet. The ice even got thick enough to allow hauling cannons from Manhattan to Staten Island. The colonists had struggled against devastating winters ever since establishment of the earliest settlements, when one of the few holidays celebrated by the stern Puritans was that of Thanks- giving-for a harvest bountiful enough to ensure survival until spring.
    Though they didn’t realize it, these hardy pioneers were trying to conquer a New World in the midst of some of the worst weather in over 2,000 years, a cold spell that had begun in the early 15th century and was to continue until around 1850, known to later climatologists as the “Little Ice Age.”
    By contrast, the weather in the first part of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millennium, and, partly as a result, the world’s population has more than doubled. Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation, the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no signs of reversal.

    […]
    During warm periods a “zonal circulation” predominates, in which the prevailing westerly winds of the temperate zones are swept over long distances by a few powerful high and low pressure centers. The result is a more evenly distributed pattern of weather, varying relatively little from month to month or season to season. During cooler climatic periods, how- ever, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.

    ===========================================

    (Sean and AaronB apparently have nothing to say on the topic of weather/global warming, and seem to be running interference at a furious rate. There are 100s of threads where their comments would be relevant.)

    • Replies: @Adrian
  173. AaronB says:
    @Sean

    Sure, plenty of whites are ambitious, and they end up like Gates, Bezos, Musk.

    But Jews are significantly more intense, driven, and ambitious – I grew up in that community, and I know. Whites are laid back in comparison.

    This drivenness plus their nepotism and ethnic cohesiveness means Jews will punch well above their weight in terms of raw ability under any circumstances – when you factor in that whites are in their decadent phase, the difference is stark.

    Its funny, but the one area Jews do not shine in is literature. Interestingly, the supposedly spatial and non-verbal Asians had a traditional culture based on literary works and prized literature above everything.

    And Jews are notable for dominating Hollywood, a spatial medium.

    Look at how the world actually works, not tests.

    In any event, are you telling me David Brooks in the NYT is this brilliant scintillating writer created by generations of natural selection? You must be joking.

    Name one Jewish writer in any field that is just heads and tails above gentiles to the extent that one would say, yes, I see how this talent took generations of selection to reach this peak.

    Freud is a great writer, but he is far from the best even in the German language, where Goethe, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and many others are better.

    I’m not saying Jews are not a talented and capable people, just population numbers and mean IQ make quite clear that their recent dominance isn’t the result of raw ability. Moreover, looking at their actual performance, like the writers in the NYT or the people in Hollyywood, one does not get the impression of extraordinary talent of a kind whites could not deliver in much greater numbers.

    If anything, intellectual life in this country has notably declined in the era of Jewish prominence – even the NYT is worse written today than newspapers a century ago.

    The problem with HBD is it seeks to explain contingent historical situations as due to permanent laws.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
    , @Sean
  174. AaronB says:
    @jeff stryker

    First of all, porn is huge in the Jewish community, this notion that it doesn’t affect them is absurd.

    Secondly, Jews have not allowed their traditional culture to be dismantled by science and Enlightenment values, so that even secular Jews are somewhat erected. Whites have completely abandoned any cultural anchors. No other people on the world has.

    That’s all there is to it.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  175. AaronB says:
    @jeff stryker

    The Jewish community is affected by all the negative trends that affect whites, even feminism is huge there, and there is massive amounts of outmarriage.

    But it is somewhat healthier because it never made the bargain with the Devil whites did – power through science, for your soul. Jews made other bargains with the Devil, but not that one, or not fully.

    Whites are the only people who have fully sold their soul for power – every other people have done it only partially.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  176. @Fatima Manoubia

    An article to explain this phenomena….( including beautiful images of swimming polar bears…)

    The agonizing search for sea ice by polar bears

    https://www.salyroca.es/articulo/sal/osos-polares-busqueda-hielo-marino/20160628081729001938.html

    Polar bears need the ice of the seas to survive. To find it, they can swim more than 100 kilometers.

    But the icy surface is decreasing more and more at a very high rate due to climate change.

    Because of climate change, the sea ice or ice that forms over the sea in the polar regions is melting earlier in the spring and is formed later in the autumn, say researchers from the Cryosphere magazine of the European Union of Geosciences (EGU).

    Between 1979 and 2014, the region lost 7 to 19 days of ice per decade in those 19 regions, revealed satellite images.

    “Because of the dependence (of the bears) of sea ice, climate change is the main threat to their survival,” the report warns.

    It is estimated that the total population of Ursus maritimus is only about 25,000 individuals.

    Become emblematic of the ravages of climate change, these large carnivores remain most of the time in the ice, where they hunt, rest and reproduce.

    When the ice melts, they return to the mainland and must survive by appealing to their fat reserves during periods that are getting longer and longer. And these large webs must swim ever longer distances before finding a place to settle.

    They depend on the ice sheet especially to hunt seals, their favorite prey, and have increasing difficulty in catching them while they swim.

    The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet under the effect of climate change generated by greenhouse gas emissions, largely resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels by humans in an overpopulated planet.

    Polar bears could lose a third of their population by the middle of the 21st century, warned in 2015 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which currently classifies them among the “vulnerable” species.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  177. @AaronB

    AARON

    I grew up in Ann Arbor, which began as German-Jewish settlement (I’m not Jewish, by the way) and knew Jews by the boatload.

    Jews tend to have white-collar sensibilities. I would also say their work ethic is pretty good.

    Jews are not spoiled either. It would seem that many of their fathers are either unloving or severe.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  178. @AaronB

    AARON

    I met Joanne Angel once and actually admire lower class Jewish girls who enter the last truly sexist pig business in the world and manage to become millionairesses. They avoid the cocaine and the self-esteem issues and live within their means and her and Dean and Jeremy seem down to earth.

    No idea why anyone would want to see them fornicating, but good on them for making money.

    I think Jews (And Asians and Muslims and Italians) survive the cultural storms like the sixties or porn for the reasons you just said. They have a cultural anchor and WASPS (I’m not sure if your scientific theory is valid but it is feasible) just don’t have one at all.

    So an Abbie Hoffman goes through the sixties but does not have a kid out of wedlock and still has a degree to fall back on so he cuts his hair and puts a tie on and becomes a stockbroker. Whereas the white Irish-Catholic girl goes to orgies, has a kid out of wedlock she names “Moon Beam” and goes from LSD to coke to crack.

  179. @AaronB

    AARON

    Irish and Italians who are Catholic seem better off than Reformed Church groups so I don’t completely doubt this.

    As for marrying out, they marry Italians quite a bit but Italians and Jews are like cousins. Irish-Catholics second, seemingly.

    But Jews and Italians and Irish live in proximity so that makes sense.

    I’ve always theorized however, that Jews and Polish Catholics do not like one another quite as much. Even in Michigan, there was some antipathy there.

  180. AaronB says:
    @jeff stryker

    Jews have retained more traditional culture than whites. Its no secret that traditional culture provides a social anchor, and that cultures that have embraced the Enlightenment are in danger of developing all sorts of problems, especially their lower classes.

    Traditional cultures have their own problems, and Jewish culture specifically is unhealthy in different ways than white culture. Neurotic and driven, they create unhappiness for themselves and make enemies.

    But they are less likely to suffer the same social ills that afflict an atomized and individualist society.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  181. Seljuk says:

    Climate changes, true, but those changes, cyclical or not, are induced by factors of different order

    That’s TOTAL HYPOCRISY.

    Stopping the Great Lakes Radioactive Dump

    Canadian ‘Experts’ Comfy with Radioactive Pollution of Great Lakes

    Lake Huron Radioactive Waste Dump Should be Rejected

    $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups

    US Bomb Tests and Bidding Wars Herald New (Unlawful) $1.5 Trillion Nuclear Weapons Complex

    Federal Regulator Halts Move to Toughen Radiation Exposure Limits

    Undeterred: Amid Terror Attacks in Europe, US H-bombs Still Deployed There

    US H-bombs Deployed in Five NATO Countries

    An even clearer violation of NPT is the US deployment of between 184 and 200 thermonuclear gravity bombs, called B61, in five European countries — Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Germany.

    Help Stop Radioactive Waste Dump and Thousands of Dangerous Shipments Across the US

    https://www.counterpunch.org/author/buchud/

    John Laforge

    John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.

  182. Seljuk says:

    In Sweden (and in North Europe in general), energy is necessary for survival, but the rulers keep raising energy costs by switching to “green energy”, meaning generated without oil or coal

    Again that is TOTAL HYPOCRISY.

    The Weapons Oligarchy
    by John Laforge

    emphasis added

    Since 2011, Obama has been pushing a plan to spend $85 billion over 10 years to rebuild thousands of H-bombs — bombs that should be retired and abolished. The president has also proposed pouring $125 billion over 10 years into a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines, new nuclear bombers and new land-based ICBMs.[4]

    One plan is to return 200 B61 gravity H-bombs from five U.S. bases in Europe, where they are unwanted, and to replace their warheads and tail fins. Today, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Belgium are debating whether they want the U.S. bombs ousted permanently, yet the Pentagon plans to return them to European fighter bases with new “life extension.”

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/26/the-weapons-oligarcy/

    [1] “The Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget,” New York Times, editorial, Oct. 11, 2011; & Alicia Godsberg, letter, New York Times, Sept. 30, 2011

    [2] Joe Cirincione, interviewed on Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, April 21, 2013,

    [3] R. Jeffrey Smith & Douglas Birch, “Obama Proposes Shifting Funds from Nuclear Nonproliferation to Nuclear Weapons,” Foreign Policy.com, April 9, 2013,

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/09/obama_proposes_shifting_funds_from_nuclear_nonproliferation_to_new_nuclear_weapo

    [4] “The Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget,” New York Times, editorial, Oct. 30, 2011

    [5] Daryl G. Kimball and Tom Z. Collina, Arms Control Now, April 11, 2013, http://armscontrolnow.org/ 2013/04/11/nnsa-nuclear-weapons-budget-ignores-fiscal-realities-congress-should-re-examine-b61-project/

    [6] Hans M. Kristensen, “B61-12: Contract Signed for Improving Precision of Nuclear Bomb,” Federation of American Scientists, Nov. 28, 2012; http://blogs.fas.org/security/2012/11/b61-12contract/

    [7] Julian Borger, “Obama accused of U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges,” The Guardian, April 21, 2013http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/21/obama-accused-nuclear-guided-weapons-plan

    [8] Associated Press, “Navy seeks to preserve submarine shipyards: In doing so it would buy some vessels it may not need,” Milwaukee Journal, March 14, 1992

    [9] Wall St. Journal, March 29, 2013, p. A12

    [10] “Margaret Thatcher, ‘Iron Lady’ Who Set Britain on New Course, Dies at 87,” New York Times, April 9, 2013, p. A11

    [11] Ibid, n. 7

    [12] Christopher Drew, “Audit of Pentagon Spending Finds $70 Billion in Waste,” New York Times, March 30, 2011

  183. Anon[360] • Disclaimer says:

    They scare us all the time, to get larger budgets and to command more obedience. They scare the Brits that they will “starve among putrefying piles of rubbish after Brexit” according to The Guardian. They scare the Swedes by the mythic Russian submarines

    ARMING EUROPEAN ALLIES

    Boeing received funding to help manufacture P-8A aircraft for Norway ($81,110,155) UK ($60,832,616). General Atomics received over $80.8 million for the UK’s MQ-9B Protector program.

    [MORE]

    Boeing received $11.4 million to provide Poland with RQ-21A Blackjack. Poland also received AMRAAM from Raytheon, as detailed in Part Two of this study.

    Lockheed Martin received $116.9 million for Modernized Laser Range Finder Designators (LRFD) for the Netherlands’ AH-64 helicopters.

    Raytheon received $36.8 million for lifecycle management and technical support required to maintain a Tomahawk depot facility. FMS UK = $141,774; 2.84%.

    Sechan Electronics Inc. received $12.6 million to provide Turkey (34%), Canada (27%), and the Netherlands (39%) with electronic parts for MK48 torpedoes.

    US Foreign Military Sales in March-April 2018: Part 1- Western & Far East Allies of the U.S. War Industry

    https://www.newsbud.com/2018/05/22/newsbud-exclusive-us-foreign-military-sales-in-march-april-2018-part-1-western-far-east-allies-of-the-u-s-war-industry/

    DOD issued at least $2,216,367,000 worth of FMS contracts during January & February 2018

    Foreign Military Sales (FMS) appear regularly on the Pentagon’s daily list of contracts. Through FMS, the U.S. government procures and transfers weaponry and matériel to allied nations and international organizations. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) issued at least $2,216,367,000 worth of FMS contracts during January and February 2018.

    Boeing, AAR Aircraft Services, and StandardAero received a shared $268,724,729 for P-8A airframe & engine maintenance and repair for U.S. Navy, Australia, and unnamed FMS. The P-8 Poseidon is a brand new aircraft designed for anti-submarine operations and ship interdiction. It will be sold to all Five Eyes partners, some NATO members, and potentially South Korea.

    DynCorp received $39,130,408 for USA and FMS (Sweden; Tunisia): aviation maintenance in Tunisia, Sweden, Egypt, Kuwait, Germany, and Iraq. DynCorp is one of the Pentagon’s favorite go-to contractors.

    Harris Corp. received $44,859,296 to supply the Philippines with a command and control (C2) system. C2 systems enable militaries to coordinate tasking across various units and enable commanders to maintain a clear picture of the battlefield. Microwave communications systems and SATCOM devices will be installed to facilitate communications among AFP command centers. Under the guise of the so-called War on Terror, the U.S. military has been deployed in the southern Philippines continuously since 2001. Sonalysts, Inc., Systems Engineering Associates Corp., and Transtecs Corp. received a shared $49,403,766 to provide training systems, classrooms, and laboratories for the Waterfront Surface Trainers Program for U.S. Navy (99%); Philippines (1%).

    Jacobs Technology received $17,505,371 for launch test engineering for USN ($15,754,833; 90%) and UK ($1,750,537; 10%) at NAWCWD China Lake.

    Lockheed Martin received $148,745,565 for additional logistics on the F-35 for DOD (~87.42%); non-DOD ($25,322,239; 17.02%); FMS ($8,265,015; 5.56%). Lockheed Martin received $158,268,935 for program management, engineering, site support, and touch labor re: modification & retrofit on F-35 for DOD (85%); non-DOD ($16,959,383; 11%); unnamed FMS ($6,716,943; 4%). The F-35 is the greatest cash cow in the history of the U.S. war industry. The Manhattan Project cost around $26 billion in today’s dollars. The F-35 project is expected to cost nearly $1.5 trillion dollars, though that is a gross underestimate. The real figure is closer to $2.1 trillion dollars once maintenance, field service representatives, industry markups, and inflation are factored in.

    M&M Manufacturing received $28,335,938 for FMS (Afghanistan): trousers for the Afghan National Police (ANP) and received $28,103,438 for coats for ANP. The cash-strapped Afghan government struggles to pay pensioners, but finds enough money to purchase overpriced clothing from the U.S. war industry

    https://www.newsbud.com/2018/03/09/newsbud-exclusive-u-s-foreign-military-sales-for-january-february-2018-exposed-2/

  184. @AaronB

    AARON

    This might apply to the ethnic Catholic whites (Italians, Slavs, Irish-Catholics on the East Coast) and Muslims and Hindus and Asians.

    I cannot think of a better explanation.

    So yours might be near enough.

  185. Anon[360] • Disclaimer says:

    Pentagon Pollution, 7: The military assault on global climate

    “The U.S. military is the single greatest institutional contributor to the growing natural disasters intensified by global climate change.”

    •Part 1: War and the true tragedy of the commons
    •Part 2: Military waste sickens land and people
    •Part 3: Chemical warfare and Agent orange
    •Part 4: A biological bargain with the devil
    •Part 5: The deadly impact of depleted uranium
    •Part 6: Weapons of mass destruction in slow motion
    •Part 7: The military assault on global climate

  186. Sean says:
    @AaronB

    Interestingly, the supposedly spatial and non-verbal Asians had a traditional culture based on literary works and prized literature above everything.

    The eight-legged essay was required for those test takers in these civil service tests to demonstrate their merits for government service, often focusing on Confucian thought and knowledge of the Four Books and Five Classics, in relation to governmental ideals.[1] Test takers could not write in innovative or creative ways, but needed to conform to the standards of the eight-legged essay.[1] Various skills were examined, including the ability to write coherently and to display basic logic….the eight-legged essay is often said to have caused China’s “cultural stagnation and economic backwardness” .

    The Chinese were studying classics of their own literature. Jews were not .

    What is said in the Mishna is simple. How it is said is arcane… its deep substructure of grammatical syntax and substructure shapes what is said into an essentially ritualistic language. It takes many years to master the difficult argot, though only a few minutes to memorize the simple patterns (Neusner 1988)

    What was being being rewarded with a Mandarin’s reproductive success by the Chinese Imperial examination (apart from diligent study) was something rather different than pilpul. Although the the prospective Ashkenazi father-in-law gave his future son-in -law an actual examination, historically, the supreme resource for obtaining a good marriage was having scholars in the family tree (yikhus). Jews could usually identify ancestors six generations back because careful records were kept. A good scholar with excellent yikhus could marry very young to the daughter of a successful businessman and be supported with free room and board (kest) as well as a large dowry. Such parasitic scholarly grooms were devastatingly satirized in an influential Russian novel in which one asks ‘Is my mother-in-law paralyzed that I should have to earn a living’.

    Scholarship was more highly regarded than business success and although the two often went together, businessmen supported the most eminent scholars to such an extent that many became wealthy in their own right. Any Ashkenazi noted as a scholar would receive a range of valuable emoluments.

    1. A wealthy man’s daughter as wife.

    2. Extremely high status in the community of a kind which brought economic benefits For example a ruling granted business monopolies on trade with gentiles to eminent scholars.

    3. Gifts, even if a scholar was well-off.

    4. Protection from anyone speaking against him. This was enforced by bans and fines.

    But Jews are significantly more intense, driven, and ambitious – I grew up in that community, and I know.

    That blacks are more focused on success in basketball does not mean that whites fall short in basketball through a lack of application. People enjoy doing things they are good at.

    It’s funny, but the one area Jews do not shine in is literature…. Name one Jewish writer in any field that is just heads and tails above gentiles to the extent that one would say, yes, I see how this talent took generations of selection to reach this peak.

    Secular Jews tend to excel in whatever is most valued by the society they are in. In France where even scientists are presented as literary figures one would cite Claude Lévi-Strauss (“His mother, who was his father’s second cousin, was the daughter of Rabbi Lévi of Strasbourg”).

    Moreover, looking at their actual performance, like the writers in the NYT or the people in Hollyywood, one does not get the impression of extraordinary talent of a kind whites could not deliver in much greater numbers.

    If anything, intellectual life in this country has notably declined in the era of Jewish prominence – even the NYT is worse written today than newspapers a century ago.

    Romain Gary beat the French at their own literary game, and then married Jean Seberg. The secular are marrying out far more now, and none more than in Hollywood. Anyway, the Jewish producers of Hollywood are trying to appeal to an audience, not produce great art. Michael Winner said the one thing you needed for a film was a good story; even if they don’t write it, the Hollywood people have the gift of understanding what has appeal. These superhero films that are being churned out now speak to something in human nature. Hollywood is exceptionally Jewish because it is mainly Jews who understand how make films that people will actually want to watch enough to pay to see. The comic book superhero genre now so popular in Hollywood was created by a Jewish person with Superman and expanded by Stan Lee ect.

    Jews marrying each other confers far more that just nepotistic advantages: John Podhoretz was a speechwriter for two presidents, including Reagan the “Great Communicator”. Compare Steven Miller to Sarah Sanders; her voice got quavery under attack from Acosta and she went off rambling about herself; when confronted by Acosta and repeatedly interrupted by him while trying to answer, Miller came back

    It was not pretty, but it was effective. Where are Trump’s white gentiles who can equal that performance? He doesn’t have any, which is why the press briefings are becoming so rare. Trump’s state of the union speech had Democratic members of Congress standing up, applauding, and chanting “USA! USA!”. Steven Miller wrote it.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  187. Sean says:
    @j2

    https://www.smokymountainnews.com/aae/item/26024-what-a-woman-why-i-love-camille-paglia
    [Paglia declares:] “…despite my lifelong transgender identity, I do not accept most of the current transgender agenda, which denies biological sex differences, dictates pronouns and recklessly promotes medical and surgical interventions.” “It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warning … flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender.”

    And other things.

  188. AaronB says:
    @Sean

    So John Podhoretz and Steven Miller are your examples of Jews whose talent rises so high that no white can equal it….

    If that satisfies you, then good for you.

    BTW pilpul is just a skill. Anyone can learn it. It is deeply embedded in Jewish culture and goes well beyond the Talmud.

  189. Sean says:

    … and Steven Miller are your examples of Jews whose talent rises so high that no white can equal it…. If that satisfies you, then good for you.

    One would have to conclude from what you are saying that none of myriad white gentiles with political and propagandizing skills above Miller’s level is willing to work for non-neocon conservatives, so they have to settle for him. I think there is a simpler explanation. Just how scarce the 33 years old Miller’s abilities are among white gentiles (who have debating societies and law schools where Jews, their modes of expression, and way of developing thoughts are not absent) can be judged from how thin he has spread himself across the whole movement in his short career :-

    After graduating from college, Miller worked as a press secretary for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman John Shadegg, both members of the Republican Party.[31] Miller started working for Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions in 2009,… In the 113th Congress, Miller played a major role in defeating the bi-partisan Gang of Eight’s proposed immigration reform bill.[18][31] … writing many of the speeches that Sessions gave about the bill.[32] … Miller also worked on Dave Brat’s successful 2014 House campaign, which unseated Republican Majority Leader Eric.Cantor.[18]

    Then as Trump became a serious candidate, Sessions loaned him to Trump. If Miller is not all that impressive as Jewish political operators go, then that just proves my point.

    BTW pilpul is just a skill. Anyone can learn it. It is deeply embedded in Jewish culture and goes well beyond the Talmud.

    I don’t doubt Jewish culture does add something, just as it is also true that Cus D’Amato’s Peek a Boo style of boxing could be instilled with proper coaching, but was only world beating when used by a fighter with an extraordinary amount of innate ability.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  190. AaronB says:
    @Sean

    As I’ve said before, the alt-right does not attract high quality whites, and whites suffer from a motivation deficit anyways. The handful of whites that are motivated, tend to significantly outperform Jews, like Musk, Jobs, Besos, Gates. That being said, you’re naive if you think in politics talent in argument makes you rise to the top.

    You realize you’re all over the map. On the one hand Jews have a specific ability profile but also can excel in anything society finds prestigious. You are relying on HBD arguments about IQ but refusing to accept the math based on mean IQ and population size that says Jews are outnumbered more than 8-1.

    (although Jews are conspicuously absent in engineering. The great engineering firms, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, Daimler, BMW, etc, etc, are not notable for Jews in the same way finance or journalism is, and the great organizational fears of our times are carried out by gentiles like Bezos or Musk)

    The one constant in your position is that since Jews have recently achieved prominence, this can only be because of raw ability. This seems to be an article of faith. You discount all psychological or sociological factors and focus solely on raw ability as your explanatory factor. And you will shift ground and adopt and abandon the data around raw ability to fit your argument. And your great desire seems to be to justify the status quo.

    Perhaps we are seeing pilpul in operation my friend? 🙂

    Steve Miller and Podhoretz lol…

    • Replies: @AaronB
  191. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    The brazenness with which you offer up nonentities like Podhoretz and Miller and try to gaslight us that they are intellectual giants is actually a very good example of pilpul, and the tactics of power.

    People should take note. Brazen insistence on outrageous self-promoting claims is one of the tactics of power. It’s a form of gaslighting. Its very effective against unmotivated opponents, who are prone to doubt their judgement.

    Of course all of this is moot. Jews have power now, whatever the causes.

    A revitalized and motivated white population – an inevitability, as what goes up must come down, and what goes down must come up – won’t believe the status quo is etched in stone.

    A demotivated white population hardly needs to be convinced. Its own instincts leads towards fatalism and pessimism, as we see with the alt right.

    • Replies: @Sean
  192. Mike P says:
    @Fatima Manoubia

    Polar bears survived the Eemian warm period – the warm period preceding the current one, the Holocene – which was significantly warmer than it is now. Take a look at https://polarbearscience.com/ to disabuse yourself of the notion that the cuddly little critters are endangered.

  193. HZ says:

    Just because its cold today doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening. Today’s vulcanos emit far less than humans, 100x less in fact. “Shouldn’t trust scientsits, they were wrong in the past!” can be said about anything, its pure rhetoric. The only correct link established here is that between HIV/AIDS denialism and global warming denialism. A far more plausible conspiracy theory: Shamir is feeding dumb conspiracy theories to the goyim, such that by repeating it they will be seen in the future like HIV/AIDS denialists are today… that or, he just wants to make money by has nothing better to write about, decides to pander to his audience. One of those.

    • Replies: @Sean
  194. Sean says:
    @AaronB

    While there are has been a degradation of working class whites leaving them demoralised without traditional jobs and communities, as you yourself point out the very richest Americans include many white gentiles. So the idea that white gentiles lack self starting people with drive and intelligence is wrong. The white gentile billionaires must be the top of the pile and this prove there are countless white gentiles with intelligence superior to Millers and the will to succeed.

    Yet, there are some things that Jews are good at to an extent that is massively disproportionate with their general intelligence rating and even their business ability. The “Trump Whisperer” is an outlier even among Jews and that is why Miller is irreplaceable: no white gentile can come close to his ability to influence and persuade. If they could have they would have.

  195. Sean says:
    @HZ

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201901/are-our-leaders-using-only-half-their-brains

    In the world of the mind we are literally fancy-free, with infinite powers, possibilities, and potential. But in the world of tangible reality we are prisoners of fate, where physical causality rules and conservation laws dictate that we cannot have it both ways at once. No wonder we have evolved an anti-correlated brain system for each!

    Does this partly explain the current shambles British leaders have got themselves into over Brexit, the equally shambolic American presidency, and the French president’s problems? To my way of thinking, it certainly explains the decision taken by a previous British government to promote diesels as “clean”—one that is now thankfully being rescinded and, given the reputation of diesels, was always surprising to anyone with an ability to think mechanistically about them.

    A main reason that the disastrous diesel policy was put in place was that it was motivated by climate concerns, which have certainly come to dominate the “ethical decision making” of our leaders, not to mention their “creativity” and “openness to new ideas” where policy is concerned. The trouble with both creativity and new ideas is that they can be at best quirky and at worst lunatic unless they are subjected to a little criticism. But there is an increasingly long list of items which in today’s world cannot be criticized or questioned without inviting DMN-igniting charges of “X denial/phobia”, with anthropogenic global warming being only one Xample (if you will excuse the pun-in-print).

  196. Adrian says:
    @AlreadyPublished

    The reason why in recent years the Bureau spoke of the hottest years on record is bcause they WERE the hottest years on record – not only for Australia but globally.

    For the rest your ragbag of quotes proves nothing.

    This is from NASA:

    “Eighteen of the 19 warmest years all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

    But, of course, NASA is also in the plot to rob the poor of cheap energy.

  197. Sparkon says:

    the hottest years on record – not only for Australia but globally.

    Compared to what?

    The oldest and longest instrumental temperature record for anywhere on planet Earth is just over 300 years, but I suppose in your panic you failed to recognize the short length of the temperature record, and compare it against the very old age of planet Earth, about 4.5 billion years — billions and billions of years — but mankind has been writing for only about 5,000 years, and you chaps have been on Oz for just 230-some years, so tie your kangaroo down, sport.

    Alas, we have no instrumental temperature records for 99.999999999% of our planet’s existence. so bleating about all-time temperature records EVAH shows how little we you know. Indeed, in many ways we’re ignoramuses about our own planet, and that makes it easy for the chicken littles to fly into a panic about a few tenths of a degree, when many of us contend with 40 or even 50 degree temperature swings on a single day, and take it all in stride.

    Our instrumental temperature record accounts for 0.000000001% of Earth’s total existence. Our knowledge doesn’t even scratch the surface.

    We do have temperature proxies, and they show that preceding warm periods like the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval were warmer than the ongoing Modern Warm Period.

    But if you can’t stand the heat Down Under, I suppose you could head back to Blighty where they’re chilling out about now.

  198. Adrian says:

    Me: “the hottest years on record – not only for Australia but globally.”

    You: “Compared to what?”

    Me: to the other years on record

    You; “Alas, we have no instrumental temperature records for 99.999999999% of our planet’s existence. so bleating about all-time temperature records EVAH shows how little we you know.”

    Me: Did I say “all time temperature records” ? Look again.

    You:”Our knowledge doesn’t even scratch the surface.
    We do have temperature proxies, and they show that preceding warm periods like the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval were warmer than the ongoing Modern Warm Period.”

    Me: The proxies show no such thing but I agree that your knowledge “doesn’t even scratch th surface.”

    Ljungqvist:“Despite significant improvement in our under- standing of the temperature variability during the past one or two millennia, especially for the Northern Hemisphere, the controversial question whether Medieval Warm Period peak temperatures exceeded present temperatures remains unanswered.”

    Ljungqvist, F. C. (September 2010), “A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia” (PDF), Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 92 (3): 339–351, .

  199. Sparkon says:

    “The proxies show no such thing…”

    Sure they do:

    and

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/31/a-warm-period-by-any-other-name-the-climatic-optimum/

    I guess you’ve never heard of the “hockey stick,” or that lonely larch on Yamal.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Adrian
  200. Adrian says:
    @Sparkon

    In your earlier post you wrote:

    “The oldest and longest instrumental temperature record for anywhere on planet Earth is just over 300 years, but I suppose in your panic you failed to recognize the short length of the temperature record,”

    I didn’t but you obviously do. In your last post you came up with graphs that purportedly show temperature changes over the last ten and fifteen thousand years. Wow. They find their origin in the climate change denial blog of Anthony Watts, one of the “merchants of doubt” who has been funded by inter alia the Heartland Institute – the same crowd that helped Philip Morris to obscure for a while the relation between smoking and lung cancer. Watts is a weather man who, according to Wikipedia, never obtained any academis qualifications in the subject, but who seems to have done very well by his denialism But Columbia Journalism Review science writer Curtis Brainard has reported that “scientists have repeatedly criticized [Watts] for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record.”

    You presume that I have never heard of the hockey stick. Oh yes I have. It was in fact the blatant dishonesty displayed by the reactions of the CimateAudit crowd to the official inquiries in that controversy that inspired me to write the following:

    What are the facts:

    In 2006 two reports were brought out on the politicized “hockey stick”. The earlier one, drawn up at the request of the US House Committee on Science, was drafted by a broadly based 12-member panel of the US National Academy of Science under the chairmanship of Professor Gerald North, and released on the 22nd of June of that year. The later and shorter one, for which the House Committee on Energy and Commerce took the initiative, was composed by a 3-member panel of the Academy’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics under the chairmanship of Professor Edward Wegman and was brought out in July.

    For the whole debate on global warming the two vital questions were:
    1. Is the research of Mann et all. leading to the hockey-stick graph essential for the hypothesis that the planet is currently undergoing a process of global warming that is at least in part caused by human activities?
    2 Does the idea behind the hockey stick graph that the last few decades have been the hottest of the millennium have any validity?

    Answer by the North Report to question 1:
    The North-committee answered this question as follows:
    “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of the multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climate warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence”.

    Answer by the Wegman report to question 1:
    The answer in the Wegman-report does not contradict this:
    “In a real sense the paleoclimatic results of MBH 98/99” (that is the original hockey stick article by Mann et al. – AB) “are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature.”

    Answer by the North report to question 2:
    Though the North-committee was not very happy with Mann et al.’s statistical method it nevertheless held that a whole array of evidence had confirmed Mann et al.’s original result and that on the whole the idea that the last few decades had been the warmest of the last millennium (thus including the so-called ‘medieval warm period’) was ‘plausible’ (a term panel members further elucidated by saying in the press conference following the release of the report that the odds for this having been the case were 2: 1) though one can have more confidence about this for the last 400 years than for the earlier period.

    Here are the relevant statements from the North report:
    “As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowry 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006).”

    And:
    “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”

    Answer by the Wegman report to question 2:
    Wegman et al. did not deny that the hockey stick graph could possibly give a valid indication of the change in temperature over the last millennium – they merely denied that this graph was adequately supported by Mann et al.’s original statistical analysis. In this context part of Professor Wegman’s oral testimony before the House committee on Energy and Commerce is revealing: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method wrong + Answer correct=Bad science.” (It has been argued that the Wegman committee merely showed that Mann et al.’s analysis could produce spurious results, not that it actually did)

    At any case for the wider community the basic question was not about Mann et al.s competence as statisticians, it was whether the hockey stick graph gives a reasonably correct indication of the change in temperature over the last millennium. We saw that the answer of the North-committee was that this was ‘plausible’ and that the idea was at any case supported by a whole array of evidence from other authors, also those using other statistical methods than Mann et al. The answer of the Wegman-committee contained nothing that is at odds with this conclusion.

    Press reactions:
    After the release of the first report reputable newspapers such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe concluded that the hockey stick graph had been vindicated. The NYT of 22nd June said: “A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific body”. The Boston Globe said a day later: “A signature piece of evidence for global warming – a compilation of data showing that a sharp rise in temperatures made the late 20th century the warmest period in 1,000years – is probably true, a national panel of scientific specialists concluded yesterday.”

    As to the charge that Mann et al. had ‘cherry picked’ the data to fit a pre-conceived graph the NYT also reported that the statistical expert of the North-committee, Professor Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University, stated during the press conference following the release of the report; “I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation” and that his impression was that the study was ‘an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.”

    Perhaps I should add here that Pielke Jr., a scientist the ClimateAudit crowd likes to quote when it suits it, said at the time that the NAS-report amounted to an almost complete vindication of Mann et al.
    In view of all this one is baffled by assertions that these two reports have “discredited” or “broken” the hockey stick, that Mann et al. had not merely used the wrong method (in arriving at the right result) but had deliberately picked out certain data to fit a pre-conceived thesis – claims one can only ascribe to an elaborate and devious PR-campaign.

    To provide this all with a shred of evidence the purveyors of this nonsense have seized on a particular statement in the North as well as the Wegman report, namely that one could not have confidence in Mann et al.’s suggestion that it was likely that the nineties were the hottest decade of the millennium and 1998 the hottest year. The argument of the North committee here was that the data didn’t allow such precise indications from year to year and the Wegman-committee stated in general that such an assertion was not supported by the statistical method used by Mann et al.

    It is clear that we are dealing here with a subsidiary thesis and that this does not detract from the claim by the North committee, that, overall, the graph provides a plausible indication of the changes in the average global temperature during the last millennium (one may add that the North committee was super-cautious here because if it is ‘plausible’ that the last few decades were the hottest in the millennium why wouldn’t it be ‘likely’ (the word used by Mann et al.) that the decade and year that according to the thermometer were the hottest of these decades would also be the hottest in the millennium?).

    Let me now add rhis:

    “More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 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 Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions”
    
(Wikipedia)

  201. Sparkon says:

    The data show state record high temperatures with date set for individual states in the U.S.A.

    [MORE]

    AL 112 09061925, AK 100 06271915, AZ 128 06291994, AR 120 08101936²
    CA 134 07101913, CO 114 1933²/1954*, CN 106 1916/1995*, DE 110 07211930²
    FL 109 11111980, GA 112 1952/1983*, HA 100 04271931², ID 118 07281934²
    IL 117 07141954, IN 116 07141936², IA 118 07201934², KS 121 07241936²*
    KY 114 07281930², LA 114 08101936², ME 105 July 1911*, MD 109 Aug 1918*
    MA 107 08021975, MI 112 07131936², MN 115 07291917, MS 115 08291930²
    MO 118 07141954, MT 117 1893/1937², NE 118 1934²/1936²*, NV 125 06291994
    NH 106 07041911, NJ 110 07101936², NM 122 06271994, NY 108 07221926
    NC 110 08211983, ND 121 07061936², OH 113 0721934², OK 120 Aug 1936²*
    OR 119 08101898, PA 111 07101936²*, RI 104 08021975, SC 113 06292012¹
    SD 120 1936²/2006¹*, TN 113 08091930²*, TX 120 1936²/1994*, UT 117 07051985
    VT 107 07071912, VA 110 1900/1954*, WA 118 1928/1961*, WV 112 1930²/1936²*
    WI 114 07131936², WY 115 1983/1988

    ¹ Two states have set high temperature records in the 21st century; one was a tie.

    ² In the decade of the 1930s, twenty-two individual states set or tied their state’s record high temperature.

    * = tie(s)

    1936 appears in this list 14 times; 1930=5, 1934=4, 1954=4, 1994=4, 1983=3, 1911=2, 1975=2.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records

    During the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings farmed land on Greenland that cannot be farmed today. The bodies of some of those farmers are buried in what is now permafrost.

    • Agree: Mike P
  202. Sparkon says:

    Ah so. You gave Adrian 1700 words of mostly unsourced cut ‘n’ paste, while I get one sentence, the rest hid behind the “more’ button for some reason that escapes me.

    What gives?

  203. Anonymous [AKA "Arie Brand"] says:

    @Sparkon

    “Unsourced cut and paste” huh? As a matter of fact you are dealing there with my own handiwork that I put ten years ago on a different blog. It still can be found there. The relevant literature is mentioned in the post.

    I will deal later with your Greenland example. If I had gotten a dollar for every time I have encountered that old chestnut I could buy myself a new computer.

  204. Adrian says:

    @Sparkon

    To present US temperature data to disprove the fact that the last decades have been the hottest on record is an argument on the same level as saying: “Oh we have such a cold winter – global warming can’t be true”. While Americans had a cold winter we had to postpone our constitutional to the evening hours to avoid a sometimes dangerous heat.

    Apparently 1934 was a very hot year in the US, allegedly hotter than 1998. The keywords are of course “the US”. However difficult it is for Americans to get their heads around this fact the US only covers 2 % of the world’s surface area, including the oceans. Global temperatures are given for this area. And taking that into account 1934 was “actually cooler than average for the 20th century”.

    Source: Skepticalscience:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=205

    The same reasoning holds for the “medieval warming period” and all those farming Vikings in Greenland.

    The term “medival warming period” was coined by H.H.Lamb.The climatologist Bradley says “Lamb was correct in his assessment that western Europe was warm in the 12th century, and subsequent studies have revealed warm conditions extended to Greenland and as far as the northern Ural mountains. But there are as yet few definitive paleotemperature studies from North America, the Tropics or from the southern hemisphere (which make up ~85% of the surface area of the Earth) that these regions were anomalously warm at the same time. ““

    Raymond S.Bradley,

    “Climate of the Last Millennium”,

    Climate System Research Center, Dept. of Geosciences University of Massachusetts, Amherst:

    The Danish historian Nils Hybel says:

    “Recent estimates of the northern hemisphere mean temperature show tem- peratures from the 11th-14th centuries to be only about 0.2 degree celsius warmer than those from the 15th-19th centuries, but rather below mid 20th century temperatures. On the basis of these estimates it can hardly be argued that the long termed so called Medieval Warmth period is very important for our understanding of the development of Europe in the Middle Ages.”

    Nils Hybel, “Klima og hungersnød i middelalderen”, Historisk Tidsskrift Bind 102 Hæfte 2 (2002);

    (I don’t read Danish but this was from the English language summary – one would expect Danes to be somewhat more familiar with Greenland and its history than outsiders).

    It looks like the climate change denial industry has oversold the case of Greenland and its farming Vikings.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  205. Mike P says:
    @Adrian

    Recent estimates of the northern hemisphere mean temperature show temperatures from the 11th-14th centuries to be only about 0.2 degree celsius warmer than those from the 15th-19th centuries,

    Anyone who believes that the temperature of 800 years ago can be determined to within 0.2 degrees (while also spelling “Celsius” in lowercase) is obviously a moron.

  206. Adrian says:

    @Mike P.

    It seems indeed to be somewhat over-precise. So I have sent Professor Hybel a copy of this (including your summary assessment of his mental condition). I asked him for his source. I don’t know him personally but he is employed by the University of Copenhagen so his email address is readily available

    This has all of course very little to do with the main argument (which you avoid). I just hope that Hybel will regard your rudeness to be offset by your helpful instruction on how to write “celsius” (Celsius)..

    • Troll: Mike P
  207. Adrian says:

    What about the Medieval Warming Period?

    Profssor Nils Hybel whom I asked for his sources on the temperature difference between th so-called Medieval Warm Period and the allegedly cooler period that followed after about 1400 wrote me as follows (and he has allowed me to quote him):

    “Please see note no. 8 p. 61 in my chapter “Climate” in Nils Hybel and Bjørn Poulsen, The Danish Resources c. 1000-1500. Growth and Recession (Leiden, Boston, 2007). Here you will find  references to the climate scientists I, as a historian, was building on in respect to this indeed overprecise indication. Whether the rise in temperature was 0.2 C or a little less or more is, however, not important. The point is that the most recent estimates of medieval temperatures, when I worked on the subject, was that they were very moderate and that a modest rise in temperature did suggest that the so called Medieval Warm period could not have had much impact on agricultural productivity, demography and society as a whole. “

    He subsequently sent me the chapter of the book he mentioned and from n.8 there it appears that he mainly relied on:   

    “8 Jones et al., “High-resolution,” pp. 477-483; Mann et al., “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations”, Geophysical Research Letters 26, no. 6 (1999), 759-762; T. J. Crowley and T. Lowery, “How warm was the Medieval Warm Period? A comment on Man-made versus Natural Climate Change”, Ambio 29, no. 1 (2000), 51-55. “

    He also mentions in another footnote:

    “5 Recently the concept of Medieval Warmth has been rejected by A. E. J. Ogilvie and G. Farmer, “Documenting the medieval climate”, in Climates of the British Isles. Present, past and future, eds. M. Hulme and E. Barrow (London, 1997), pp. 112-133. “

    This is in accordance with another passage in this chapter where he judges as a historian instead of relying on climatologists:

    “Judging by the very few Danish medieval annals that survive and the more numerous foreign ones, any interest on the part of chroniclers in the fall of temperatures after the Medieval Warm Period was hardly perceptible. The written sources seem to confirm that this fall in temperature was very modest. If English chronicles can be trusted, the frequency of cold winters did not increase in the Late Middle Ages. A comparison of the information found in these sources throughout the medieval period shows that there were seven hard winters in the eleventh century, eight in the twelfth century, eleven in the thirteenth, nine in the fourteenth, and five between 1401 and 1450.47 Nor is there much evidence to suggest that the winters became colder in Denmark during the Late Middle Ages. “

    Referring to other testimony than that of Profssor Hybel we can ask what about Greenland? Did Viking farmers leave because of a drastic change in temperature after that mythologized Medieval Warming Period? Scandinavian archaeologists point to an array of other factors.

    “So, if it wasn’t starvation or disease, what triggered the abandonment of the Greenland settlements in the second half of the 15th century? The scientists suspect that a combination of causes made life there unbearable for the Scandinavian immigrants. For instance, there was hardly any demand anymore for walrus tusks and seal skins, the colony’s most important export items. What’s more, by the mid-14th century, regular ship traffic with Norway and Iceland had ceased.
    As a result, Greenland’s residents were increasingly isolated from their mother countries. Although they urgently needed building lumber and iron tools, they could now only get their hands on them sporadically. “It became more and more difficult for the Greenlanders to attract merchants from Europe to the island,” speculates Jette Arneborg, an archeologist at the National Museum of Denmark, in Copenhagen. “But, without trade, they couldn’t survive in the long run.”
    (Stockinger, Günther (10 January 2012). “Archaeologists Uncover Clues to Why Vikings Abandoned Greenland”. Der Spiegel Online.)

    The present view is that it was not the farmland that attracted the Vikings to Greenland.

    Tim Folger reports in the Smithsonian Magazine of March 2017:

    “Archaeologists once assumed that the Norse in Greenland were primarily farmers who did some hunting on the side. Now it seems clear that the reverse was true. They were ivory hunters first and foremost, their farms only a means to an end. Why else would ivory fragments be so prevalent among the excavated sites? And why else would the Vikings send so many able-bodied men on hunting expeditions to the far north at the height of the farming season? “

    But the walrus tusk ivory trade collapsed:

    Folger:

    “the market for walrus ivory collapsed, partly because Portugal and other countries started to open trade routes into sub-Saharan Africa, which brought elephant ivory to the European market. “The fashion for ivory began to wane,” says Dugmore, “and there was also the competition with elephant ivory, which was much better quality.” “

    The Iceland Magazine of 18th December 2015 reports on yet another study under the title :

    What happened to the Viking settlement of Greenland? New research shows cooling weather not a factor

    “Scientists led by Nicolas Young at Columbia University have concluded the climate in Greenland was already cold when the Norse arrived, no warmer than it was when the Norse colonies were abandoned some 400 years later.
    The study, whose findings are published in the journal Scientific Advances, analysed isotopes in boulders in southwest Greenland and on neighbouring Baffin Island, which recent archaeological studies indicate might also have been occupied by Viking settlers. Analysing the isotopes allows the scientists to determine when the rocks were deposited by the glaciers, thus charting the advance and retreat of glaciers in the region with more precision than previously. This analysis showed that the glaciers had extended as far during the period of Norse settlement as they did later – thus indicating it was as cold at the beginning of Norse settlement as it was (when) the settlement came to a close, a strong argument against the idea that changes in temperature were the determining factor in the fate of the Norse settlement.”

    Good heavenzs. As cold at the beginning of the settlement as at the end of it. What about all those stories about how lovely green Greenland was at the beginning of the Viking settlement and how cold and nasty at the end of it.? And about those ancient Viking farms now allegedly buried unde the permafrost. (Folger in the Smithsonian: “Lush grass now covers most of what was once the most important Viking settlement in Greenland”)

    Will research make an end to these tales? I fear not. The Wattarians hav invested too much in these.

    As far as the wider environment beyond Greenland and Scandinavia is concerned the now decades old assessment of the IPCC (based on a summary of research) still stands:

    ”evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.”

    It all confirms my suspicion that the Medieval Warming Period has been hyped by the usual suspects to sow doubt about the scientific consensus, give or take a few contrarians, that present day global warming has been largely caused by human activity.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  208. Mike P says:
    @Adrian

    “Lush grass now covers most of what was once the most important Viking settlement in Greenland”

    Lush grass, huh? So how many cattle are feasting on that lush grass? And, if both the MWP and the little ice age didn’t happen – what exactly did cause the total collapse of the entire Norse population in Greenland? But of course it was the climate – the little ice age was colder than both the MWP and the modern era. The northernmost remnants of Norse farms found in Greenland are under permafrost even now, and raising temperatures just enough to thaw them out would still not suffice to make farming viable again. So, at least in Greenland, the MWP was clearly warmer than it is today.

    Which brings us to the question whether indeed the MWP was a global event. There is a nice project by two German scientists that collects scientific studies and puts them on a map, discussed here:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

    Their finding make a strong case that indeed the MWP was global. Of course we aren’t quite sure how warm it actually was – that comes with the territory. Have you ever looked into just how many assumptions go into the calibration of the various isotope-based temperature scales? Nevertheless, even without exact scaling and calibration, we have evidence that natural climate change within the last 1000 years was significant.

    And this, finally, brings us to the point of whether or not “present day global warming has been largely caused by human activity.” If we admit that natural climate change is significant, and furthermore that we have no quantitative theory to account for it, then obviously we don’t know the baseline against which to measure any human contribution to total climate change.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  209. @Mike P

    The Norse got kicked out of Greenland by the Eskimos. Just like the Indians kicked them out of Newfoundland after a year or two..

    Nothing to do with weather, just Nordic vs Prehistoric Asian incompatibility.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  210. Mike P says:
    @jeff stryker

    The Norse population at its peak was most likely in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 people. Do you think a bunch of Eskimos armed with harpoons and frozen fish could have driven them out? At the very least, the Norse had to have been greatly diminished before anything like that could have happened.

  211. Adrian says:

    @Mike P.

    The map in your post is based on the handiwork of Sebastian Luening, a geologist, and Fritz Fahrenholt, a chemist and former politician. They both have present and/or past ties to the fossil fuel industry, according to the database provided by Desmogblog.

    Frankly, I had never heard of these fellows so I have done some scouting around on the internet to find out about them.

    It didn’t take me long to find a remarkable claim by one of them, Vahrenholt, that would be enough to show him te door as a time waster. But I have persevered a bit.

    What was that claim.?

    In an 2012-interview with a local daily he declared that the present ice loss in Greenland was pretty horrible but that it was as nothing compared to the situation about a thousand years ago when Greenland was practically ice free.

    The well-known German climatologist, Stefan Rahmstorf commented :

    “It is a tangible scientific sensation that the German climate expert Prof. Dr. med. Fritz Vahrenholt presented this week in the glaciological journal, Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, to the world. With a view to the record meltdown in Greenland this summer, Vahrenholt said:

    “The decline of the Greenland ice is making headlines again. That may be terrible and has something to do with global warming but everyone should know that a thousand years ago we had a much bigger ice loss. Greenland was almost ice-free at the time.”

    Thus, decades of Greenlandic research become obsolete. So far, the researchers had believed that they had identified continuous layers of snow from many millennia in their ice cores from different regions of Greenland. “This means that we have to start from zero again with our research,” commented a Greenland expert from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven who was contacted by KlimaLounge.”

    Rahmstorf comments that we must also be mistaken about the existence of Venice at that time. It just couln’t have been there.

    https://scilogs.spektrum.de/klimalounge/vahrenholt-groenland-im-mittelalter-fast-eisfrei/

    See also:

    https://www.heise.de/tp/news/Fritz-Vahrenholts-bahnbrechende-Erkenntnisse-2113779.html

    Vahrenholt and Luening’s main claim to fame in denialist circles is a book that they wrote together entitled “Die kalte Sonne” (the cold sun) in which they assert that climate change is mainly driven by solar activity and that in the next few decades we shouldn’t expect global warming because we now have a solar minimum. In accordance with that tney declare, blithely ignoring the data provided by NASA, that warming has stopped.

    Here I have to comment on their competence, or otherwise, as summarisers of articles on the medieval warm period on which their map is allegedly based.Actually that shouldn’t be an open question anymore after Vahrenholt’s astonishing claim …

    So as far as that book is concerned I will just refer to an interview with the German astrophysicist Georg Feulner here:

    https://www.n-tv.de/wissen/Es-wird-weiterhin-waermer-article5461371.html

    Feulner says that the difference in temperature between a solar minimum and maximum is about 0.1 degree so solar activity clearly couldn’t be responsible for the present warming especially because we now are having a solar minimum. He deems the warming to be clearly due to human activity.

    (For a more comprehensive debunking of Luening’s and Vahrenholt’s other claims I can, among other things, refer to an an artikcle in the German quality weekly “Die Zeit” (it is in English).

    https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http://www.zeit.de/2012/07/Klimawandel-Fakten&act=url ).

    About their summarising activity:

    Let me start with a passage from a Spiegel interview with Vahrenholt:

    “SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don’t you publish your prognoses in a professional journal?
    Vahrenholt: Because I don’t engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don’t have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals — just as the IPCC does.”

    So summarising other people’s research. Ar they any good at that job? They have an endless list of references that makes an easy answer to that question difficult, But the Dutch climate scientist Bart Verheggen says they:

    “ show a tendency to misinterpret published research (e.g. Solanki 2004; Mann 2008; Berger 2011).

    –         They present their view as some kind of superior alternative to the IPCC. That is a very strong claim. The least they should do is to submit such a claim to scientific scrutiny, rather than hide behind a long -partly misunderstood and partly cherrypicked- reference list”

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/response-to-fritz-vahrenholt-and-sebastian-luning/

    From Skeptical Science:

    They claim that they need to engage in summarising because the IPCC is not doing a fair job.

    Vahrenholt says:

    “The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out.”

    He is referring here to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM). But SkepticalScience has quoted long passages of that report to show that they are simply wrong.

    The IPCC’s SPM mentions as possible natural causes of climate chang solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions and land surface properties.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=94&&n=1280:

    From klimafakten.de:

    Klima.fakten asks the question how reliable L.and V.”s account of the existing literature is.

    They have chosen a particular theme to pursue this question in depth, namely the various statements on the sea level rise. They compare these with what Luening and Vahrenholt make of them and find their accounts often quite unreliable.

    They conclude that “readers of Vahrenholt and Lüning must scrutinize critically each paragraph whether the quoted sources support the respective statements at all, and whether the quoted researchers actually represent the theses for which Vahrenholt and Lüning cite them as their main witnesss.Often this is not the case.

    The same is true for other topics, such as when Vahrenholt refers to the British solar researcher Mike Lockwood for evidence of the importance of solar variation, or the US climatologist Kevin Trenberth as evidence for an alleged break in the warming. Both do definitely not hold these views, but just the opposite.

    The presentation of Vahrenholt and Lüning has little to do with the actual state of research and the real expert discussion; Rather, they present a caricature to support their own – scientifically untenable – thesis.”

    https://www.klimafakten.de/sites/default/files/also

    I hope that nobody will hold it against me that after all this I prefer the IPCC’s claim about the spatial extent of the medieval warm period.

    Here one can read suitable comment on the myth that the IPCC made the medieval warm period disappear:
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm

    • Replies: @Mike P
  212. Mike P says:
    @Adrian

    Another long-winded piece consisting of little else than copy and paste cum appeals to authority. And you even schlep the fearless champions from “desmogblog” into the arena, forsooth.

    Do you really think that I need your help when it comes to searching for information? You don’t make a single rational argument on your own – you just add noise, no signal.

  213. Adrian says:

    @Mike P.

    You are quite right in saying that I appealed to authority – quite different from the two academic dolts who inspired your presentation.

    Then you ask me whe ther I think that you need my help. Yes I do, I do – that you don’t want it is a different matter.

  214. altay says:

    the last 20 years have seen two menaces: the EU and the climate swindle.. for climate swindle watch: “co2 experiment for 5 pouds”:

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Israel Shamir Comments via RSS