The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichael Hudson Archive
Global Warming and U.S. National Security Diplomacy
🔊 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 once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Control of oil has long been a key aim of U.S. foreign policy. The Paris climate agreements and any other Green programs to reduce the pace of global warming are viewed as threatening the aim of dominating world energy markets by keeping economies dependent on oil under U.S. control. Also blocking U.S. willingness to help stem global warming is the oil industry’s economic and hence political power. Its product is not only energy but also global warming, along with plastic pollution.

This fatal combination of the national security state’s mentality and oil industry lobbying threatens to destroy the planet’s climate. The prospect of raising temperatures and sea levels along the coasts while inland regions suffer drought is viewed simply as collateral damage to the geopolitics of oil. The State Department is reported to have driven out individuals warning about global warming’s negative impact.[1]Rod Schoonover, “My Climate Report Was Quashed,” New York Times op-ed, July 31, 2019, reported that the White House blocked his report on the adverse effects of climate change on the ground that “the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.”

The only attempts to restrict oil imports are the new Cold War trade sanctions to isolate Russia, Iran and Venezuela. The aim is to increase foreign dependence on U.S., British and French oil, giving American strategists the power to make other countries “freeze in the dark” if they follow a path diverging from U.S. diplomatic aims.

It was the drive to control the world’s oil trade – and to keep it dollarized – that led the United States to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to invade Iraq in 2013, and most recently for Donald Trump to isolate Iran while backing Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi foreign legion in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Sixty years earlier, in 1953, the CIA and Britain joined to overthrow Iran’s elected President Mohammad Mosaddegh to prevent him from nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. A similar strategy explains U.S. attempts at regime change in Venezuela and Russia.

While seeking to make other countries dependent on U.S.-controlled oil, America itself has long aimed at energy self-sufficiency for itself. In the 1970s the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) developed the environmentally disastrous plan to promote North American energy independence by tapping Canada’s Athabasca tar sands. About ten gallons of water are needed to make each gallon of synthetic crude oil. This water is treated as a free good, not factored into the cost of extracting syncrude. (I was the lead Hudson Institute economist evaluating ERDA’s plans, and was removed from the study when I protested that this might cause downstream water problems.) A byproduct of American energy self-sufficiency may be to make water scarcer and more expensive, especially as fracking pollutes local water resources while diverting an immense flow of fresh water as part of the extraction-and-pollution symbiosis.

The short-sightedness of America’s aggressive oil diplomacy is causing opposition in Europe as it buckles under unprecedented summer heat waves, just as U.S. cities are being devastated by drought, forest fires, floods and other extreme weather. Yet this has not dented the basic thrust of U.S. foreign policy to control oil.

Oil in the U.S. balance of payments

Control of oil has long been a major contributor to the U.S. trade and payments, and hence of the dollar’s ability to sustain the huge outflow of overseas military spending. In 1965 I conducted a study for the Chase Manhattan Bank and found that in balance-of-payments terms, every dollar of oil industry investment outflow is recovered in just 18 months. That is because hardly any of the reported import value of oil was paid to foreigners.

To the extent that the United States must import foreign oil, such trade has been limited to U.S. oil majors (on “national security” grounds), mainly from their own foreign branches. Only a small proportion of the price was paid in foreign currency. U.S. companies bought crude oil from their foreign branches at very low prices, and allocated all the price markup to their shipping affiliates in Panama or Liberia, along with shipping and freight costs, dividends and interest, managerial charges and charges for capital investment, depreciation and depletion. Most of what is counted as U.S. foreign investment in oil takes the form of machinery exports, U.S. materials and management, and so did not actually represent a dollar inflow. The effect has been to obtain oil imports at minimal balance-of-payments cost.

Since 1974, Saudi Arabia and neighboring Arab countries have been told that they can charge as high a price as they want for their oil. After all, the higher the price they charge, the higher the profits will be for domestic U.S. oil producers. The “conditionality” is that they must recycle their export earnings into the U.S. financial market. They have to keep their foreign reserves and most personal financial wealth in U.S. Treasury securities, stocks and bonds. A global move away from oil would impair this circular flow of oil-production gains into U.S. financial markets supporting domestic stock prices.

Solar energy technology and other alternatives to oil will not contribute nearly as much to the balance of payments as oil. Not only will environmentally friendly alternatives be outside the ability of U.S. diplomats to control or cut off energy supplies to other countries, but China is taking a leadership position in solar energy technology.

ORDER IT NOW

A major factor bolstering the oil industry’s economic power has been its tax-avoiding “flags of convenience” located in offshore banking centers. U.S. oil companies have long registered taken their profits from production, refining and distributing in Panama and Liberia. Over fifty years ago the treasurer of Standard Oil of New Jersey walked me through how the oil industry pretended to make all its profits in the tax havens that had no income tax – paying a low price to oil-producing countries, and charging a high price to downstream refiners and marketers.

One implication of this is that there is little political chance of any cleanup of tax avoidance via offshore banking centers, by Western investors and indeed the world’s criminal class and corrupt politicians, given the fact that oil and mining are the major beneficiaries. Weakening the lobbying power to prevent closing the tax loopholes that permit the fictitious cost-accounting of tax-avoidance centers would weakening the oil industry’s economic power.

U.S. foreign policy is based on making other countries dependent on U.S. oil

U.S. diplomatic strategy is to make other countries dependent on vital materials that U.S. diplomats can use as an economic lever. An early example were the food sanctions imposed in the 1950s to spur resistance to Mao’s revolution in China. Canada broke the grain embargo.

If other countries produce their energy by solar power, wind power or nuclear power, they will be independent of U.S. oil diplomacy and its threats to cut off their energy supplies, grinding their economies to a halt if they don’t endorse U.S. neoliberal economic policies. This explains why the Trump Administration withdrew from the Paris climate agreement to slow global warming.

U.S. Cold War 2.0 policy is aimed at isolating Russia

U.S. energy self-sufficiency finds its counterpart in the demand that Europe become dependent entirely on American “Freedom Gas,” at a much higher price than is available from Russia’s Gazprom and reject the Nordstream 2 pipeline, preventing it from obtaining lower-priced rival gas from Russia.[2]Regarding U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) of Energy Dominance, see Ben Aris, “Busting Nord Stream 2 myths,” Intellinews.com, August 27, 2018. U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has likened U.S. gas to American soldiers liberating Europe from the Nazis. “The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” he told reporters in Brussels earlier this month. “And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.” See also and https://truthout.org/articles/freedom-gas-will-be-us...road/. The Trump administration argues that to avoid dependency on Russia, Europe should buy its oil and gas at much higher prices from the United States – about 30% higher, in addition to the expense of building LNG ports to transport liquified natural gas by ocean tanker instead of by Russian pipeline. “We’re protecting Germany from Russia and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany,” Trump complained to reporters at the White House during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda.[3]“Euro Slides After Trump Threatens Sanctions To Stop NordStream 2 (Again!),” Zero Hedge, June 12, 2019.

On July 31, 2019 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 20 to 2 to back the “Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act” sponsored by right-wing Republican Ted Cruz and Blue Dog New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. Companies in Switzerland and Italy were first to be censored.

Global warming and GDP accounting

Warmer air temperature means a higher rate of evaporation, and hence more rain, tornados and flooding, as we are seeing this year. A related result will be drought as glaciers melt and no longer feed the major rivers on which dams have been built to generate electric power. The seeming irony is that these effects of global warming and extreme weather have become bulwarks of the rise in U.S. GDP. The cleanup costs of air and water pollution, the expense of rebuilding flooded or damaged homes, crop destruction, the increased cost of air conditioning, of coping with the spread of injurious insects northward and the rise in medical and health costs may actually account for all its growth since 2008.

Neoliberals celebrated the End of History after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, promising an era of new growth as “the market” became the world’s planner. They did not spell out that much of this growth would take the form of coping with the short-termism of the oil industry and other rent extractors living in the present and taking their money and running.

What factors should a Green Policy emphasize?

As Mark Twain quipped, “Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” In today’s political world, doing something about global warming means taking on a set of goliaths that go beyond the oil and gas industry. It is one thing to say that global warming, climate change and the resulting extreme weather are existential threats to present-day civilization and economies. It is another to spell out the preconditions for solving the problem in the sphere of economic and tax reform, military and U.S. national security policy.

A Green program cannot succeed without confronting the National Security state’s mentality aiming at U.S. oil supremacy. U.S. national security has become a war threatening the security of the entire globe. Threatening to freeze countries in the dark if they do not follow U.S. policy and isolate Iran and Russia, the United States is burning itself up along with the rest of the planet.

Stopping global warming requires a tax policy to close down the special privileges promoting oil industry profits including the use of “flags of convenience” in offshore banking centers as a means of tax avoidance. A Green program logically would include a natural-resource rent tax (as classical economists advocated throughout the 19th century), and charges for what economists call “external economies,” that is social costs that are “externalities” to corporate balance sheet. Companies should become liable to reimburse society for such costs.

Imposing a tax on oil usage would raise the price of gasoline, but would not deter consumption much in the short run because car drivers and public utilities already are locked in to oil-using capital investments. A more effective response would be to reduce the profitability of oil by closing the tax-avoidance loopholes and “flags of convenience” that the industry’s lobbyists have created. “Oil industry accounting” leaves “Hollywood accounting” and Donald-Trump style real-estate accounting in the dust.

ORDER IT NOW

The public relations problem with this solution is that this practice of pretending to “earn” all one’s income in small island enclaves with no income tax has become so widespread that it has created an enormous vested interest now including the leading IT giants, industry and real estate. Depriving tax accountants of recourse to such tax-avoidance centers also threatens America’s National Security state by challenging its perceived national interest in attracting the world’s criminal capital to these enclaves as a bulwark of the U.S. balance of payments. The world’s wealthiest corporations and tax evaders are aligned against an economic policy that would most help reduce the carbon footprint by moving beyond oil and gas.

To implement a successful Green policy program, it thus is necessary to move beyond the environmental problem to take on a broad and wealthy array of vested interests. They will cite free-market ideology as justification for taking their money in the short run, without care for the weather disaster they are causing. That makes the task much more daunting, and also may limit the ideological appeal of a real Green program.

In countries such as Iceland and Germany, neoliberal Green Parties tend to be centrist and conservative when it comes to supporting banks and the financial sector, and endorse a market-based bonanza of carbon trading rights to be bought and sold by Wall Street speculators. The problem is that such “market-based” solutions must fail, because markets are short-term and do not take account “externalities.” Are Greens willing to criticize this “market philosophy” and its tunnel vision? Without such a challenge, Green parties will appeal largely to “feel good” voters who want to register their politically correct concern without doing much to actually solve the underlying problem.

We indeed seem to be entering the End Time. It is turning out to be the antithesis of the neoliberal End of History that was being celebrated in 1991 as free market victory after the Soviet Union collapsed. It is a crisis of Western civilization, not its apex.

Notes

[1] Rod Schoonover, “My Climate Report Was Quashed,” New York Times op-ed, July 31, 2019, reported that the White House blocked his report on the adverse effects of climate change on the ground that “the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.”

[2] Regarding U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) of Energy Dominance, see Ben Aris, “Busting Nord Stream 2 myths,” Intellinews.com, August 27, 2018. U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has likened U.S. gas to American soldiers liberating Europe from the Nazis. “The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” he told reporters in Brussels earlier this month. “And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.” See also and https://truthout.org/articles/freedom-gas-will-be-used-to-justify-oppression-at-home-and-abroad/.

[3] “Euro Slides After Trump Threatens Sanctions To Stop NordStream 2 (Again!),” Zero Hedge, June 12, 2019.

 
Hide 151 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Realist says:

    Shitlib blather…there is no proof that global warming is caused by people.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @2stateshmustate
  2. anastasia says:

    Here’s something I do not understand about global warmers. – How come they never talk about weather modification in evaluating human impact on climate change?

    We have been modifying weather, and even using weather modification in wars (eg. Vietnam) since 1947, according to James Forrestal). Weather modification is a documented fact – even Wikopedia acknowledges it. So, how come global warmers NEVER EVER discuss this human interference with weather?

    • Replies: @EdwardM
    , @anon
  3. Patricus says:

    There is always the claim that tax breaks for the hydrocarbons’ industries give these producers a free ride at the expense of tax payers. The truth is these industries are net subsidizers of government. There are federal and state taxes at every step of hydrocarbon development and marketing. The green energy sources are the subsidized culprits.

    • Replies: @anon
  4. JVC says:

    Mr. Hudson is talking apples and oranges. On the one hand he is absolutely correct about the role of oil in the USG foreign policy. Much of the worlds problems today have to do with maintaining the petro dollar for without it the USG sinks rapidly. All of our little regime change wars and CIA sponsored coups are basically for this reason, and of course to justify the ever metastasizing defense/security spending.

    On the other hand, Mr. Hudson needs to educate himself on the real agenda behind the Global Warming/Climate change/climate crisis/ weather weirding scam. It has nothing to do with climate and every thing to do with globalization/socialization. One only needs to look into the geologic history of the earth to see that CO2 has been many times higher than the current 4 molecules for every 10,000 molecules of atmoshere, and the earth wasn’t destroyed, and while the earth has been much warmer and colder than now, CO2 levels and temperature really have very little to do with each other. Just since the last glacial retreat, there have been warmer climates (holocene optimum!) that saw temperatures higher than the climate fear mongers predict in their worst cases (RCP8), and the fact that what is being used as a base line —1850-1880– is exactly when the earth was beginning to recover from the little ice age–the coldest thinks have been in the last 10,000 years. Look at the big picture, and it is easy to see that the UN–ipcc –paris accords etc, etc, etc are about wealth redistribution, and one size fit’s all global government, plus a bit warmer climate with a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere will only be beneficial for every living thing on the planet.

    • Replies: @mark green
    , @Smokey
    , @anon
    , @anon
  5. We do appear to be in the End Game. If Michael Hudson’s economic analysis is right that ‘U.S. national security has become a war threatening the security of the entire globe’, we are truly at the gapping abyss of apocalyptic war. The pattern of history also signals a third world war. The author is describing the destructive nature of power.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  6. @JVC

    Well said. Mr. Hudson has been fooled by climate change alarmists. If he was as well-versed in paleoclimatology as he is in economics, he would be far less nervous.

    The incremental (and very incomplete) atmospheric warming that’s been measured over the past century has produced no lasting environmental harm. Many other human actions however have been environmentally devastating, from rainforest deforestation to megafauna extinction.

    Mr. Hudson needs to seek out and explore alternative scientific views on ‘climate change’ and come to grip with the fact that there are scores of natural forces which shape and steer climate in unexpected way. And these same forces also interact with one another in chaotic fashion.

    It should also be recalled that No. America experienced a real and measurable cooling period from 1945 to about 1975, even though atmospheric CO2 was rising throughout that period. Climatologists called the phenomena ‘global cooling’. It was scientifically real and it was a huge news story back in the 1970s. I wrote about it as a journalism student. Even though this ‘climate change’ was a very BIG DEAL, it came to absolutely nothing.

    Interestingly, the big ‘global cooling’ scare of the 1970s (which was featured on Page 1 in the NY Times, the WaPo, LA Times, TIME magazine, and Newsweek) has been completely memory-holed.

    • Replies: @anon
  7. I used to think the world of Michael Hudson. His research into the jubilee practices of 5,000 years ago were a revelation. As was his rendition of how economic theory was corrupted by the rentiers starting in the late 19th Century. And his description of how the world works for the past 50 years via economic colonialism was truly another revelation.

    But I began to sour on Hudson when I started to realize that he had nothing really at all to say about how things would need to change in order to rectify and bring us forward. In other words, he suddenly became just an historian–and nothing more at all.

    This substantially diminished Hudson in my eyes. He became boring in his interviews seemingly going on and on and on about this and that but saying very little other than “they” got away with it, in the past and now.

    But then, Hudson jumped the shark with this climate alarmist nonsense. Michael, you should know better. And if you don’t know better, then you should use your obvious talents at research and go back in time if you have to among other angles, and put climate alarmism in its grave where it clearly deserves to lie.

    Will he do this? I doubt it, as he seems fixated on this fiction.

    I no longer respect, listen to or read Michael Hudson.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Tom Verso
    , @anon
  8. This guy is honest and brilliant. Get the straight story on “climate change.”

    https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1

    • Replies: @anon
  9. Anonymous[158] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    But then, Hudson jumped the shark with this climate alarmist nonsense.

    Absolutely. This seeming naivety is kinda’ suspicious, frankly.

    He knows that the climate nonsense comes from the same globalist crowd behind many of the economic policies he’s complaining about – and their propensity to manipulate the markets. He also knows what kind of supranational power could be gained from total control of the planet’s CO2 markets.

  10. EdwardM says:
    @anastasia

    I know that this is a rhetorical question. The answer is because any kind of geoengineering wouldn’t achieve the economic reorganization that is the real agenda of climate hysterics. Their socialist solutions — de-industrialization, creation of transnational government, massive wealth transfers from middle-class taxpayers (derided as “consumers”) to third-world countries and politically connected industries, etc. — have been their worldview since long before global warming. They have found their perfect boogeyman.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    , @anon
  11. Tom Verso says:
    @restless94110

    “I used to think the world of Michael Hudson…But I began to sour on Hudson when I started to realize that he had nothing really at all to say about how things would need to change in order to rectify and bring us forward. In other words, he suddenly became just an historian–and nothing more at all”.

    Amen!

    Just yesterday I threw down his book “Killing the Host”. About 2/3’s of the way through I had an “Emperor’s New Clothes” experience. Chapter after chapter he kept saying the same thing about the nature of our economic problems (e.g. ‘debt/equity’ ratios), but never any suggestions about what should be done (e.g. change laws? Get rid of the Fed? …?). Essentially the book is a collection of op-ed pieces.

    Then I saw this same article on the relentless climate apocalypse site Naked Capitalism. An article that significantly is devoid of climate data or citing authoritative text.

    • Replies: @anon
  12. “threatens to destroy the planet’s climate. ”

    What can one say to such barking mad loons?

    http://www.cfact.org/2017/0…

    “Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.””

    • Replies: @anon
  13. JamesD says:

    I hate when normies try to talk about something they know nothing about. I don’t go to MD forums and discuss brain surgery procedures, so why do normies comment on the oil industry? Think about it.

    The only factual part of this article was the requirement for S.A. to invest in US Treasuries in exchange for defense. The whole “petro dollar” story beyond this is B.S. FX markets are extremely liquid, so pricing oil in dollars is merely a convenience, that is all. You can exchange those dollars to yen in the blink of an eye. The requirement for the Saudis to invest in Treasuries was the key piece, and that was more of a deal done on defense.

    As for the other points, guess what, because of the oil industry we no longer give a crap about the Mid East, except from a global economic view. The Mid East is the headache for China, India, Korea, and Japan. Our imports come from Canada. Why is this? Because the oil industry was allowed to drill baby drill. In the near future, we have ANWR and the elephant field off of Guyana coming online.

    As far as global warming, the satellite data, now a 50 yr. record, shows 1.3 degrees per century, which is what it has been since the ice age. No global warming.

    • Replies: @anon
  14. MarkU says:

    I’m not sure which branch of the Fred Singer school of corporate cocksucking most of the people making comments here are getting their information from, but it certainly isn’t coming from the majority of the scientific community. If content free, repeated assertion was regarded as evidence you would have plenty of it, but it isn’t evidence and never will be.

    Just to be clear :-

    1) The greenhouse effect is real, calculable and measurable and has been known about for well over a century, the Swedish chemist Arrhenius suggested that it might be a problem one day, back in the late 1800’s.
    2) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
    3) Human activity has significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    4) Natural scientists know perfectly well that there are many factors that affect the earth’s climate, so thanks very much to all the idiots who feel they have to mention it over and over again as if it was a fucking revelation.

    Now, given Underwood’s law “Most people don’t use their critical faculties unless they are told something disagreeable” I don’t expect any of the die-hards here to even consider that their own sources might be biased in any way or funded by the hydrocarbon industry. Neither would I expect anyone who has been arguing on the wrong side for two decades to ever admit they were wrong, even when extreme weather events and rising global temperatures are being reported regularly.

    The horrible truth is that nothing is going to be done about it anyway, certainly not enough. The World’s population is still being allowed to grow unchecked, the Green party has become a party of PC snowflakes “We can’t tell sub Saharan people not to have so many kids, that would be racist”. Indeed declining populations cause ‘alarm’ when it should be cause for hope and measures are put into place to flood those countries with faster breeding people.

    Economic growth is still regarded as an unequivocal ‘good’ thing when we should be cutting down on resource consumption. The short term health of the banking system is apparently regarded as more important than the future of the human race.

    Its almost certainly too late now anyway.

  15. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkU

    Did you ever wonder why those people never proposed mass planting of trees across the globe? An all-natural solution to the “problem” would be a thing called photosynthesis.

    So, how come they’re insisting on a “solution” that would give them total, supranational control over everyone’s energy usage, industry and development? Like I said in the other thread: global CO2 market is a “solution” in search of a “problem”.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @anon
    , @Lars Porsena
  16. Tom Verso says:
    @MarkU

    I’m not sure which branch of the Fred Singer school [expletive delete] most of the people making comments here are getting their information from…

    For openers:

    Tony Heller
    Judith Currie
    Alan Watts
    Stephen McIntyre
    Richard Lindzen
    Roy Spencer
    John Christy
    Roger Pielke Jr.

    Of course there are many more but you get my drift.

    By the way were do you get your information?

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  17. A123 says:

    Remember how it used to be Global Cooling? Then whoopsie, it became Global Warming?

    Now….. Double whoopsie it is Climate Change, not warming or cooling.

    Soros and his Globalist pals make this stuff up to increase their personal power sell their failed ‘green’ technologies in solar and wind power.

    For anyone who does believe CO2 is a problem. The only viable technology solution to replace coal and oil plants is some form of nuclear. There are a number of options, but the most promising is The Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactor [LFTR]. Much safer than anything in use today and is more or less useless as a source of weapons grade material.

    https://energyfromthorium.com/lftr-overview/

    PEACE

    • Replies: @anon
  18. Smokey says:
    @JVC

    Correctomundo, compadre. If the weather could be controlled, countries we didn’t like would have endless tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

    And CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Global warming (as the planet recovers from the Little Ice Age, one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene) causes CO2 to rise.

    The oceans contain more than 50X more CO2 than the atmosphere. As they warm, they emit CO2, just like a warming Coke does. This is straightforward physics: as the oceans warm, partial pressure causes CO2s to outgas (Henry’s Law).

    On time scales from months, to hundreds of millennia, thousands of observations confirm that changes in CO2 always FOLLOW changes in global temperature. Since cause must precede effect, rising temperatures are the cause, and subsequent rising CO2 is the effect of global warming.

    But we never see ∆CO2 always FOLLOWS ∆temperature in the media, which has sold its soul and so must always peddle the “CO2 causes global warming” pseudo-science.

    Once we accept the scientific fact that changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature, it’s clear that someone is lyin’ to us. And it isn’t the scientists who are skeptical of the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @anon
  19. I’m a global warming skeptic. I’ve found it impossible to make up my mind amidst the blizzards of propaganda from both sides. I do, however, advocate a new “Manhattan Project” to devise a cheap and green energy technology (thorium fission for example) to be given away to the world for free. This would deprive Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf States of their revenue. That alone is a good reason to support it.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @anon
  20. RobinG says:
    @Anonymous

    Did you ever wonder why those people never proposed mass planting of trees…?

    They’ve not only proposed it, they’re doing it, wherever possible.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  21. Erebus says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    I’m a global warming skeptic.

    Don’t be.

    The fact is that world temperatures have been rising and falling since the planet had cooled enough for lifeforms to develop on it. A geological eye blink ago, men were battling woolly mammoths in N. Europe, and an eye blink before that hippopotamuses roamed Siberian islands. They didn’t go there on vacation. Looking at a thermal history of the Earth, how/why would anyone in their right mind deduce that climate change is unprecedented escapes me.

    The fact is that the planet’s temperatures have been rising and falling since the dawn of time, sometimes dramatically. Depending on what data set catches your fancy, it’s either rising or falling now, but I can’t understand a world view that causes one to be surprised that it hasn’t been doing one or the other right through all of human history and long before that.

    Embrace the change! It’s here to stay!

    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @anon
  22. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @RobinG

    I’m not talking about some local, limited, actions. I’m talking about a huge, global, initiative to create results visible from space. This would be easy, cheap, natural and effective (I’d volunteer to plant thousands of saplings myself despite not believing in man-made warming) but the globalists on top don’t want that – they insist on gaining control over the CO2 market instead. How (in)convenient.

    • Replies: @A123
  23. @MarkU

    Most of the commenters here are half senile old men. That’s why they neither understand nor care about climate change.

    What is sad is that the nuclear industry has been castrated and doesn’t lobby for its own interests. Serious action to prevent warming requires greater reliance on nuclear energy and immediate action to reduce birthrates in sub Saharan Africa. As you note, unlikely to happen, especially as long as we continue to cede the debate and solutions to the left.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  24. @EdwardM

    That is why it is stupid for the right to continue denying the facts. Sea levels are rising, temperatures are increasing, droughts are increasing. This should be a golden opportunity for the right to propose real solutions based around nuclear energy, controlling immigration, and investing in technological solutions where the US can lead the world. Instead the right just wants to scream about bogeyman George Soros.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  25. Realist says:
    @MarkU

    If content free, repeated assertion was regarded as evidence you would have plenty of it, but it isn’t evidence and never will be.

    That is exactly what you and the other AGW assholes are doing.

    3) Human activity has significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Are you stating that CO2 has never been higher? If so that’s not true.
    It is more plausible that the earth is warming due to natural causes such as solar activity or celestial mechanics. This warming would cause the release of CO2 from oceans and terrestrial carbonates, which means you have the sequence wrong.

    4) Natural scientists know perfectly well that there are many factors that affect the earth’s climate, so thanks very much to all the idiots who feel they have to mention it over and over again as if it was a fucking revelation.

    Yet you and the other dumbass AGWers choose to ignore it.

    Its almost certainly too late now anyway.

    Then shut the fuck up.

    • Replies: @anon
  26. Realist says:
    @Smokey

    And CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Global warming (as the planet recovers from the Little Ice Age, one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene) causes CO2 to rise.

    The oceans contain more than 50X more CO2 than the atmosphere. As they warm, they emit CO2, just like a warming Coke does. This is straightforward physics: as the oceans warm, partial pressure causes CO2s to outgas (Henry’s Law).

    On time scales from months, to hundreds of millennia, thousands of observations confirm that changes in CO2 always FOLLOW changes in global temperature. Since cause must precede effect, rising temperatures are the cause, and subsequent rising CO2 is the effect of global warming.

    Absolutely correct. I posted a similar response to MarkU before I read your comment.

  27. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    We already had two huge disasters with Chernobyl and Fukushima and countless smaller ones. Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe until we can build plants that won’t irreversibly contaminate environment if blown up. Until then, it’s only a matter of time before another mistake, flood, tsunami, earthquake, meteor or war turns a disaster into a catastrophe.

    Just try to imagine a limited nuclear war with and without nuclear plants in the affected areas.

    • Replies: @A123
  28. A123 says:
    @Anonymous

    Reclaiming a dead zone with little plant life to forest would permanently capture some carbon. But, less than you may think. Also remember that all plants have a life cycle:
    — What happens when the tree dies and decays? CO2 released.
    — What happens if there is a forest fire? A large and sudden CO2 release.
    Trees are only a temporary carbon repository.

    That being said, there are many ‘local-centric’ desirable reasons to establish local flora that can thrive with only natural rain. Especially flowering plants that can support bee populations.

    PEACE

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  29. JVC says:

    It’s sort of stupid to argue about climate change–it always is. Now, while the warmists push for their globalist one size fits all world government (look how well the EU is working out) all indicators are lining up for a period of global cooling once again. Since the end of the little ice age, the shift from warming to cooling has been pretty regular on a (+/-) 30 year cycle. Augmenting this coming cooling is one of the deepest solar minimums in a real long time. Best hope we do not go back into a little ice age scenario (although that would help decrease population) , or even some of the deeper cold snaps that have happened during the Holocene.

    As for Peter’s comment about us half senile old men–guilty as charged, I was getting my geology degree back before plate tectonics was even a settled issue, and have lived through several of these cycles. I remember well the nonsense of the late 70’s as pointed out above. You young whippersnappers have a lot yet to learn about life–but don’t worry, if you are lucky to live long enough you too might get over yourselves.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @anon
  30. @Peter Akuleyev

    I’m no expert, but it seems that the nuclear industry is a dead industry, that’s why there is no effective lobby for it. Nobody has solved the problem with nuclear waste. It’s also very expensive, uran is a limited resource, it may not function well in summer, especially if temperatures get even hotter than now.

    Population growth in Africa may be a problem, an environemntal, a social and a political problem, but from the standpoint of climate change it’s not the biggest concern. The CO2 emissions of the US army is probably much higher than the emissions of hundreds of millions of Africans. The problem of global warming exists now because of our life styles and not in the future because of population growth in Africa (even if this may add something to the problem, but I think we cannot speak about that very much if we ourselves are not able to reduce drastically our CO2 emissions, nucelar energy will definitively play no role in that).

  31. @Tom Verso

    Richard Lindzen: Wikipedia says the following:

    “The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus. Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.” The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.”

    Skeptical Science has a page about him with a huge list of his mistakes: “Climate Misinformation by Source: Richard Lindzen”

    Judith Curry: A web site says the following about her:

    “Judith Curry resigned from her position at Georgia Tech on January 1, 2017, citing the “craziness” of climate science, and plans to focus on her private business.”

    Another web site (sourcewatch. org) says that about her: “Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts’ denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn’t even read it in the first place…” They still say: “Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry.”

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Clients_not_disclosed

    Who is Steve McIntyre who has the blog where Judith Curry wrote according to sourcewatch? “”I’ve spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals,” he said in 2009.[1] He is a “strategic advisor” to CGX Energy, which describes its “principal business activity” as “petroleum and natural gas exploration””

    Tony Heller: Someone says the following about him (his real name is Steve Goddard), this is the nicest thing that I found about him: “Steve Goddard, or as I like to call him, Dorothy (because Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz is his avatar, and I think he might live in Oz) is one of those science deniers who now and then produces a graphic that shows that global warming isn’t real. He is increasingly being ignored by even the ingenuous, but his latest attempt to deny reality has been slapped down so effectively by scientist and blogger Tamino that thought you should see it.

    Anthony Watts is a meteorologist and has had no success with his attempts to challenge scientific consensus. Wikipedia has a section about his “Connection with Heartland Institute. About this institute, Wikipedia says the following: “Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.” And further: “The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies…” For more details about him see Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    Roy Spencer: Wikipedia says the following about him: “Spencer is a signatory to “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which states that “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. (….) In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.” Sourcewatch also has a page about him: “Climate Misinformation by Source: Roy Spencer”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

    (I deleted the numbers with references from articles in Wikipedia), for more details, please go to the sources of my quotations.

    • Replies: @anon
  32. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123

    No one asked you, hasbara moron. You’re too dumb to post here.

  33. A123 says:
    @Anonymous

    Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe until we can build plants that won’t irreversibly contaminate environment if blown up.

    The current U235, water cooled reactors are very difficult to make safe.

    However, there are inherently safe options such as LFTR that are also hard to use for weapons grade material.

    https://energyfromthorium.com/lftr-overview/

    The “Cold War” forced some poor choices, but it is not to late to make new ones.

    PEACE

  34. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    Wrong, shit-for-brains. It’s basic science from EXXON.

    1982 Memo to Exxon Management about CO2 Greenhouse Effect
    http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Saxon
  35. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @anastasia

    > they never talk about weather modification

    They do. But you never pay attention. When are you going to start?

  36. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @JVC

    > One only needs to look into the geologic history of the earth to see that CO2 has been many times higher

    True. What does that prove? That you’re a cold blooded reptile that can live in a hothouse climate that would kill humans?

    > CO2 levels and temperature really have very little to do with each other.

    Wrong.

    > Just since the last glacial retreat, there have been warmer climates

    Wrong.

    Your agenda is lying.

    • Replies: @Realist
  37. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Smokey

    > CO2 doesn’t cause global warming

    Wrong. We’ve known CO2 causes global warming for two centuries. Where have you been?

    The History of Climate Science
    https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html

    > As they warm, they emit CO2

    True, partially, but you omit the fact that as CO2 levels rise they also ABSORB more carbon as carbonic acid, leading to acidification of the oceans. Don’t lie by omission, ok?

    > CO2 always FOLLOWS ∆temperature

    Another lie. Discussed here:

    “In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.”
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    > someone is lyin’

    That would be you.

    • Replies: @Realist
  38. Realist says:
    @anon

    Wrong, shit-for-brains. It’s basic science from EXXON.

    In spite of your ad hominem attack, you are the shit for brains and obviously know nothing about science. Your chart does nothing to prove AGW and the chart doesn’t claim to.

    It is more plausible that the earth is warming due to natural causes such as solar activity or celestial mechanics. This warming would cause the release of CO2 from oceans which means you have the sequence wrong. Warming came first which caused an increase in CO2. You are a perfect example of no nothing shitlibs.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @anon
  39. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123

    > Remember how it used to be Global Cooling?

    No. Not much from scientists; that was a popular media thing. You didn’t read that in scientific journals, you TV-addled moron.

    > Double whoopsie it is Climate Change

    Another lie from you. In actuality, Climate Change is the first term used by scientists to describe global warming.

    The argument “they changed the name” suggests that the term ‘global warming’ was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term ‘climate change’ is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass’ 1956 study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’. The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the ‘CC’ is ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term ‘climate change’ many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

    Global warming vs climate change
    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm


    You climate science deniers just lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

    • Replies: @A123
  40. Realist says:
    @anon

    > One only needs to look into the geologic history of the earth to see that CO2 has been many times higher

    True. What does that prove? That you’re a cold blooded reptile that can live in a hothouse climate that would kill humans?

    Well dumbass it proves that CO2 levels can rise without human causation.
    Therefore there is no proof of AGW.

    • Replies: @anon
  41. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    > never proposed mass planting of trees

    Don’t read much, do you? Such proposals are easily found, e.g.:

    How to erase 100 years of carbon emissions? Plant trees—lots of them.
    https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conservation/2019/07/how-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees-lots-them

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  42. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    The fact is that the planet’s temperatures have been rising and falling since the dawn of time, sometimes dramatically.

    True, but humans weren’t alive when cold-blooded reptiles thrived in a hothouse environment, nor when ice covered the globe.

  43. Realist says:
    @anon

    True, partially, but you omit the fact that as CO2 levels rise they also ABSORB more carbon as , leading to acidification of the oceans. Don’t lie by omission, ok?

    Your stupidity knows no bounds. Carbonic acid is CO2 dissolved in H2O. When the water with dissolved carbon dioxide is heated it releases the carbon dioxide. How can you be so goddamn stupid…do you practice???

    • Replies: @anon
  44. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill Jones

    And Stalin means Steel, which, by your guilty-by-association “logic,” means anybody who uses steel is a Soviet-style communist. Science can be used as an excuse for all sorts of agendas, many bad. Such bad agendas do not negate scientific fact.

  45. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    And the oceans are becoming more acidic, in spite of your idiotic claim to the contrary. Now shit or get off the pot: is CO2 rising or falling in the ocean? Answer the question. (Hint: you’re lie by omission about pop fizzing assumes something that isn’t true.)

    This graph shows rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, rising CO2 levels in the ocean, and decreasing pH in the water off the coast of Hawaii. (NOAA PMEL Carbon Program)
    https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

    • Replies: @Realist
  46. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    You’re the master of non-sequiturs. Do natural fires disprove any evidence of arson, hmmm? That’s your shyster-lawyer “logic” that wouldn’t work with any jury. And there is abundant scientific evidence of AGW, one piece of evidence being the isotopic signature of carbon, graphed here:

    Source: Climate Myth – CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm

    • Replies: @Realist
  47. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    Realist: “shitlib” [comment #1, first word]
    Me, in reply, knowing he’ll get triggered: “shit-for-brains”
    “Crybaby” Realist: “In spite of your ad hominem attack”
    Me: WAAAAHHH!!! You missed a lesson early in life that your mother should have taught you: if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. 🙂

    > Warming came first

    Liar. This graph from doi:10.1038/nature10915 proves you’re lying:

    Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots).

    Source: Climate Myth – CO2 lags temperature
    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    • Replies: @Realist
  48. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    You obviously didn’t understand the point. I wasn’t claiming that I just invented photosynthesis and became the first person in the world to figure out this approach. The point is that the globalist elite behind the man-made global warming hysteria ignored this perfectly natural “solution” for many, many decades because they want the CO2 market instead. As you can see, this could have been “fixed” ages ago.

    That’s how you know that the problem doesn’t exist. The “problem” was invented because the “solution” they want would give them global dominance over everyone’s energy, industry and development. This is how they work. They decide on an agenda and then sell that agenda as a solution to an invented or manufactured problem.

    • Replies: @anon
  49. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    > the problem doesn’t exist.

    Sorry, your conspiracy hypotheses do not automatically negate science. Scientific fact stands, in spite of you trying to huff and puff and blow it down with unscientific rhetoric. At least address the science. And in doing so, you would do well to filter out the myths, listed here:

    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
    https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Great resource for you, if you want to look at the science. Use it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  50. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    > earth is warming due to natural causes such as solar activity

    Wrong again! Earth is warming while solar radiance is cooling, as this graph demonstrates:

    Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
    https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

  51. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    > celestial mechanics

    Glad you mentioned that! Wow, we might be getting somewhere now! Maybe you can answer one or two of the questions posed here:

    These questions are still not resolved (for a flavor of the discussion, see Huybers, 2009…see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et al 2009; Denton et al 2010 ).

    Milankovitch Cycles
    https://skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html

    Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

    • Replies: @Realist
  52. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    You’re avoiding the question. It’s not on that list so you’ll have to use your brain this time instead of just pasting the contents of your “Global Warming” folder – which looks like it’s sourced from a single website.

    • Replies: @anon
  53. Realist says:
    @anon

    You are just writing platitudes you saw from some other dumbass…but getting it wrong.

    • Replies: @anon
  54. Realist says:
    @anon

    Realist: “shitlib” [comment #1, first word]

    My shitlib comment was not originally directed toward you or any individual…but it sure is now.

    Hey dumbass if you think increased atmospheric CO2 caused global temperatures to rise in the past, what was the cause of increased CO2???

  55. Realist says:
    @anon

    As always you’re full of crap. Your supposition and graph does not prove AGW.

    • Replies: @anon
  56. Realist says:
    @anon

    And the oceans are becoming more acidic, in spite of your idiotic claim to the contrary.

    I never said the oceans were not getting more acidic. I know you don’t know this, but there a number of acids beside carbonic acid that can raise the ocean acidity.

    • Replies: @anon
  57. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @UncommonGround

    Tony Heller (aka, Steve Goddard) is who Matt Drudge often links to. His claim to fame is that the 1930s were the hottest decade ever. Tony ignores that we’re not talking about American warming, we’re talking about global warming. Tony’s most common schtick is addressed here:

    1934 is the hottest year on record
    https://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record-basic.htm

    Tony’s second most famous schtick, highlighted by drudge, is mocking global warming science when a polar vortex hits. The increased intensity of cold periods caused by the polar vortexes are actually caused by global warming making it more wavey, as illustrated by NASA here: https://www.noaa.gov/multimedia/infographic/science-behind-polar-vortex

    What Tony and his mockers ignore is that while the wavey-gravy polar vortex has Chicago freezing, the arctic is roasting. Scientists have started calling this phenomenon “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” in their journals. Here’s an example of a wavy polar vortex making the midwest freeze while the arctic roasts from earlier this year:

  58. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Which question did you ask? I didn’t see one. Are you familiar with the use of question marks when asking questions? They come in handy! See how I do it?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  59. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    Oh, ok. Are you sure you’re not projecting?

  60. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Why wasn’t this “problem” solved decades ago? We obviously had this perfectly natural, cheap, easy and effective “solution” all along. The study linked from your own linked article states:

    The restoration of forested land at a global scale could help capture atmospheric carbon and mitigate climate change. Bastin et al. used direct measurements of forest cover to generate a model of forest restoration potential across the globe (see the Perspective by Chazdon and Brancalion). Their spatially explicit maps show how much additional tree cover could exist outside of existing forests and agricultural and urban land. Ecosystems could support an additional 0.9 billion hectares of continuous forest. This would represent a greater than 25% increase in forested area, including more than 500 billion trees and more than 200 gigatonnes of additional carbon at maturity. Such a change has the potential to cut the atmospheric carbon pool by about 25%.

    Isn’t it curious that the globalist bigshots behind this hysteria insist on creating, and controlling, the global CO2 market instead of simply planting forests?

    • Replies: @anon
  61. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    > Why wasn’t this “problem” solved decades ago?

    Keep reading, sparky.

    We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/07/10/reforestation-climate-change-plant-trees/

    But, first admit that you were totally wrong that such proposals had never been proposed before.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  62. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Keep reading, sparky

    LOL! Did you read it? Something tells me that you just googled the title before posting the link. Your posts are very, very light on actual reasoning. Why don’t you summarise the arguments in your own words?

    As it turns out, that title is completely misrepresenting the text underneath. This is a huge red flag since it suggests that the writer is pushing false narratives. Bottom line is that the initiative would work. The objections are ranging from very weak to absolutely ridiculous (it needs planning, money, willingness, suitable trees, proper locations etc. etc.). This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. The world is – apparently – on the brink of irreversible catastrophe but we can’t implement this obvious solution because it’s too complicated… or something. Amazing.

    This is my favourite:

    “Other experts have also raised concerns that the hype around Bastin’s study is creating misconceptions about the problem and primary solution, which could be problematic in the long-run. They fear a focus on tree planting could distract policy-makers from acting on other efforts to reduce carbon emissions and stop climate change.”

    Do you know what this is? It’s an admission that they don’t want to fix the “problem” – they want the market. Exactly what I keep pointing out to you.

    But, first admit that you were totally wrong that such proposals had never been proposed before.

    Haha, you sound like a 9-year-old. I wasn’t wrong. It looks like you missed the text underneath the picture. Look it up (post #15):

    “So, how come they’re insisting on a “solution” that would give them total, supranational control over everyone’s energy usage, industry and development?”

    I was obviously talking about the bigwigs in charge of the scam and not some random environmentalist. The bigwigs really dislike this solution – as you can see from their decades-long inactivity and actual resistance when the solution was finally proposed by someone else.

    You can see that, right?

    • Replies: @anon
  63. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    You claimed decreased CO2 concentration in the oceans. You’re utterly wrong. Increased CO2 concentration in the oceans has been observed, and easily proven with nothing more than simple scientific equipment. Avail yourself of this illustration to learn the chemistry of it:

    Source: PMEL/NOAA https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/carbon+chemistry++

  64. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I can see you’re a clown who thinks you can disprove hard science via hare-brained conspiracy theory. It’s not working. The science remains.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  65. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    Your lame denials of science do not disprove the scientific evidence of AGW. Meanwhile, the earth gets warmer and warmer and warmer, and we’re recording record temperatures, such a record warm June 2019.

    Source: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4)
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

  66. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Patricus

    You shilling for EXXON again? The fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. The paper calculating that figure is here, from the IMF:
    https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx

  67. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > has produced no lasting environmental harm.

    Wrong, but a very common denialist myth, addressed here:

    Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

    Positives and negatives of global warming
    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

    > Interestingly, the big ‘global cooling’ scare of the 1970s

    Your memory is pretty selective, and based on watching sensational TV programs, and then flat-out lying that the sensationalist TV programs reflected scientific journals.

    The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

    Climate Myth: Ice age predicted in the 70s
    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

  68. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    > climate alarmist nonsense

    If climate science is nonsense, then what is your explanation for what is melting the global ice caps on a global scale? I’ve asked this question many time on unz, and you moronic deniers never bother to answer what melts ice, as if you are confused by third grade science.

    Graph source: Zach Labe https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-figures/

    Can you admit what melts ice on a global scale?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  69. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Low Voltage

    Even the climate deniers are totally embarrassed by the silly lies Tony Heller tells. The climate science denier Anthony Watts fired Tony from writing for his website, because he sounds so absolutely stupid.
    https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/2014/09/28/im-tony-heller-and-i-havent-a-clue-about-basic-science/

    Matt Drudge keeps Tony’s website going during the winter when the polar vortex gets really wavy from global warming and creates the “warm arctic/cold continents” phenomenon that is becoming more and more frequent with global warming. Conservatives, most being nearly as dumb as niggers, crow how cold it is in Wash. D.C. for the global warming conference—haw, haw, haw!—without considering how unnaturally warm it is in the Arctic.

  70. A123 says:
    @anon

    You can spot science deniers when they offer unworkable, anti-science solutions to their fictitious *Global Warming Crisis*. Some of the most prominent anti-science “solutions”:

    — Toxic solar death cells that poison landfills and the planet.
    — Endangered bird elimination spinners (a.k.a. wind power).
    — Randomly transferring cash from U.S. Taxpayers to 3rd World nations to “stop” certain behaviors.
    — Crippling the U.S. Economy with Carbon Taxes, while allowing India and China to ramp up CO2 emissions without controls.

    Absolutely everyone with minimal scientific knowledge understands that these options cannot succeed.
    _____

    If you *really* believe in man made global warming….. What solution are you proposing?

    When the “enviromentalist” community offers up a plan that could succeed, I would be much more open to hearing their case. As long the “solution” cripples the U.S. Economy and is guaranteed to fail, we know the anti-science alarmists are not serious about the issue.

    PEACE

    • Replies: @anon
  71. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @EdwardM

    You’re like a smoker who is sure the doctor is in on some conspiracy theory, because the doctor says you have to quit smoking or suffer emphysema. Oh sure, the doctor found the perfect boogeyman, muh Marlboros! You’re another moron who thinks that a poorly contrived conspiracy theory can overturn hard science.

    Anyway, can you tell us what it is that is melting ice on a global scale? Did you manage to pass second grade science?

    P.S. You may want to get to Glacier National Park before all the ice is gone; they’ve already lost 120 glaciers in the park. Gone. Goodbye. Hmmm, what’s doing that?

  72. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @JamesD

    > 1.3 degrees per century… since the ice age

    LOL!!! If it had warmed 1.3°C per century since the last ice age 10,000 years ago, the oceans would be boiled off by now, you silly moron. (1.3°C x 100 = 130°C warmer) Or did you mean °F? That still puts the temperature WAY above where my gas-fired water heater is set! LOL!!!

    P.S. the satellite data confirms global warming at rates well above the past.

    Source: EPA Climate Change Indicators
    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

  73. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123

    > fictitious *Global Warming

    First, you must admit that global warming is not fictitious. Do you understand what a thermometer is? Ever use one?

    Source: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    > What solution are you proposing?

    None. Zilch. Nada. There is no solution, once you understand Jevon’s Paradox. Conservation accelerates resource consumption. Runaway global warming is unstoppable. Read Tim Garrett. His article remained unpublished for years because it is so disturbing to those who think anything can be effectively done to stop global warming. Garrett did finally get published, and his article demonstrates that humanity in an inescapable “double bind.”

    …the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption – known as Jevons paradox…

    Is Global Warming Unstoppable?
    THEORY ALSO SAYS ENERGY CONSERVATION DOESN’T HELP
    https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/

    Furthermore, because of aerosols from industry blocking heat from the sun, known as global dimming, if we humans did completely stop industrial civilization, the earth would immediately heat up approx. 2.5°C. So industrial civilization is causing global warming, but paradoxically, stopping industrial civilization would greatly accelerate global warming. This paradox is labeled by some as “McPherson’s Paradox.” Before you embarrass yourself trying to refute McPherson’s Paradox, please read the science behind it.

    “…the degree to which aerosols cool the earth has been grossly underestimated…”

    We need to rethink everything we know about global warming: New calculations show scientists have grossly underestimated the effects of air pollution
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190122104611.htm

    • Replies: @A123
  74. @anon

    If climate science is nonsense, then what is your explanation for what is melting the global ice caps on a global scale? I’ve asked this question many time on unz, and you moronic deniers never bother to answer what melts ice, as if you are confused by third grade science.

    The explanation is……the ice caps aren’t melting neither are sea levels rising.

    You can get further details on this by going to https://notrickszone.com

    I would be happy to talk about this further with you, but only under the following conditions.

    1. You must go to https://notrickszone.com and read a MINIMUM of 20 articles. You must read the articles in full. Write them down or otherwise collect the names of each article and its hyperlink.

    2. In your reply to me, list the 20 or more articles you have read.

    Only then will you have any reply that would be of any interest to me.

    The data is in. Climate alarmists have lost the argument. They have been exposed as members of a cult a type of religion with its tired dogma. Cure thyself. Read the articles in https://notrickszone.com. Follow the links in each article. Look at the comments.

    Then and only then come back here and reply to me, if you still have anything to say..

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  75. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    > the ice caps aren’t melting

    That’s a flat out lie. Not only are they melting, the ice mass loss is accelerating.

    Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

    > neither are sea levels rising.

    Another flat out lie. Not only are sea levels rising, the rise is accelerating.

    Chart source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    > The data is in.

    True, and you’re flat out lying about it. When you can stop your lying? Then and only then come back here and reply to me. Got it, boy?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  76. @Anonymous

    That graphic is actually incorrect. It says chlorophyll absorbs green wavelengths making it green. Colors don’t work like that.

    It absorbs red and blue light wavelengths making it green.

    Other than that it is correct though and I would agree with you.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @anon
  77. A123 says:
    @anon

    Source: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

    The NASA GISS data set is highly suspicious. It presents “adjusted” values and the raw data is not disclosed. Without any way to evaluate the secret “adjustments” the data has no meaningful scientific value.

    PEACE

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  78. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123

    Wrong, the NASA GISS data isn’t highly suspicious. It’s been checked multiple times, and coincides with other data sets, including satellite data.

    > It presents “adjusted” values

    True. And you haven’t the slightest clue why it is necessary.

    Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the unadjusted data?

    A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps are eliminated; those may be introduced by station moves or equipment updates or by combining reports from different sources into a single series. In the adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with documented and undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website. Uncertainty arising from the statistical method used to remove artificial changes is accounted for in the confidence interval on the global mean.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q208

    > no meaningful scientific value.

    The adjustments actually “reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data.” The adjustments are IN YOUR FAVOR!

    Source: No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
    https://skepticalscience.com/no-conspiracy-noaa-adjustments-closer-to-pristine.html

    So go with the raw data! LOL Anyway, your lies have no more scientific value than a flat earther’s.

  79. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123

    > the raw data is not disclosed.

    Liar. It’s an open data set. Pick any station here, and the raw data is there: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/

    For example:

    There’s the unadjusted, raw data, plain as day! Going to apologize for your blatant lie that is so easily disproved? No, you’ll just keep lying, or perhaps slink off to lie another day.

  80. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    > Other than that it is correct though and I would agree with you.

    Translation: Other than getting the basic science wrong, the conspiracy theory based on the bad science is great! LOL! The virtue signaling is a hoot around here.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
  81. @anon

    Where are the 20 articles, you loon?

    What’s wrong with you? Why reply if you just want to spout more of your bullshit?

    Are you Michael Hudson’s roommate?

    Do what was requested or shut up.

    • Replies: @anon
  82. Has there been a study done yet on whether the climate change adherents are the same people who insist we should continue an open borders policy of rewarding third world immigrants with first world carbon footprints?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @anon
  83. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farmer Bob

    Good point and yes – yes trey are.

    • Replies: @anon
  84. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    For a fellow who can’t figure out what melts ice, you sure are as bossy as a cat lady.

    Photos from NASA Global Ice Viewer
    https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/

    Let us know when you figure out what melts ice on a global scale, ok?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  85. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farmer Bob

    Serving red herring today?

  86. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Has there been a study done yet on whether the climate science deniers are the same people who insisted that cigarette smoking was safe?

    In fact, some of the same individuals who have spoken out against climate science also claimed that cigarettes were safe.

    Who are the Deniers?
    http://opr.ca.gov/facts/the-deniers.html

  87. @anon

    Dear anonaloonie:

    See my reply. Follow the instructions

    No point in reading anything you post until you do that.

    Don’t be scared. Learning new things is nothing to be scared of.

    You’re just not serious if you can’t.

    • Replies: @anon
  88. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    You’re still having difficulty with the simple query about what it is that melts ice on a global scale.

    Do you need a hint, or can you manage a first-grade science question on your own?

  89. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Verso

    > devoid of climate data or citing authoritative text

    Hmmm, well, here’s the very latest climate data that I’m citing from an authoritative text, showing July 2019 as the hottest month ever recorded in human history.

    Source: Another exceptional month for global average temperatures
    Copernicus Climate Change Service | ECMWF | 5th August 2019
    https://climate.copernicus.eu/another-exceptional-month-global-average-temperatures

    Do I get a thank you for filling that void in your life?

    • Replies: @Realist
  90. @anon

    I know better than to argue with you because most people’s views on this are basically religious, despite none of them admitting it.

    It would be like arguing whether Mohammed was a prophet of God with a Muslim. You’re not going to get anywhere except maybe into a fight.

    If you want to know anyway:

    That graphic did not get the basic science of carbon sequestration wrong, which is what it was attempting to show. It got the color of light wrong.

    All the models have been falsified. All the science has been politicized. There are billions of dollars in grants on the table and this has become a quasi-religious moral issue over which there is plenty of signaling.

    They falsify history, ignore the medieval warm period and the little ice age, and that’s just in the modern interglacial without considering the ice age or the cretaceous.

    They ignore non-atmospheric input like cosmic radiation increasing cloud cover, and the freakin sun, which they insist is static when it observably isn’t.

    And they ignore natural carbon sources like volcanoes make the entire human contribution look like a drop in the sea.

    They lose all their data sets or they refuse to publicize them.

    And they propagandize us constantly throughout the pop culture, with people running commercials, and movies made by Al freaking Gore, and all the giant mega-polluting mega-corps turn it into hypocritical marketing and make billions too.

    They always come up with the exact same result no matter how many times they have to revise their data or their models because they’ve been shown to be wrong, but the outcome never changes. It’s always a hockey stick.

    It’s a hockey stick. That should tell you something.

    They act like they think the environment is supposed to be static and eternal.

    They and everyone else ignore that climate scientists have been alarmed by theories that earth is cooling or alternately warming ever since the thermometer was invented and allowed detailed comparative record keeping, which was relatively recently but well over a century ago.

    They are making predictions as far out from now that it has been since they first began studying the climate and keeping quasi-accurate records. They basically reject all previous measurements except 1 set of tree rings they won’t reproduce and use to reject the entire historical record of the medieval warm age and the little ice age.

    Chaos theory literally shows us that you cannot predict what they claim to be predicting. Their own models also show they can’t predict anything.

    Read up on chaos theory.

    Their argument that chaos theory doesn’t apply here, is that climate is much simpler than weather, even though climate is just global averaged weather, and long term predictions are easier to make than short term predictions.

    Those are the arguments of complete charlatans. Long term predictions are easier to make because everyone who remembers them is dead by then and no one cares if they were accurate. Chaos theory shows why long term predictions always get exponentially harder to make than short term predictions.

    Meanwhile even saying what the exact and accurate average temperature of the whole world is right now is no simple certain task at all and has plenty of room for argument.

    And they can’t get any of the short term predictions right predictively. They keep going back and adjusting, but no matter how many adjustments are made the long term prediction never changes. And the short term prediction is never right.

    It will never change either, until it does change, and when that eventually happens it will change to global cooling again.

    Just FYI. It’s not worth bickering about.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @anon
    , @anon
  91. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    Great post.

    • Replies: @anon
  92. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    You can out Gish-Gallop Duane Gish himself! Damn! I’ll address just a small sampling of your screed of lie after lie after lie.

    > All the models have been falsified

    Liar. Even the very early ones, such as this 1981 example from Hansen, still quite accurate.


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

    > They lose all their data sets or they refuse to publicize them.

    Another lie that I already covered in comment #78. Re-parroting lies do not make them true. Good grief, go look at the data yourself!

    > the freakin sun… they insist is static

    You’re a freaking liar, it’s been well-considered and documented. Solar radiance is down (not static, dumbass), temperature is up.


    Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    > chaos theory

    Liar.

    The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.

    Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?
    https://skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm

    > it will change to global cooling again

    You’re a moronic liar who confuses sensationalist TV programs from the 1970’s with science journals. This article explains your conveniently poor memory:

    “The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.”

    What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

    Are you all Gish-Galloped out now? Or are we gonna rodeo again? I like ropin’ liars. Yeehaw!

  93. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    > There are billions of dollars

    No shit, sherlock.

    “The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires”

    Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement: Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/

    And you fell for their shtick, just like so many people fell for the cigarette companies bullshit that smoking didn’t cause cancer.

  94. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    If only to highlight the fact that billionaire climate denier propaganda is quite similar tobacco executives’ propaganda, since they use the same PR company. Really! Read about it here…

    Big Tobacco spent $100,000 setting up the Restoring Integrity to Science Coalition “to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of ‘junk science’.”

    How tobacco shills inspired climate denial
    https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/17/how-tobacco-shills-inspired-climate-denial

    Same shit, different assholes.

  95. The global warming crusade experienced a bit of a setback around the beginning of this decade when the hacked e-mails of the East Anglia Institute revealed that there is an enormously powerful “scientific” and media establishment that deliberately falsifies and distorts data and suppresses dissent from the global warming mantras.

    Also around that time came a report by NASA scientists ( but, I believe, not issued *by* NASA) that showed heat is dissipated into space sooner, and at a more rapid rate, than the global warmists’ climate models predicted, thus accounting for their failures as predictors up to that point.

    And then there was a report of a CERN experiment which indeed confirmed the fact that cosmic radiation contributes to cloud formation; and the scientists conducting the experiment labored mightily for years to be allowed to conduct the experiment but were prohibited to *interpret* their results publicly. Recently, there are reports that Japanese and Finnish scientists have also confirmed this.

    • Replies: @anon
  96. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @JVC

    > climate change–it always is

    That’s the #1 most used Climate Liar argument. It’s amazing how the Big Tobacco/Big Oil PR firms have got you dumb-as-niggers conservitards parroting deep oil state bullshit so easily.

    > all indicators are lining up for a period of global cooling once again.

    Liar. Global Warming is accelerating. A very slightly lower rate of solar irradiance from the solar minimum is barely putting a dent in that acceleration, as this graph shows:

    You aren’t competent to do third grade science, moron, and your rockhound degree is as useless to your understanding of climate science as an SJW degree from a women’s college.

    > have lived through several of these cycles

    Yeah, you’re the dumb-as-a-nigger conservitard who believed the anti-science tirades and “free-market” shilling of Big Tobacco too. It’s not surprising to find out today’s Deep Oil State pockets use the same PR firm as Big Tobacco did.

    > I remember well the nonsense of the late 70’s

    Yeah, you were mezmerized by sensationalist TV about heading into a new ice age like the fat’n’stupid bump-on-a-log that you are, and did not read scientific journals, the vast majority of which were predicting global warming, even in the late 70’s.

    What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

  97. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    > Are you stating that CO2 has never been higher? If so that’s not true.

    Lying again, are you, you lying sack of shit Deep Oil State shill? CO2 has never been higher millions of years. Here’s the CO2 record for the last 800,000 years.

    When are you going to stop lying, liar?

  98. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    > the blizzards of propaganda from both sides

    Today’s climate debate is like yesterday’s Big Tobacco vs Science debate; your fatal error is mistaking science for propaganda.

  99. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    Your stupid denialist website—likely funded by the same PR firms that Big Tobacco used a few years ago—is the equivalent of how science was misconstrued in this Big Tobacco propaganda:

    We’re onto your shtick.

    Fracking Industry Learns From Big Tobacco
    http://priceofoil.org/2015/02/18/fracking-industry-learns-big-tobacco/

  100. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    The “photosynthesis” solution is hard science. They (used to) teach this in primary school. Half a trillion trees would drop the CO2 levels to what we had a century ago. Maybe you should read your own links.

    This fact is independent of any (conspiracy) talk about globalists’ motives or greenhouse effects. As a matter of fact – if we accept your own theory about those effects – global warming would be actually reversed (not just halted) even at a fraction of the proposed planting.

    None of this is even debatable – but I’m sure you’ll conveniently ‘miss the point’ and drop a random graph, label or insult.

    • Replies: @anon
  101. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farmer Bob

    > The global warming crusade experienced a bit of a setback around the beginning of this decade when the hacked e-mail

    Liar. The Independent Climate Change Email Review proves your false assertions had no more merit than the Democrat’s accusations of Russian Collusion.

    The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC’s conclusions…

    What do the ‘Climategate’ hacked CRU emails tell us?
    https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

    The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU’s results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide.

    Did CRU tamper with temperature data?
    https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

    > a report by NASA scientists

    Do tell. But all you’re doing is making up shit while you cannot find such a report. You’re a worse liar than Rachel Madcow.

    > a CERN experiment which indeed confirmed the fact that cosmic radiation

    I really think you’re going over to SkepticalScience.com, finding a climate myth, and then bringing it here, so I can go to SkepticalScience.com, put your latest bullshit in the search engine, and show how silly you are. Here we go again!

    Climate Myth: CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
    https://skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm

    Fact is, if cosmic rays are influencing global warming, it is opposite of what you imply.

    Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth’s reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

    What’s the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
    https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

    And I’ll remind you, that while there are a very few contrarian science studies that do get published, e.g., the Finnish/Japanese cosmic rays/clouds study, the vast majority of science studies go this way:

  102. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    > The “photosynthesis” solution is hard science.

    I never said it wasn’t. Everybody knows trees use CO2 from the atmosphere. However, your hare-brained conspiracy theories that you’ve conjured about why trees aren’t being planted that somehow disprove global warming — those aren’t hard science. You seem to have major problems with reading comprehension.

    > if we accept your own theory

    That CO2 causes global warming is not my own personal theory, its the theory of the whole body of science.

    > None of this is even debatable

    Then take your own advice and quit debating the established science of global warming.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  103. Realist says:
    @anon

    Do I get a thank you for filling that void in your life?

    I’ll give you a fuck you for the void between your ears.

    • Replies: @anon
  104. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    Yours is nothing but shitlib blather. And that’s what you are is a shitlib, i.e. “Pollution is Muh Freedom!”

    The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response – is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last 40 years, against the possibility of collective action. Devastatingly successful, it is not too late to reverse it.

    The political project of neoliberalism, brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any democratic public will.

    Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals

  105. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    As predicted, you ‘missed the point’ and frantically tried to compensate with insults, labels and random graphs. You’re waving those things in front of our faces like an Australian aboriginal would wave his primitive talismans.

    And for the same reasons, apparently. You don’t really understand what they represent but you’re hoping that the mystical power within, and your fate, will ward of the “evil”. Funny.

    I never said it wasn’t. Everybody knows trees use CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Good. So now you know that it would work and reduce our atmospheric carbon pool by a whopping 25%. That’s all. Everything else is misdirection on your part. I’ve already pointed out – in the same message you replied to – that the “conspiracy” part and the “global warming” part don’t have any influence on this fact. Cheers.

  106. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    > you ‘missed the point’

    What’s your point?

    > You’re waving those things in front of our faces like an Australian aboriginal would wave his primitive talismans…Everything else is misdirection on your part.

    You’re projecting.

    > So now you know that it would work and reduce our atmospheric carbon pool by a whopping 25%.

    Anybody can read the study, dumbass. And it takes the area “the size of the continental U.S.” Did you forget that part? Do you really think that possible?

    Last week, a new study in the journal Science highlighted the role forests could play in tackling climate change. Researchers estimated that by restoring forests to their maximum potential, we could cut down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by 25 percent — a move that would take us back to levels not seen in over a century. Though the study brings hope in the fight against climate change, other experts warn the solution is not that simple.

    The study, led by scientists at ETH-Zürich, Switzerland, determined the planet has 0.9 billion hectares of land available to hold more trees — an area the size of the continental U.S. Converting those areas into forests would be a game-changer for climate change, the authors suggested.

    We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/07/10/reforestation-climate-change-plant-trees/

    Let’s repeat that: an area the size of the continental U.S.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  107. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @JVC

    > coming cooling is one of the deepest solar minimums

    You’re one of those Adapt2030 youtube-addled, flat-earth-tier fruitcakes who believe a “Dalton Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” grand solar minimum mini ice age 2015-2035 is coming and you’re going to freeze off your nuts, right? LOL! You’re sadly mistaken. Even if the sunspots shut completely down for a long period, it will hardly be a speed bump to continued global warming.

    Climate Myth: A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age
    Science Fact: Peer-reviewed research, physics, and math all tell us that a grand solar minimum would have no more than a 0.3°C cooling effect, barely enough to put a dent in human-caused global warming.
    https://skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age.htm

  108. @Realist

    I’m with you Realist.
    Remember the folks that ridicule anyone for questioning the BS 911 story are the same ones who promote this global warming bullshit.

    • Replies: @anon
  109. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @JVC

    > the deepest solar minimums in a real long time

    Where? Here’s the record for the last 13 years. No ‘deepest solar minimum’ in sight.

    And no ‘deepest solar minimum forecasts either.

    Based on a compilation of more than 60 forecasts published by various teams using a wide range of methods, the panel reached a consensus indicating that cycle 25 will most likely peak between 2023 and 2026 at a maximum sunspot number between 95 and 130.

    Royal Observatory of Belgium
    http://sidc.oma.be/silso/

    Of course, grand solar minimum liars like you won’t apologize after you’re proven wrong, because you didn’t back in 2006-2010 when you were spouting the same bullshit at the end of cycle 23. You’ll just wait another 11 years and bang away like a chimpanzee at it again as the sun cycles.

  110. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Do you really think that possible?

    Of course it’s possible – and it’s been possible since all this talk about our impending doom started (34 years ago according to your own graph). You plant a tree and it starts contributing, you plant billion trees and they contribute more. The study referenced in your own link describes a solution that could start reversing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere even if it’s implemented at less than 10% of its potential. Read it carefully and note that they only considered unused land and even ignored desert areas. They also completely ignored “forest farming” (or multi-story cropping) in their proposal. Look it up.

    Look, I’m an environmentalist at heart myself. The amounts of unnatural poisons we’re injecting into our environment are staggering and completely unsustainable. That said, the CO2 scam and its market “solution” is a lie. Maybe your heart is in the right place but your approach is abrasive and your faith is misplaced.

    Final analysis:

    If we have too much CO2 in our atmosphere we can reduce it with new trees. Yes, we can plant enough trees to consistently start reducing the overall CO2 level in our atmosphere. Period.

    • Replies: @anon
  111. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @2stateshmustate

    Are you some cat lady calling Trump a bullshitter?

    The Trump Administration Forecasts 7 Degrees Fahrenheit of Global Warming by 2100
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a23516268/trump-nhtsa-global-warming-2100/

    Since the Trump Administration is publicly promoting benefits of global warming, it’s clearly obvious that you’re one of those box-wine feminist wastrels who voted for Hillary.

    “Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade,” he continued. “This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days.”

    “Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st century Suez and Panama Canals,” Pompeo remarked.

    Pompeo: Melting sea ice presents ‘new opportunities for trade’
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/politics/pompeo-sea-ice-arctic-council/index.html

  112. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    > the CO2 scam

    What scam?

    > and its market “solution”

    You’re still committing the logical error of trying to negate scientific facts because things you don’t like about political reactions to those facts. It’s as stupid as saying nuclear physics is wrong because you don’t like politicians having nuclear bombs.

    > If we have too much CO2 in our atmosphere we can reduce it with new trees

    What’s the chances of getting that many trees planted? Zilch. Deforestation is still widespread.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  113. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    What’s the chances of getting that many trees planted? Zilch.

    Let’s see – even at 50% of the proposed coverage, the chances – and the solution to your masters’ projected imminent catastrophe – are as close to 100% as you can get.

    L O L !

    • Replies: @anon
  114. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    50% is as close to 100%? What the hell are you even saying? Lay off the alcohol and stop typing drunk, you cackling fool.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  115. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    50% is as close to 100%?

    Not exactly… but 50% of A can affect B at close to 100%. Is this confusing to you?

    This is hilarious. I must be communicating with a badly programmed bot.

  116. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    Still drunk, huh?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  117. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Haha, let’s see:

    – My plan is to make a single adult portion of omelette.

    – A full portion requires 4 eggs.

    – I have 8 in the basket.

    – I can use only half of my eggs (50%) to completely reach the target (100%).

    Does this happen to you often? Next time when you get confused and everyone starts coming across as “drunk”, try reading slowly or take a break.

    • Replies: @anon
  118. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    While eggs will help you recover from your hangover, this isn’t the food channel. Do you know anything about global warming?

  119. Saxon says:
    @anon

    The world was warmer 1000 years ago, before any industrial society or fossil fuels burning or any of that. Northern Europeans could live an agricultural lifestyle on Greenland, and did, until it got too cold. It’s still too cold, by the way.

    Some glacier in the US was supposed to melt by 2020, and they had to take down the sign claiming this with less than 6 months left until the due date, because it actually grew.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  120. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon

    > The world was warmer 1000 years ago…agricultural lifestyle on Greenland

    Wrong. The land was as green as that “great opportunity” for sale on zillow needs just a wee bit of “TLC.”

    So how did Greenland get its name? According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. However, the age of the ice sheet, which is more than 3 kilometres thick in places and covers 80% of Greenland, proves that the opportunities to establish communities would have been limited to rather small areas.

    Climate myth: Greenland used to be green
    https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

    > Some glacier

    Oh sure, “some glacier.” LOL Go on, name it! Let’s see the evidence! Meanwhile, in real life…

    Climate myth: Glaciers are growing
    https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

    • Replies: @Saxon
  121. I’m partial to the tree solution, because if the climate warms, the trees will provide shade, but if it cools, we can burn them.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  122. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farmer Bob

    Unfortunately, in real life, as the climate warms, the trees are burning.

    The fires, which have been burning for several weeks, have spread across almost 3 million hectares of land, the Federal Forestry Agency has said.

    That’s an area almost the size of Belgium.

    Russia’s army called in as Siberia wildfires engulf area nearly as big as Belgium
    http://www.fasterthanexpected.com/2019/08/01/russias-army-called-in-as-siberia-wildfires-engulf-area-nearly-as-big-as-belgium/

    Arctic Fires Fill the Skies with Soot
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145380/arctic-fires-fill-the-skies-with-soot

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  123. Anonymous[496] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farmer Bob

    The tree solution – even if implemented at a fraction of its potential – would actually decrease the CO2 levels in our atmosphere. The globalists behind the scam can’t have that because it would “solve” all their global warming projections even if we take them at face value. Everything rests on those levels in their own models.

    Also, isn’t it amazing that in all these decades they couldn’t even (try to) make a deal with Brazil’s logging industry while their proposed “solution” requires an iron-grip control over the planet’s industry? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @anon
  124. Anonymous[496] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    So, the human race in the 21st century can’t plant trees faster than they’re burning? Well, I guess we should just lie down and die – or create a market to make them stop burning.

    LOL. You’re such a clown.

    • Replies: @anon
  125. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Are you taking a break to type online while you’re planting trees? What, you’re not actually planting trees? You never even started? What happened, smoke inhalation got the best of you? Or is it just too damned hot to plant trees?

    During the last 67 years, Anchorage saw a total of 17 days with a temperature of 81°F or above. This year, 81 was the average temperature for a 12-day stretch in late June and early July…

    Alaska Chokes on Wildfires as Heat Waves Dry Out the Arctic
    Fires are spreading farther north, burning more intensely and starting earlier, in line with what scientists have warned would happen with climate change.
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11072019/arctic-wildfires-alaska-climate-change-heat-wave-2019-university-funding

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  126. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    > Makes you think, doesn’t it?

    Haven’t yet observed any thinking from you. Your retarded attempts to overturn two centuries of hard science with your half-baked nonsense doesn’t measure up to the standard of rational thought.

  127. Anonymous[496] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Of course I didn’t start planting trees. My sky is not falling. The whole point is that your handlers didn’t start planting trees. Sheesh, did you lose the plot, again?

    I think we’re done here. I’m not into molesting the disabled and every onlooker with two brain cells to rub together already knows the score. Bye.

    • Replies: @anon
  128. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I have no handlers. You lie, and then double down on your lies. Unfortunately, your lies don’t work.

    > I think we’re done here.

    You can be done lying whenever you stop lying.

    > I’m not into molesting

    And there you go psychologically projecting again!

    > Bye.

    Prison guards sending you back to your padded cell?

    Yet the globe still warms, and because of CO2.


    Source: Empirical Evidence for Global Warming
    https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

  129. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon

    Hey, Saxon, I found your glacier and the sign you mentioned. It’s called Okjökull. Unfortunately, the news is exactly opposite of what you said. The glacier disappeared, and the folks in Iceland put up a sign memorializing the loss of their glacier. I think your memory is faulty; might want to check with your doctor about a tune-up. And if you were deliberately lying to me, you’ve got Svevlad’s “feet first” technological fix coming due, understand? Getting kind of serious, ain’t it?

    Scientists memorialize the first glacier lost to climate change in Iceland
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/22/world/iceland-glacier-climage-change-trnd/index.html

    • Replies: @Saxon
  130. “Scientists memorialize the first glacier lost to climate change in Iceland”

    Up in ChiTown they have a glacier lost to climate change, too, and it was lost far earlier than the one in Iceland. It’s called Lake Michigan nowadays. It took a lot of cow farts to melt that one, because they didn’t have any “anthropogenic global warming” in them days.

    • Replies: @anon
  131. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farmer Bob

    You’re never going to disprove hard science by nitpicking syntax or grammar. It’s quite apparent that CNN is using “climate change” as shorthand the anthropogenic sort that earth has now. Misconstruing such shorthand terms only proves your own dishonesty, Farmer Bob, but then, you’ve proven your dishonesty abundantly already.

    I’m glad you brought up methane. Are you stupid enough to believe that there are no consequences for humans raising both CO2 and methane way above anything seen in the last 400,000 years, hmmm? Here is a chart that shows 400,000 years of the history of Temperature, CO2, and Methane through the several ice age cycles.

    Sorry, but climate scientists haven’t missed the ice ages, and much as you try to falsely allege that they did. As dishonest as you’ve proven yourself, it’s no surprise to see that you’ll use any subterfuge to weasel out of acknowledging consequences for actions. Liars gonna lie.

  132. Hankyou says:

    Great article! The economic fairy tale about perpetual growth nonsense and the mindless push to plunder the planet’s finite resources while trying to dominate and control everything might hit a snag sooner then the supposed leaders at the top of this mess will ever believe. The CO2 level in May 2019 hit record high of 414.7 ppm. Measures from ice core samples found atmospheric carbon dioxide was never higher than 300 ppm for the past 800,000 years. The average being 280ppm. In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high(today’s value) was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today. Between 2016 and 2017, global annual mean carbon dioxide increased 2.2 ± 0.1 ppm, which was slightly less than the increase between 2015 and 2016 (3.0 ppm per year). At this rate, nobody cares if the planet is warming or cooling… the surprise will come from the CO2 effect on the oceans acidification. Now, that’s the game changer and I hope I wont be here when life in the oceans collapse.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
    https://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/ocean-acidification.html

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  133. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hankyou

    > the surprise will come from the CO2 effect on the oceans acidification. Now, that’s the game changer

    True. Humans have managed to trigger another PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) ocean acidification that killed off most life, at a rate 10 (ten!) times faster than the original PETM.

  134. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hankyou

    > I hope I wont be here when life in the oceans collapse.

    Probably will be, unless you’re retired. Things are accelerating now, and a new frequent term found in the climate science scientific literature (check it out on scholar.google) is “faster-than-expected.”

    https://www.fasterthanexpected.com/
    https://www.fasterthanexpected.one/

  135. @anon

    True, I probably understand syntax and grammar better than I understand climate change. If I could understand the syntax of your first paragraph, though, I’d be happy to pick the nits. But I don’t need to understand the hard science so well, so long as I understand what I saw in the hacked e-mails of the East Anglia Institute. And sure as heck, when some of the other proponents of “anthropogenic global warming” start talking about “climate change denial” like it were “holocaust denial,” = making it against the law and the like – and don’t lie to me and say they haven’t – I start thinking about how Churchill said the truth is so precious it must be guarded by a body of lies. That’s just about what I saw the “hard” scientists of the East Anglia Institute saying in their e-mails.

    You calling everybody liars fits right in there.

    • Replies: @anon
  136. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farmer Bob

    > I understand what I saw in the hacked e-mails of the East Anglia Institute.

    You saw nothing, liar.

    The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC’s conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.

    What do the ‘Climategate’ hacked CRU emails tell us?
    https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

    Your propensity to lying is proving pathological. I doubt you could tell the truth about something if you tried.

  137. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:

    11 August 2019
    Image of the Day:
    Satellite view of 5 million km² of Siberia covered by smoke from wildfires

  138. Saxon says:
    @anon

    The historical fact about why Greenland is called Greenland is not relevant to the fact that people used to actually live there and were able to farm the land and live off of it, which they can’t today. What is now called Iceland is the better land, obviously, and that was a swindle, but that’s besides the point. You are being intentionally obtuse, obviously, because this climate change gibberish is a religious-like item to you.

    • Replies: @anon
  139. Saxon says:
    @anon

    The glacier I was talking about was at Glacier National Park in Montana, in the United States, you schizophrenic weirdo.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @anon
  140. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

    Unbelievable stuff. Rain at the North Pole. Not just rain, thunderstorms.

    2030 is the new 2100. Yet Unztards are still fapping to the dumbcunt who can’t do the math and predicts the sun shuts off and a new ice age hits in 2020.

    • Replies: @Saxon
  141. Anonymous[941] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon

    I remember that. As far as predictive capabilities go, these people are somewhere between palm readers and goat entrails seers.

    Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its “Gone By 2020” Signs

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  142. Saxon says:
    @anon

    Meanwhile, schizophrenic doom cultists like you who buy into the newest astroturfed “underwater in 12 years” hoax will probably be parroting that with the weirdest logic imaginable, like this post you just made.

    • Replies: @anon
  143. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The plaque is correct that the glaciers are quickly disappearing; 9 have already completely melted away at Glacier National Park.

    In 1966, the park had 35 named glaciers large enough to be considered active. By 2015, only 26 named glaciers remained. The average area reduction was 39 percent, though some lost as much as 85 percent.

    Melting Glaciers | Glacier National Park, Montana
    https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm

    For several years, those glaciers actually melted faster than the rate predicted by the model, prompting researchers to refine analysis of glacier retreat with more physical detail. These recent studies have revealed the real world complexity of mountain landscape change. Though the park’s glaciers are all getting smaller, variations in snow avalanches, ice flow dynamics, and ice thickness cause some glaciers to shrink faster than others. Sometimes a glacier will retreat very quickly where it was thinly and widely spread, only to shrink much more slowly when only the shaded, high elevation ice remains. ibid

    So the glaciers are quickly melting—as predicted—although not as fast as one study that hadn’t considered slowing after retreat into shade or higher elevation. If you think a sign in a National Park that hasn’t been updated by the government negates global warming, you’re exactly the kind of moron who thinks a doctor who correctly diagnosed your mother with pancreas cancer got it all wrong because he said she probably had a year or two and she lasted three.

  144. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon

    I found those “schizophrenic doom cultists.” Predicting another ice age in 5 months. Led by the dumbcunt Valentina Zharkova, who writes:

    “…substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055…”
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-new-dark-age-comes-for-climate-science/#comment-3390845

    Right here at Unz! 2020 is the year the hoax that Unz global warming deniers hope overturns the reality of global warming is revealed as a hoax.

    > “underwater in 12 years”

    Liar. You put that in quotes, but I didn’t say it. Can you provide a citation for your quotations? No? You can see the sea level rise chart in comment #75. That’s just reality morons like you try to deny with your lies.

    > weirdest logic imaginable

    Posting an image from the Fairbanks AK National Weather Service about thunderstorms at the north pole is the weirdest logic imaginable? That truly is the weirdest logic possible, and thus, you’re psychologically projecting. Why are you doing that? Is it your way of denying reality?

  145. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

    No sea ice within 150 miles of Alaska.

    “Alaska waters are ice free,” said Rick Thoman, a climate specialist at the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy.

    “This is definitely an extreme year — even by more recent standards in a changed Arctic,” noted Walt Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

    In the continually warming Arctic, sea ice has completely melted around the Alaskan coast before, notably during 2017’s melt season, but never this early. “It’s cleared earlier than it has in any other year,” said Thoman. (Sea ice starts regrowing again in the fall, when temperatures drop.)

    Arctic sea ice has been either been at record lows or flirting with record lows throughout much of the summer. “I’m losing the ability to communicate the magnitude [of change],” Jeremy Mathis, a longtime Arctic researcher and current board director at the National Academies of Sciences, told Mashable in June, when sea ice levels were at their lowest point in the satellite record for that period. “I’m running out of adjectives to describe the scope of change we’re seeing.”

    https://mashable.com/article/alaska-sea-ice-melt-2019/

    The childish denialist “everything is awesome” cult simply ignores reality.

  146. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Latest news: July 2019 was the hottest month ever in human history.

    Source:
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

    And that is exactly what is quickly disappearing those glaciers in Glacier National Park.

  147. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @JVC

    > a bit warmer climate

    109°F in Paris in 1999 isn’t a “bit” warmer. It’s a whole bunch warmer, more like Las Vegas. And 3 decades Faster-Than-Expected.

  148. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon

    Glacier National Park in Montana is where all the glaciers are melting away, you science-denying dimwit. A fellow can watch it happening, in his own lifetime, by his own eyes, if he only has eyes that can see. E.g., Jackson Glacier, 1911 and 2009:

    Source:

    “In 1966, the park had 35 named glaciers large enough to be considered active. By 2015, only 26 named glaciers remained. The average area reduction was 39 percent, though some lost as much as 85 percent. This trend of glacier retreat is expected to continue as temperatures rise.”

    https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm

    Come on faggot, tell us your hare-brained conspiracy theory how they’re hiding that ice!

  149. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon

    > The historical fact about why Greenland is called Greenland is not relevant

    Wrong. Facts are always relevant. Only scammers like you try to say facts are “not relevant.”

    > actually live there and were able to farm the land and live off of it

    Still can and do, dimwit.

    At present, local production accounts for 10% of potatoes consumption in Greenland, but that is projected to grow to 15% by 2020. Similarly, it has enabled new crops like apples, strawberries,[28] broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and carrots[27] to be grown and for the cultivated areas of the country to be extended[29] although even now only about 1% of Greenland is considered arable.[30]

    Economy of Greenland: Agriculture and forestry
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greenland#Agriculture_and_forestry

    > You are being intentionally obtuse, obviously,

    You’re psychologically projecting, but it is interesting learning about you.

    Fact: Warming during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly was not global.

    Source: Climate Myth – Greenland used to be green
    https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

  150. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

    > this climate change gibberish is a religious-like item to you

    Again, you’re psychologically projecting.

    Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) told a constituent that while he believed climate change had been occurring “since the beginning of time… as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

    What’s Really behind Evangelicals’ Climate Denial? | 23 April 2019
    https://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2019/features/whats-really-behind-evangelicals-climate-denial

    You’re one of those magical thinkers, aren’t you, and are offended by the realization that no Jewish deity is going to save humanity from its own suicide.

  151. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

    Industrial Civilization is a full scale war, via multiple fronts, on Life on Earth.

    The warriors who thought themselves special and apart from the Earth are going to die along with every other species they’re killing.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 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 Michael Hudson Comments via RSS