The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Extinction Rebellion’s Emily Grossman Is A Type—As Nutty As You Would Expect
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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

Extinction Rebellion (XR) members, overwhelmingly young, university-educated and white, recently splashed fake blood on New York’s Charging Bull Sculpture.

They began a global “Day of Disobedience” shutting down the center of Berlin (although their camp kept itself warm with a diesel generator) [Extinction Rebellion mocked for ‘trying to hide’ diesel generator in protest camp, by Naomi Adedokun, Express, October 10, 2019,. They wrought particular chaos in London, shutting down the City Airport, occupying Smithfield Market and generally creating havoc, leading to 1000 arrests (although eating at McDonalds [‘McHypocrites’ criticised for ordering McDonald’s during Extinction Rebellion protest, by Joe Roberts & Lucy Middleton, Metro, October 8, 2019,].) When police refused to act, livid London commuters dragged an activist off the roof of a subway train he was holding up [MIND THE SCRAP, by Holly Christodoulou, The Sun, October 17th, 2019,].

But what kind of people are behind this “rebellion?

Extinction Rebellion, with Greta Thunberg as its child Messiah , was established in the UK in May 2018 with 100 original signatories, in November 2018, its members closed down five key London bridges. The following April, they occupied five prominent central London sites, including Parliament Square, bringing the city to a standstill. Members also glued themselves to the viewing gallery of the British parliament. But now the “rebellion” has reached a whole new level of extremism.

These “rebels”—motto: “Rebel for Life,” because, they claim, based on falsified climate science data, that a “mass extinction” will begin in twelve years—have vowed to continue their insurrection until their demands are met. But their de facto leader, Roger Hallam [Email him] has said that he wants to bring down Western governments and that he doesn’t care if people die in the process [Treat Extinction Rebellion as an extremist group, former anti-terror chief tells police, by Charles Hymas, Telegraph, July 16, 2019].

But what of Hallam’s lieutenants? One of Extinction Rebellion’s most prominent spokespersons seems to strongly exemplify the type I have found to be championing the destruction of the West so many times before: exceptionally privileged, member of an ethnic minority, and not entirely stable. Her name: Dr Emily Grossman. You can see an interview with her here: Radio host lays into Extinction Rebellion ‘lunatics’ & ‘champagne socialist’ celebrities, by Naomi Adedokun, Express, October 11, 2019.

Grossman—who is 41, childless and has paid £10,000 to freeze her eggs because she can’t find a man she regards as quite good enough for her [Emily’s a TV scientist with a double first from Cambridge. But, single at 38, she confesses I’m paying £10,000 to freeze my eggs, by Rebecca Hardy, Mail Online, October 4, 2017]—has never had to struggle a day in her life. On her website, her various “testimonials” include: “Emily is one of the most intelligent girls that I have been privileged to teach” . “Privilege” has always been important for Emily.

She attended the prestigious, high fee-paying South Hampstead School, an all-girls school in North London, also attended by Dr. Jess Wade. A fifth of the girls at this school go on to attend Oxford or Cambridge—Britain’s two most prestigious universities. With such a gilded start in life, it should be no surprise that Grossman went to Queen’s College, Cambridge, where she studied Natural Sciences. Her paternal grandfather, Dr. Dennis Friedman (1924-2014) was an “eminent psychiatrist” who studied medicine at the same college. It may well have helped that Emily’s father, Ashley Grossman, is professor of endocrinology at Oxford University and a Cambridge graduate and that her mother, Susan Grossman, is also an academic, lecturing in journalism.

Emily Grossman went on to Manchester University to do a PhD in cancer research—and then decided she wanted to become an actress. Naturally, her wealthy parents indulged her, sending her to Guilford School of Acting, no doubt at great expense. Grossman then dabbled in professional acting—mainly theatre. Her doting parents, “came to every performance I was in, both as a student in Cambridge and Manchester, and also later on when I left drama school and became a professional actress for a time” [Dad Drove Me to a Career as a Scientist, By Adam Cailler, Jewish Telegraph, 2017]. In this area, it probably assisted Grossman that her maternal grandmother, Rosemary Friedman, now 90 years-old, is a novelist and playwright, with many theatre contacts.

Dramatic career changes tend to correlate with such traits an anxiety and mental instability [Relation of Neuroticism and Negative Career Thoughts and Feelings to Lack of Information, by Kevin Kelly & Yun–Jeong Shin, Journal of Career Assessment, 2008] as does being a professional actor [Psychological profiles of professional actors, by Daniel Nettle, Personality and Individual Differences, 2006].

Grossman’s parents had divorced when their then only child was four; being from a broken home (as also is SJW enforcer Ben Van der Merwe) predicts mental instability [Parental Divorce, Familial Risk for Depression, and Psychopathology in Offspring, by Eleni Vousora et al., Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2012]. Emily’s father Ashley Grossman remarried in 1984. And, then again, in 2003. From these marriages, he has five more daughters.Her mother also remarried and had another daughter as well [The Snow White who started as a doctor, Camden New Journal, December 7, 2006].

Emily Grossman told a newspaper in 2017 that “I had burnt out in my late twenties and early thirties” [Scientists, it’s OK to cry, says campaigner for STEM subjects, by Rosa Doherty, Jewish Chronicle, October 11, 2017]. In other words, she had a mental breakdown, so changed career yet again.

In 2013, Emily Grossman got back into science, via a BBC scheme called “Expert Women” in which she effectively auditioned, as one of 2000 applicants, to be a female science presenter. Of course, having the right contacts may well have helped. Her mother, after all, is a former BBC news reporter and presenter on BBC2’s “Food and Drink” TV series.

Since 2013, Emily Grossman has carved out a career as a “science communicator,” appearing as a science expert on documentaries and even comedy panel shows.

When in 2015, Nobel Prize-winning British biochemist Tim Hunt said that women in science were an increasing problem because “when you criticise them, they cry,”—this was joke, but reported out of context— Grossman went on the airwaves to declare: “We desperately need to encourage more girls into science careers, and the concern is this might put them off.” She debated this on Sky News with Milo Yiannopolous, and then became very upset about the resultant “misogynistic backlash. Hadn’t quite realised the extent of #everydaysexism. Wow.”

In reality, Grossman didn’t experience “misogyny” so much as simple criticism [Why Do Feminists Cook Up Stories About ‘Misogyny’ When They Lose Debates?, by Milo, Breitbart News, June 11, 2015].

But this simple criticism was so unacceptable to Grossman that, according to senior Labour Member of Parliament Yvette Cooper , Grossman “was forced to take a break from social media” [Online sexism is so out of control that we can no longer ignore it, by Yvette Cooper, Guardian, December 16, 2015]. As with the dramatic career change, this inability to cope with adversity is a sign of high Neuroticism.

Emily Grossman, like Jess Wade and Ben van der Merwe, is ethnically Jewish. As the Jewish Chronicle’s Doherty reported :

“[Grossman] says her Jewish identity is a driving force behind her work. ‘My determination to keep going when I’ve been rejected has always felt in part culturally Jewish, as has my desire to express myself. I’ve always had a longing to find my place in the world and I think that is probably quite a Jewish quality’ . . . She reconnected to her faith five years ago through the pop-up shul movement Grassroots Jews, which has attracted up to 400 members. ‘It is an important group for my generation. “I have been able to connect to my Judaism on a spiritual level again.’”

Now it seems Grossman has undergone yet another identity change, throwing herself into the XR. Rebellion blogger Tasmin Edwards has chronicled Grossman’s new conversion: “My friend Emily Grossman moved from curious outsider to passionate insider” [Extinction, empathy, endings, beginnings, by Tasmin Edwards, All Models Are Wrong, September 15, 2019].

And Emily has also had a sexual conversion. She was definitely heterosexual in 2017, when the Mail Online’s Hardy reported: “Emily has lived with two men, one during her 20s and a second lengthy relationship that ended last year” But now her website reports that…

Until last year, Emily had seen herself as heterosexual, having only had relationships with men. However, she met and fell in love with a non-binary partner, assigned female at birth—singer-songwriter, music lecturer and gender activist Kimwei McCarthy. This started Emily on a voyage of discovery, questioning the boxes she had put herself into regarding her sexual orientation and even her own gender identity.

Thus it seems Emily Grossman exemplifies a trend observed by F. Roger Devlin in his Sexual Utopia in Power: highly educated women are unable to fulfil their evolved desire to find a higher status male, so they become lesbians, specifically “femme” lesbians.

Emily Grossman can be added to the list that’s been growing for a while now. Those who spearhead our destruction are a specific type: privately educated, extremely privileged—often with academic parents—ethnic minority (frequently Jewish) and usually evidencing mental instability. In case of Grossman and Ben Van der Merwe, one can add “broken home” and “homosexual.”

Know your enemy.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 82 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:

    > falsified climate science data, that a “mass extinction” will begin in twelve years

    Actually, Lance, it’s you flat-out lying about science. There is nothing false about an extinction, the Sixth Mass Extinction (Holocene Extinction) has already begun. The main drivers so far have been deforestation, hunting, pollution, agriculture, and climate change. In previous mass extinctions, climate change is the most frequent driver, and a repeat looks due. In short:

    4°C warming is forecast by the Trump Administration within a single human lifetime.
    ~6°C warming resulted in near-annihilation of planetary life in P–Tr extinction.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  2. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:

    While Lance attempts an Adam Schiff style character-smearing campaign, climate science is more truthfully characterized by two centuries of old white men being curious about the planet.

    Graphic source:

  3. Need some help with that die-in, Comrades?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  4. Actually, Lance, it’s you flat-out lying about science. There is nothing false about an extinction, the Sixth Mass Extinction (Holocene Extinction) has already begun.

    But it’s got sweet FA to do with carbon dioxide emissions. From Wikipedia:

    The Holocene extinction includes the disappearance of large land animals known as megafauna, starting at the end of the last Ice Age.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  5. They got attacked and beaten up by blacks and other non-whites in London when they tried to hold up a train. Just goes to show who rules the streets in London, not wealthy white “educated” left wingers that’s for sure.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  6. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Krull

    You ignored a whole section about climate change in the Holocene Extinction article from which you quoted on climate change, namely:

    And you haven’t considered that early farmers started man-made climate change started 8,000 years ago.

    Man has been changing climate for 8,000 years

    Early farmers warmed Earth’s climate

  7. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Krull

    Are you going to start trotting out PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) about climate models? Be sure you study first.

    • Skeptical Science: Getting Skeptical about Global Warming Skepticism [screensave above]

    Explanations of global warming:

    • The Causes of Climate Change

    • The Simplest Explanation Of Global Warming Ever

  8. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @Europe Nationalist

    So you identify as a “nationalist,” yet you can’t bear to empathize with white people of your nation; rather, you denigrate them. Maybe you’re black? Are those “educated” people acting too white? Are you one of those people who thinks actions—such as evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into our thin atmosphere—have no consequences? Is your time preference as low as that of a feral Negro?

    If CO2 Emissions Keep Up, Earth Is Headed Back to The Triassic Period – Or Worse

    Awakening the Horrors of the Ancient Hothouse — Hydrogen Sulfide in the World’s Warming Oceans

    • Replies: @Europe Nationalist
  9. I guess this will turn into another long thread with the graphs with circles and arrows from the same anonymous commenter and rebuttals from those (of us) who do not subscribe to the Global Climate Disruption (scroll down) religion.*

    I don’t think that any of this will be related much to Mr. Welton’s article here. The point is that people who run these radical groups have real problems. (I imagine it was the same with Communists 100 years ago and is for those same types today.) Instead of the detailed psychoanalysis that I’ve criticized Lance Welton for in the past, without all that, this was a very good explanation of how these types get so nutty, and how these nutty types get into these nutty movements.

    Kudos on the Londoners for pushing those two assholes off the train. It was becoming a safety thing – looked like the station was getting packed, and that can be a hazard.


    * As for me, it’s not that I have a problem with much of Climatology as a field of study and some of the recent findings, but I just know there is no working mathematical model of the Earth’s climate, and people shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @restless94110
  10. @Anonymous

    And you haven’t considered that early farmers started man-made climate change started 8,000 years ago.

    Budgies have been changing the climate for 8,000 years.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  11. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    there is no working mathematical model of the Earth’s climate

    Liar; sadly, lies is all you science-denial buffoons have. You’re simply parroting the #6 denialist PRATT at To show how stupid you sound, the original global warming model, published in 1975 by Wally Broecker who coined the term global warming, was extremely simple and yet predicted global warming trends very well for over 30 years, as shown below:
    graph source: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?

    > religion.*

    What is it with denigrating religions around here? Are religions bad? Are you an anti-religious smelly neckbeard atheist? Do you hate white peoples’ Christendom? Are you in rebellion against Christ and His Apostolic Vicar? Do you have the same low time preference as a feral Negro?

    “Future generations stand to inherit a greatly spoiled world. Our children and grandchildren should not have to pay the cost of our generation’s irresponsibility,” he said, in his strongest and most direct intervention yet on the climate crisis.

    Pope Francis declares ‘climate emergency’ and urges action
    Addressing energy leaders, pope warns of ‘catastrophic’ effects of global heating

  12. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Krull

    If you can back up your hare-brained statement, then do so, and publish it. However, you can’t and won’t, because you’re one of the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party who cannot grasp science anymore than a pack of feral Negros can grasp high school English verb conjugation. Along with that comes the Negro trait of narcissism and low time preference, and you simply cannot begin to understand that evaporating earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into our thin atmosphere has any consequences beyond the dollar cost of your next malt liquor fill-up at the Exxon gas pump.

    For the higher-IQ half of white folks who do have a bit of a math and scientific background, the equation is simple. Exxon scientists had the CO2:global warming trend calculated decades ago in 1982:

    source: Exxon Predicted 2019’s Ominous CO2 Milestone in 1982

    Of course, Exxon doesn’t want sued like Big Tobacco, so it started its “junk science” smear campaign against its own in-house science, using the same PR firms Big Tobacco used.

    Revealed: How the Tobacco and Fossil Fuel Industries Fund Disinformation Campaigns Around the World

  13. @Anonymous

    Most of these “climate” protesters are the sort leftists who actively support mass immigration and the multi-racial society so I think it’s rather ironic that they got beaten up by non-whites who are only here because of people like them in the first place. They’re the sort of people who would probably call you a racist bigot if you claimed that blacks are violent so it must have come as a shock for them to get dragged off the top of trains and beaten up by blacks and other non-whites.

    “Educated”, affluent white leftists are ultimately responsible for creating the situation that exists in London and many other British towns and cities today, yet they don’t seem to fare very well on its streets.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  14. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Europe Nationalist

    Sometimes it is fun to gloat, but such policy is the consequence of the Stupid Party abdicating the Cathedral’s realm of science a century ago at the Scopes Monkey Trial, and inheriting only a mess of pottage in the form of a wooden ark in Kentucky. Climate science could easily be used to justify drastic reduction of immigration, if the Stupid Party had not pissed away its inheritance. Imagine publishing this article (my own fantasy title followed by a link to a real article regarding environmental impacts of immigration):

    How Immigration May Affect Climate Change Mitigation
    Immigration Overloads our Resources Needed to Manage Extreme Weather Events

    Imagine my fantasy title inspiring this tweet:

    Agree and amplify! Steal the leftists’ climate science flag! The scientific evidence isn’t going away, and keeps piling higher. 56% of Republicans now accept the scientific evidence of global warming and agree on a policy to “set strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public heath.”

  15. @Anonymous

    See, I knew it. This is not what the article is about. Now, you’ve dragged me into it.

    Look man, the adherents of your Global Climate Disruption(TM) behave as if this is their religion. They are not Christians – they would call themselves Atheists, whether they have neckbeards or not (more like man buns, I would guess). You’ve got it ass-backwards, and with that kind of logic, I don’t think you are any kind of scientist.

    And, as I just told a Catholic guy yesterday “you guys ought to get rid of that Commie so-called-pope Francis“. Can one impeach a Pope? I’m just asking, as I am not Catholic, and I’m not at all sure about Francis either.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. El Dato says:

    Maybe it’s easier to just dump mylar reflectors into space to get some cooling on.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  17. Anonymous[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > They are not Christians

    Oh for heavens’ sake, the Pope—who declared a ‘climate emergency’ and urges action—isn’t an adherent of the Christian religion and is atheist, because you cry no, no, no! Tada! What are you, some petulant toddler still stuck in his terrible twos?

    > Now, you’ve dragged me into it.

    What a mealy-mouthed pussy! You sound like a cunt who takes no personal responsibility for her own behavior. Nobody made you bring up the Big Lie about the climate models, but I addressed your Big Lie, and shut your goddam lying mouth up. You’re obviously not a Christian either, but a follower of Ol’ Scratch, who is the “Father of Lies.” And no doubt, you’re stupid too—lying and stupidity being highly correlated traits—because you haven’t the slightest grasp of scientific modeling. I’ll let one of these old white men you hate, John von Neumann, man-splain it to you thusly, “The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models.” Go on, try to bring up models again. Talking of models, here’s old white male James Hansen’s famous model about which he testified to Congress, from 1982. Do tell us how it’s not useful.


  18. @Anonymous

    FB, is that you?

    You still don’t seem to get it. I never said the Pope is an atheist. He’s just not much of a Christian, as he encourages Europe to be overrun with Moslems. As much as you may have had some Popes who were downright orgiastic pre-verts back in the day, you’ve got to give em this – they stuck up for Christians and Christianity. So-called-pope Francis’ religion is Communism, particularly a brand called “liberation theology”. It’s all about liberating the working man Peter from his hard-earned money and paying it to the deadbeats Paul.

    Funny, come to think of it, that’s the politics of Global Climate Disruption(TM*): Find a way to rob the working man based on “the sky is falling – in approximately 12 years, but don’t quote me on it” fears and government control. Pay that money to those dependent on Government for their lives. Just be careful, and don’t take any money from China Big Paulie and the technocrats that fly around in jets telling us to STOP EMITTING FOR CHRISSAKES!

    If you have taken a couple of your meds, and calmed down enough to be up for another Peak Stupidity post, I highly recommend “The Carbon Neutrality of Davy Jone’s Locker”. It’s about little pig-tailed Greta’s expensive voyage across the Ocean Sea.


    * My temporary trademark until I can afford to hire a cheap lawyer.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Fairfax
  19. @Anonymous

    I sent you links to 5 posts about mathematical modeling last time around. I’m guessing you didn’t read them. I’ll believe it when I am told what the initial conditions of the world’s exact climate (what it’s SUPPOSED to be) are, how the ice ages are or are not programmed in to such a model (considering the causes are not exactly pinned down, and their effects override any kind of small change due to CO2), and lastly, the kicker:

    Rather than back-run the model starting today to get to the climate of (what, this instant?), how about come out with some temp/precip numbers expected over a few seasons, over a quite a few regions of the world small enough to pin down (say “Great Plains”, Manchuria, etc.), 10 years or so from now. I want this model to be run NOW, not 10 years later saying “I told you so”. Then, if the predictions are reasonably within decent tolerances, I’ll give some credence to this.

    Until then, you’re just spouting bullshit on a thread that Lance Welton intended to be about nutty left-wing activists, and how they get that way. Speaking of which, I don’t want to see you jumping on top of a train car somewhere, mmmkay?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  20. @Anonymous

    OK. I’ll check back in OCTOBER 19, 2021 to see who’s right. If I can that is.

  21. I could get into it if they demanded a moratorium on immigration to industrialized countries, given that the newcomers will adopt our per capita carbon emmissions.

    I highly doubt they would.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  22. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You’re too chickenshit to even approach anything related to science. How’s them models look to ya? LOL! You’re like Nancy Pelosi, when you can’t win an argument on facts, attack the person’s character in multiple ways, from accusations of hypocrisy to name-calling to guilty-boy-association. Boring.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  23. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    So you decided you needed to sound less like Nancy Pelosi, and more like a flat earth moron. Here goes…

    > small enough to pin down (say “Great Plains”, Manchuria, etc.), 10 years or so from now

    LOL! It’s global climate we’re discussing, not local weather. Climate models don’t pretend to predict exact local weather conditions, much less “10 years from now.” Please learn the difference between weather and climate here:

    Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.

    The difference between weather and climate

    Anyway, you science denial strategy is “I” for Impossible Expectations.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  24. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:

    To clarify what I mean by a human lifetime, the Trump Aministration’s forecast of 4°C warming is for the year 2100. 80 years, 2 months away, well within the range of a human lifetime.

    But we will be checking January 1, 2020—two months away—to see if Lance Welton’s moronic omg-durr-coming-ice-age! promotion of Valentina Zharkova prediction for “substantial temperature decreases are expected…to occur in 2020,” because I made a prediction in Aug 2019 about Lance Welton himself, as follows:

    I predict “LANCE WELTON” will send stupid girl’s prediction about significant cooling expected to start in 2020 down the memory hole when her prediction fails miserably.

    source: Comment #60, The New Dark Age Comes for Climate Science

    2020 is the year midwit deniers like Lance Welton start eating crow, because even if the sun happens to go into a “grand solar minimum,” it won’t make much of a dent in global warming, as discussed here:

    • Climate myth – A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age
    • Science says…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.

  25. These XR people are unhinged eco lunatics. As the article says the founder is an unhinged eco lunatic herself.
    There is NO possible F…….ING ‘climate change’ or extinction caused by humans, (except possible nuclear war!)
    I wont go into science or REAL physics here, but to say there is NO geophysical evidence that CO2 does anything to the weather.
    These extinction eco loons are just trying to destroy the society and push it back to the dark ages, pre industrialisation. Good luck hope they can feed the horses! Cause they will have NO food. They are trying to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels and products. Good luck please throw away all your phones and computers you organise these lunatic rallies with! You f…tards!

  26. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:

    > I wont go into science

    Obviously not, because you’re not capable.

    > there is NO geophysical evidence that CO2

    Wrong. There is incontrovertible evidence; scientists have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for two centuries now. For starters, you can do the experiment below, yourself in your own home, with a cheap infrared camera from ebay, a little CO2 (cheap to buy, cheaper to make) and a candle, to demonstrate the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide.

  27. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:

    REAL physics here! Below is an even cheaper way of doing a scientific experiment at home to demonstrate the absorption of infrared radiation by the greenhouse gas CO2.

  28. @Anonymous

    Not science, buddy, engineering, in which you have to get things right. I have nothing against spending one’s research dollars and time working on math models of the climate, but it is a work in progress, and may remain so for a long time. See, there are lots of processes that are not even included, because, much of the time, they are not even understood in detail enough to be part of a model. Yet they are important.

    In the engineering world, the models have to really work.

    I hope I don’t come across like Nancy Pelosi. That’d be bad.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  29. @Anonymous

    Are you FB? You come across as another guy who needs just a tad more medication. Tourettes is no laughing matter.

    Now, you say these models won’t predict regional climates 10 years in the future. 10 years hence is not weather, moron. Weather is what happens tomorrow, and (the best they can do) 3-4 days from now?*

    Why do I keep hearing real specifics, like no more snow in the US, starting in 2015? Maybe that wasn’t snow a coupla years back but some kind of white Oobleck. Oh, in ’05 we were told that we’d have busy hurricane seasons, when, in fact, there was a decades of only minor ones. What good are those models? You’re just gonna come up with one average temperature of the World? What’s it supposed to be? What do the models start at, and why?


    * The difference between weather modeling and climate modeling is explained quickly in this post.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  30. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You engineers over-engineer things, sometimes by multiples, so don’t bullshit us how you’re better than a scientist at getting things exactly right. You’re a blowhard who still can’t say anything halfway intelligent against modeling the climate. I doubt you could engineer your way out of a wet paper sack, because only a dolt keeps claiming that a model has to be exactly perfect to be useful. Do tell us how Broecker’s or Hansen’s very earliest and simplest models were not useful when they were able to accurately predict a warming trend decades into the future. And the lastest models, they’re scarily accurate.

    This is scientific rigour at its finest. To a climate change denier, it may seem like ammo. But the reverse is true. NASA is determined to understand their GISTEMP data to the best of their capability, and they acknowledge, like all scientists should, any weakness in their own data and then seek to quantify it.

    Here’s How Scarily Accurate NASA’s Long-Term Climate Predictions Have Been So Far

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @fish
  31. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Oh great, you got your Soviet Psychiatry certificate out of the Fruit Loops box. Good for you.

    > you say these models won’t predict regional climates

    Wrong, liar, I didn’t. Go read what I wrote, if you can actually read.

    > Why do I keep hearing

    Voices in your head? You can’t even decide what you heard. Better break out that Soviet Psychiatry certificate and heal thyself.

    > Oh, in ’05 we were told that we’d have busy hurricane seasons, when, in fact, there was a decades of only minor ones.

    You wrote nearly the same horseshit last December 7th, 2018, except you’ve changed your tune from “no hurricanes” to “only minor ones.” LOL! And I’m going to answer the exact same way. Show us where that decade of no (or now “minor”) hurricanes is, in the following charts, the first depicting 1950 to 2017, and the second 1878 to 2006. Show us your “decade:”

    Oh, and you can’t weasel out of hurricanes that made landfall either. Here’s the landfall record:

    Which “decade” are you talking about?

    p.s. something more for you to choke on, see how it appears the storms are getting much more powerful with rising sea surface temperature?

  32. @Anonymous

    Look at the decade 1996-2005, just before this prediction was made (the prediction was made because the year 2005 had 15 Atlantic Hurricanes, and that was a nice tie-in with Global Climate Disruption. It’s likely just the randomness of it all, but the prior decade had 82 Atlantic hurricanes with 40 of them being major. The next decade, just after these “predictions”, had 63, with 26 of them major ones. That’s a lull in my book. It sure as hell ain’t the world coming to an end.

    Now, what does that prove? Nothing. I can cherry-pick data just like the rest of you guys (how come you didn’t start your HURDAT graph at 1930?), but I just picked those 2 decades because I remember that prediction from 2005, right after that bad season. It was wrong. What kind of model was that hurricane prediction based on?

    Your graph on PDI of hurricanes really makes me wonder what kind of planes were flying through hurricanes in the 1880’s measuring this stuff. What kind of crap is PDI anyway, max wind speed taken every 6 hours cubed?! Per a paper I just looked at (trying to find your graph to no avail, because you don’t provide links), this index is in m^3/s^2. Which units are right? Numbers with the wrong units are ALWAYS wrong. A unit of power dissipation ought to have Watts in it, say W/m^3, even if you use wind speed to calculate it.

    I noticed nothing out of you about the predicted lack of snowfall. I’m not talking about this weekend – I’m talking about predictions made about the future in years and decades. That is climate, not weather.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  33. @Anonymous

    Did you even read your own link, buddy? Your science-alert writer is an idiot as he didn’t get, from this paper that he referenced, that this GISTEMP analysis is only about accurate MEASUREMENT of temperatures, NOT comparison with models.

    So, you’ve got some pop-sci journalist named Evan Gough, who probably took no science other than self-paced Astronomy with a major misunderstanding of a paper he read, and here’s Mr. Anonymous on a Lance Welton thread spouting out some BS because he didn’t bother to get past the writing of the idiot pos-sci writer.

    Nice going. Don’t ever claim you’re a scientist to me. There’s no way I can believe it by this point.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  34. @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes the fool Anonymous litters every thread regarding the Climate Change hoax with his nonsense and I see this is no exception..

    By the way, this just in:

    Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface” like a blanket does. And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second. A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will therefore have no detectable impact.

    SkepticalScience, a blog spearheaded by climate science “consensus” advocate John Cook, is widely considered the explanatory guidebook for the anthropogenic global warming movement.

    The blog claims CO2 molecules, with a representation of 4 parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere (400 parts per million, or ppm), collectively function like a blanket does in slowing down the rate at which the human body cools.

    The rate or time lapse involved in this “slowing” of heat loss is problematic to the paradigm that says CO2 drives global warming, however.

    Professor Nasif Nahle has mathematically assessed the rate at which heat is retained by CO2 molecules; his work was endorsed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico).

    Nahle found the “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters (Nahle, 2011a). Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.

    Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second (Nahle, 2011b).

    If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration – whether it’s 300 ppm or 400 ppm – effectively doesn’t matter. The time lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration.

    Consequently, Nahle concludes “carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth”.

    Physicist: CO2 Molecules Retain Heat Just 0.0001 Of A Second, Thus CO2-Driven Warming ‘Not Possible’

    By Kenneth Richard on 17. October 2019

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  35. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato

    They’re already trying to keep glaciers from melting away by covering them in reflective mylar.

    photo source: Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  36. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:

    Nasif Nahle’s lies and utter horseshit is covered here, with his name mentioned about 15 times. His gross errors are pretty funny, which include “Nahle’s astonishingly sloppy transcriptions of equations, misplacing of parentheses in equations, inconsistencies in units.” After being confronted with his elementary errors, “Nahle then vanished from the discussion.”

    Is the CO2 effect saturated?

    Also here: Nasif Nahle’s Shaky Math

    The camel-humper Nasif Nahle can’t do simple math. Sad, but true.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  37. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s funny watching a halfwit like you stumble around like a drunk. The author you attempt to denigrate was writing about GISTEMP’s uncertainty model. Please do read the article, with a goal of understanding, not totally embarrassing yourself, asshole.

    Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 124, no. 12, 6307-6326, doi:10.1029/2018JD029522.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  38. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > That’s a lull in my book….I can cherry-pick data…

    True, that’s a LOL! 🙂 You’re an utter moron who admits cherry picking data. But we knew that already, because there was no “a decades” of no hurricanes like you tried to bullshit everybody. Now you’re calling it a “lull.” LOL!!!

    > what kind of planes

    You’re typing drunk now, aren’t you? Boy, you got those NOAA hurricane guys cornered now! Bringing up UFOs in the next post? Sasquatch?

    > the predicted lack of snowfall

    Which science journal did you get that from? Or was it your crossword puzzle? Paradoxically, climate change means that snowfalls may increase because the atmosphere can hold 4% more moisture for every 1°F increase in temperature. So as long as it does not warm above freezing, the result is a greater dump of snow.

  39. @Anonymous

    Exactly, I read and it’s about having an accurate temperature grid, matching up new satellite data to older temperature data. That’s where the small % error shows up. Good on them, having an accurate baseline and all that. However, that has nothing to do with global climate PREDICTION models. This is just fixing up the OBSERVED data.

    You are no kind of scientist if you can’t understand the gist of that short web page that you linked me to. I read the one just now too, and it’s the same thing. The idea is to reduce the uncertainty of temperature data. Do you even know what an “uncertainty” is? Can you describe in words the standard method of calculating the uncertainty of a result that is calculated from a few variables based on the uncertainties of those individual variables? Do that for me, please, sir.

    I’d advise you to learn a bit and not just paste in the nearest thing you can find from bing images, both for your comments in general and for your reply on uncertainties. Thanx.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  40. @Anonymous

    Hie math is just fine. whoever you are.

    Your sad trolling continues to be inane and inept.

    Meanwhile, in other news:

    Since 1981 74% Of The Globe Greened And Crop Production Swelled By 95% Due To Rising CO2, Warming

    In two new papers (Chen et al., 2019, Gao et al., 2019), scientists identify an expansive greening trend for nearly 3/4ths of the globe’s land area as well as a 12.4% carbon sink increase, a 39% crop yield increase, and a 95% crop production increase since the early 1980s. The scientists attribute these trends to climate warming and rising CO2 concentrations.

    So cheer up! CO2 is good for the planet and good for us all. We can only hope that CO2 will rise and rise and rise. That way we may be able see forests in the Sahara again. Celebrate, whoever you are.

    P.S., who ever calls themself anonymous is a charlatan and a fake and should never be listened to about anything.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  41. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You embarrassed yourself attacking models, because you didn’t read the article. Now that you’ve been corrected, you’re trying to justify yourself, but only further embarrassing yourself, because you just don’t know when to quit. From the original article you haven’t read carefully enough:

    “…both of these studies reaffirm the accuracy of the GISTEMP data and cement its position as an accurate predictor of future temperatures.”

    You’re just flailing away, unfocused, tossing random shit at any climate modeling, simply because you can’t accept the math that demonstrates global warming. I’m humored. But even for those who don’t know modeling, or even those who disdain thermometers, you never seem to be able to answer a simple question, what melts ice?

    Well? Ice is melting all around the globe. What is melting the ice?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  42. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:

    > Hie math is just fine

    The fraud’s math is as bad as your spelling. Of course, you can’t check that, because you can’t do math or spell, so you go onto other denialist crockery, such as:

    > The Globe Greened

    Peak green was 1998; but for the last 20 years, the globe has not been getting more green, but has been slightly browning, because rising temperatures are now stressing plants more that CO2 is helping them.

    Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago
    Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming
    E&E News on August 15, 2019

    > may be able see forests in the Sahara again

    LOL! The Sahara is expanding.

    The Sahara Desert Is Growing. Here’s What That Means

    > So cheer up!

    In other words, you’re whistling past the graveyard. Denial is a great defense mechanism, but denial never changed any facts.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  43. @Anonymous

    You’re just wrong. His math is fine. CO2 is good for the world and you should kiss the ground that there is more of it.

    Meanwhile in other news, this article reminded me of you, who are living in your own fantasy world::

    Japan Sea Surface Temperatures, Typhoons Show Japanese Media Living In A Climate Fantasy

    In Japan, like many other places around the world, the media like to tell audiences how sea surface temperatures around Japan are rising due to man-made global warming.

    But, as is often the case, the data and facts tell the opposite story.

    What follows is a chart depicting sea surface temperatures around Japan.

    Data source: JMA.

    As we can plainly see above, the sea surfce temperatures around Japan rapidly cooled since the start of the new century, before spiking briefly around 2016. The overall trend for the past 21 years has been steady.

    Japanese media also like claiming that the number of typhoons is on the rise as well. But here too the data from the JMA show how the opposite is the reality.

    Data source: JMA.

    The number of typhoons has been trending down modestly for many decades, even though atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased.

    So the next time you hear some doomsday climate claim from the media, you’ll be well informed in most cases if you simply assume the opposite to be true!

    Especially when it ocmes to climate trends and predictions. the media just cannot be trusted. Often they are living in a fantasy world.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  44. @Anonymous

    You dumbass, you’re wasting my time on a work day! Read the damn thing throughly – it’s comparing AIRS data (temp information from old methods) to the GISTEMP satellite method.

    That’s a comparison of older data to newer, not climate models to observation. I told you, the guy who wrote the pop-sci article is not a whole lot smarter than you are.

    You have no sources, because you’re just sticking in .jpgs that come from who knows where. Include an article that you HAVE read and UNDERSTAND next time, mmmkay?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  45. @Anonymous

    Was the last Ice Age man made? Why did palm trees used to grow in the Arctic? Did mankind wipe out the dinosaurs?
    You haven’t been paying attention. Massive volcanic eruptions across the planet in the 19th century caused as much damage as the industrial revolution. The Norse Settlements in Greenland were only possible because of global warming, which Tim Ball has shown, was warmer than today. The settlements were abandoned when it cooled.
    Let’s go back a little further. The North Sea was once an inhabited valley. Are you saying that farming caused the icecap to melt and flood the area? The reality is that we have no idea how much human activities contribute, beyond nature. Earth is not in a perfect orbit around the sun, and does not rotate perfectly on its axis. Other planets have gravitational forces that influence our orbit. We know virtually nothing about the affect that has on earth and how it manifests itself.

    This “debate” is as insane as LBGTWXYZ or 52 genders being normal.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  46. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:

    Your “logics” is the same as one who claims since water is good and makes plants grow; water could never be bad and hurt a person. Pretty stupid.

    > JMA

    It’s amusing when science deniers try to cloak their lies in the mantle of legitimate science, but what they never seem to figure out is that it’s so simple to fact check them. No wonder you provided no links, because JMA’s own data proves you are a lying sack of shit. Here’s the real charts and links—showing the exact opposite of what you stated about SST around Japan—from JMA:

    Source: JMA Climate Change Monitoring Report, published in October 2019
    accessed from page:

    You’re a proven liar, and nobody believes liars but those who want to believe lies. No doubt, you’ll be very popular here at Unz Review.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  47. @Anonymous

    Unfortunately you are wrong as usual. Nothing you say has any veracity whatsoever.

    In other news, I hope this article helps you with your mental illness. Here it is:

    For those wondering how Greta Thunberg managed to get so off the rails look no further than her climate advisors. They are among the most alarmist worldwide.

    According to the online, German-language here, citing Swedish daily Expressen, 16-year old climate activist is advised by Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, among others, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany.

    Wild science claims

    Professor Rahmstorf and the Potsdam Institute are well known among the climate science community for their highly alarmist projections and off-the-mark science. For example, the PIK’s former director, Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, once preposterously claimed the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2030 and the world would explode with 9 billion people on it.

    Alarmism as a business model

    According to the Merkur, the PIK has “created a business model with climate change”, adding: “It advises state institutions and municipalities on how they can protect themselves against the severe climate changes predicted by PIK.”

    The Merkur reports how Greta and Professor Rahmstorf “have met on several occasions” and how the 16-year old “calls the professor for advice.” Rahmstorf praises the teenager, saying “she knows a lot about climate science” and argues that politicians too should adopt Greta’s doomsday visions.

    Source: Twitter

    “Holy anger” and “religious exaggeration”

    But now some are speaking up against the excessive alarmism.

    Not only are some media questioning Rahmstorf’s alarmist climate science, though it makes for good headlines, but so are other experts, such as renowned geologist Stefan Kröpelin, or Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, or veteran meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann.

    Swiss meteorologist Kachelmann calls Rahmstorf a “climate-Ratzinger”, alluding to former Pope Benedict XVI, earlier known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Kachelmann, a warmist, has become turned off by the fiery Potsdam professor’s “religious exaggeration” and “holy anger” in the climate debate.

    “Climate howler”

    The two heavyweights recently even argued on Twitter about whether a piece of broken glass could trigger a forest fire, as Rahmstorf claims, or not. The sharp-witted, media-savvy Kachelmann recently characterized claims made by Rahmstorf as “potsdaft” – an allusion to his place of work – and labelled him a Klimaheuler, a ‘climate howler’.

    Surrounded by alarmists, rational voices not welcome

    Greta Thunberg’s other advisors include Swedish Professor Johan Rockström (53) and British Professor Kevin Anderson (57), both devout alarmists. Non-alarmist climate experts and rational voices are not welcome by Thunberg and her advisors. Why ruin a good business model?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  48. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Get back to work petting cats, and be safe on your ride back home in the short bus. You don’t seeem to understand basic English words or sentences. GISTEMP temperature data is used in climate models, which you just can’t seem to grasp.

    Documentation and Assessment of Results
    The analysis method was fully documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), including quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change. This was done by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability.

    GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    Only a moron like you would say I don’t have any sources. Hilarious!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  49. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re a liar referencing another liar, Tim Ball. Show us Tim Ball’s chart, and I’ll show you how he manipulated it by (1) misrepresenting the data, (2) shifting that year x-axis, and (3) not citing the article that he plagiarized his falsely labeled graph from.

    The rest of your horseshit is the #1 PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) of science-denialists, that climate has changed before. We know. This time, humans are changing the climate by evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere.

    For you to suggest that humans can’t change the climate, just because it has changed before, is as convincing as a shyster lawyer telling the court that since fires have been caused naturally by lightning for thousands of years, it’s impossible for humans to start forest fires. Arson Denial doesn’t work like that.

  50. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    > Nothing you say has any veracity whatsoever.

    LOL! Don’t like me linking and directly quoting and showing charts from JMA! You got caught red-handed flat-out lying about JMA data, and now, like Hillary, all you can do is double down. And who gives a fuck about Greta or the Pope? Do you really think banging on about Greta or the Pope somehow neutralizes scientific evidence?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  51. @Anonymous

    It has nothing to do with your linking. All your links are irrelevant and garbage and only represent your religion.

    In other news, a new article shows where your religion is sending Western civilization:

    German Energy Expert Warns Of “Deindustrialized Germany” …”Chinese Laughing Their Heads Off”

    Usually shunned by the German mainstream media, today moderate, rational voices on the issue of climate change are beginning to be heard on the air waves once again. This may be temporary. We’ll just have to wait and see.

    Leading German climate science critic Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt. Image: Die kalte Sonne

    For example, just days ago, leading climate science critic Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt was interviewed by NDR German public radio’s Anke Harnack on the topic of climate change. As protests by yellow vests in France and angry farmers in the Netherlands intensify, perhaps the establishment in Germany is having second thoughts about going down the hysterical climate rescue path that has been forcefully advocated in Germany over the recent months.

    Prosperity based on “reliable energy supplies”

    In the interview Vahrenholt, a leading founder of Germany’s modern environmental movement, tells the NDR that following the demands made by Greta Thunberg would put global prosperity at risk and exacerbate world hunger. He says the amazing improvement human society has seen over the last 100 years is thanks to “reliable energy supplies”.

    “Huge, huge difficulties”

    “Shutting these down in 12 years would indeed throw us into huge, huge difficulties.”

    Vahrenholt says all the recent “panic is leading policymakers into making errors and will lead to disappointment for the youth because it is not doable.” He adds changing over the green energies is needed ultimately, but this cannot be done over a short time period of a decade or two. He says “we need two generations” to get off fossil fuels and that it’s going to require “more innovation and research in order to get CO2 emissions down to acceptable levels by the end of the century.”

    Vahrenholt, the former director of renewable energies company Innogy, says he is also puzzled over why Germany refuses to do research on fusion and remains so fixated on unstable sun and wind. Vahrenholt was one for the 500 scientists who recently signed a letter to the UN declaring that the planet was not facing a climate crisis.

    97% consensus claim distorted

    On the claim 97% agree that man is behind global warming, Vahrenholt says this figure has been completely misrepresented, and that it is in fact “only a handful of scientists” who say that man is 100% responsible. Many scientists say that man is only partly responsible.

    Chinese are laughing

    The outspoken German professor of chemistry says giving in to the demands of the radical greens would lead to a deindustrialized Germany: “In the end what’s left is a deindustrialized Germany, and the Chinese are laughing their heads off.”

    Leaders lack courage

    On the large Fridays for Future protests, Vahrenholt says: “It’s not surprising because currently hardly a teacher, hardly a journalist, hardly a scientist has the courage to say: ‘Dear millions of people, we find it nice that you’re concerned about the climate, but let’s really discuss among each other what really needs to be done, and how much time we have.’ This really annoys me. I may not always be right, but I’m pretty sure that the alarmists are not right.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  52. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Emily, is that you hiding behind the anon label? Or is it the paid puppet Greta? Greta, your English comp lessons are working beautifully.

    This whole thing is modeled on the Holocaust religion: Sneer at, slime, threaten and de-platform anyone who might cause the adherents to doubt your theories, and maybe even toss them in jail.

    When the two leading apologists for this new religion is a former bartender and a High School sophomore, you know we’re in trouble.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  53. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    You—or at least your science denial website from which you copy and paste walls of text—lie about JMA data, then I link to the original JMA data, and now you call JMA data, um, “irrelevant.” Funny how you liars behave when you get caught. Even funnier is that you can’t even answer the simple question what melts ice.

    And it’s melting fast too. Got any clue what melts ice?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  54. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Greg Bacon

    You’re psychologically projecting your own Adam Shiff-style model of Sneer at, slime, &c. And sadly, you haven’t a clue what melts ice.

  55. @BlackDragon

    I am just watching Obama’s new house on Martha’s Vineyard.

    Until it is under water–I am ignoring the computer models of the “climate experts”.

    All I see is monkeys throwing feces at a wall.

    Hysterical people are usually a clue (though admittedly not a 100% reliable one) that their claims are insane.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  56. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    Not much of math whiz, are you? You can look at an elevation map and see that Obama’s mansion formerly occupied by the Boston Celtics owner is 120 inches (10 ft.) above sea level. Sea level is predicted to rise 26 inches by 2100.

    “If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100…”

    New study finds sea level rise accelerating

    Knowing how to do simple arithmetic is sometimes handy. You should try it sometime. But you’re one of the crowd who can’t even manage to answer the question what melts ice. That’s sad.

  57. @Anonymous

    My science exhalting website raises you two Bishops and calls your Cardinal.

    I know it’s so difficult for religious cultists like yourself to actually look at science, but try, boy, try.

    In other news, try and take a few moments from your busy day baptizing sinners to read the following:

    Alarmist Scientist “Way Off Target” …Arctic Sea Ice/European Winter Claim Refuted By Newly Published Study

    Rahmstorf way off: New study finds no robust relationship between shrinking sea ice, European cold waves
    By Die Kalte Sonne
    (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)


    Photo: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

    A good six years ago, Potsdam climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf was outraged by the German Weather Service (DWD) at his at Klimalounge site.

    The DWD had the audacity to contradict Mr. Rahmstorf. Specifically, it was about the presumed connection between the expansion of Arctic sea ice and cold winter weather. Rahmstorf’s simple model: Less Arctic sea ice causes cold European winters. At the time, he led a conglomeration of studies and claimed:

    In my view, the above studies provide clear evidence of a link between Arctic ice loss due to global warming, and more frequent winter high pressures, particularly over the Atlantic-European part of the Arctic, and the associated influx of cold air into Europe. As we have often experienced it in recent winters – for example spectacularly in the first half of February 2012.”

    In the process Rahmstorf became verbally wild and didn’t hold back dishing it out: The DWD was embarrassing, incompetent in questions of climate change, that it could not even read scientific papers, the arguments were flat. It was an unusually aggressive style of discussion that is seldom encountered in science. Rahmstorf original:

    However, the taz quoted [German paper] yesterday the spokesman of the German Weather Service [DWD in German] as saying that if there was a direct relationship with the sea ice cover, the entire winter would have to be very cold in Germany. I think this trivial argument with which he would like to wipe from the table the climate research results shown above is pretty embarrassing for the DWD. Of course open water in the Arctic does not prevent stochastic weather variability. There will always be warm and cold periods. In all these studies it comes down to changing probabilities in the prevailing weather patterns: Petoukhov and Semenov estimate that the probability of cold winter extremes could triple, that is even in the Abstract. One wonders whether the DWD representative has read the relevant studies at all – and if not, why he feels the urge to comment on them in the media. Unfortunately, it has a certain tradition that meteorologists dealing with weather, are not familiar with climate science.”

    More than half a decade has passed by since Rahmstorf’s rumblings. In the meantime, research has taken up the topic professionally and now has certainty: Rahmstorf was completely off the mark. Sea ice does not play a major role in the cold waves. Press release of the University of Exeter from August 12, 2019:

    Arctic sea-ice loss has “minimal influence” on severe cold winter weather, research shows

    The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice through climate change has only a ‘minimal influence’ on severe cold winter weather across Asia and North America, new research has shown.

    The possible connection between Arctic sea-ice loss and extreme cold weather – such as the deep freezes that can grip the USA in the winter months – has long been studied by scientists. Observations show that when the regional sea-ice cover is reduced, swathes of Asia and North America often experience unusually cold and hazardous winter conditions. However, previous climate modelling studies have suggested that reduced sea ice cannot fully explain the cold winters.

    Now, a new study by experts from the University of Exeter, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and the Energy and Sustainability Research Institute in Groningen, has shed new light on the link between sea-ice loss and cold winters. For the research, the international team combined observations over the past 40 years with results from sophisticated climate modelling experiments. They found that the observations and models agreed that reduced regional sea ice and cold winters often coincide which each other.

    They found that the correlation between reduced sea ice and extreme winters across the mid-latitude occurs because both are simultaneously driven by the same, large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns. Crucially, it shows that reduced sea ice only has a minimal influence on whether a harsh and severe winter will occur. The study is published in leading science journal, Nature Climate Change.

    Dr Russell Blackport, a Mathematics Research Fellow at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper said: ‘The correlation between reduced sea ice and cold winters does not mean one is causing the other. We show that the real cause is changes in atmospheric circulation which moves warm air into the Arctic and cold air into the mid-latitudes.’ Over recent decades, the Arctic region has experienced warming temperatures through climate change, which has led to a large decline in sea-ice cover. This reduction in sea-ice cover means that areas of open water increase, which in turn allows the ocean to lose more heat to the atmosphere in winter – this can potentially alter the weather and climate, even well outside the Arctic.

    Recent studies have suggested that the reduced sea ice or Arctic warming has contributed to recent cold winters experienced in the mid-latitude region – and that as the sea-ice reduces further through climate change, cold winters will become more frequent and severe. Now, this new study suggests that reduced sea ice is not the main cause of the cold winters. Instead, the cold winters are likely caused by random fluctuations in the atmospheric circulation.

    Professor James Screen, an Associate Professor in Climate Science at the University of Exeter said: ‘The are many reasons to be concerned about the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, but an increased risk of severe winters in North America and Asia is not one of them.’ Dr John Fyfe, a Research Scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, who was not involved in the research, writes in Nature Climate Change: ‘Blackport and colleagues put to rest the notion that Arctic sea-ice loss caused the cold mid-latitude winters, showing instead that atmospheric circulation changes preceded, and then simultaneously drove sea-ice loss and mid-latitude cooling.’

    Minimal influence of reduced Arctic sea ice on coincident cold winters in mid-latitudes by Russell Blackport, James Screen, Karin van der Wiel and Richard Bintanja is published in Nature Climate Change. It was funded through a grant by the Natural Environment Research Council.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re playing the pseudoscience-exhalting [sic] crank’s favorite gambit: “Science Was Wrong Before!” Boring.

    The “science was wrong before” crowd never makes similar demands for anything else to be perfect before using. When science changes, it does not change randomly. It updates and improves. Science changing to fit the observable facts is something good, not something bad. Many simpler models used in the past, including Newtonian mechanics, is still highly accurate today in many areas of life.

    “Science Was Wrong Before!”

    And you still haven’t the slightest clue what melts ice. That’s sad.

  59. Oopsie. You forgot reality, Cardinal Anonymous. Religious fanatics such as yourself

    Here is more reality check for you:

    New Paper: Volcanism Can Cool Earth For Centuries, Lead To More Natural Disasters, Pandemics, Economic Recession

    Scientists (Bragato and Holzhauser, 2019) find natural catastrophes like tornadoes and earthquakes and pandemics like plague, cholera, and influenza “concentrate in the periods of ice expansion in Europe” whereas periods of economic expansion and a lower incidence of natural catastrophes and pandemics occur during deglaciation phases, or warm periods. Century-scale cooling can be elicited by volcanism.

    Image Source: Bragato and Holzhauser, 2019

    Image Source: Bragato and Holzhauser, 2019

    The conclusion that volcanism can trigger centuries of global-scale cooling – and that the Little Ice Age cooling was forced by explosive volcanism – has also been postulated by McGregor et al., 2015.

    Image Source: McGregor et al., 2015

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  60. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you! Below is a screenshot of your reality check that we’re in “the current phase of global warming.” I’m laughing at the crazy fact that your science-denialist website is so fucking stupid to link to articles that disprove their science-denial argument. I guess what they’re counting on is readers like you being even more doltish. Doh!

    source: (Bragato and Holzhauser, 2019)

    Keep postin’ ’em! Current Phase of Global Warmin’, baby! 🙂

    p.s. Since you publicly accept the reality of global warming, have you started to figure out what melts ice yet? You’re getting warmer, buddy!

    • Replies: @restless94110
  61. @Anonymous

    it is so incredible that you continue to spout your nonsense and idiocy.

    In other news:
    New Paper: Volcanism Can Cool Earth For Centuries, Lead To More Natural Disasters, Pandemics, Economic Recession

    Scientists (Bragato and Holzhauser, 2019) find natural catastrophes like tornadoes and earthquakes and pandemics like plague, cholera, and influenza “concentrate in the periods of ice expansion in Europe” whereas periods of economic expansion and a lower incidence of natural catastrophes and pandemics occur during deglaciation phases, or warm periods. Century-scale cooling can be elicited by volcanism.

    Image Source: Bragato and Holzhauser, 2019

    Image Source: Bragato and Holzhauser, 2019

    The conclusion that volcanism can trigger centuries of global-scale cooling – and that the Little Ice Age cooling was forced by explosive volcanism – has also been postulated by McGregor et al., 2015.

    Image Source: McGregor

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  62. @Anonymous

    I feel like Dirty Harry in the 1st movie, being run around San Francisco answering calls on the pay phones from some sick bastard. I went to your link and read this abstract by Hansen and Lebedeff.

    Hansen and Lebedeff 1987
    Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372, doi:10.1029/JD092iD11p13345.

    We analyze surface air temperature data from available meteorological stations with principal focus on the period 1880-1985. The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated; at low latitudes the correlation falls off more rapidly with distance for nearby stations. We combine the station data in a way which is designed to provide accurate long-term variations. Error estimates are based in part on studies of how accurately the actual station distributions are able to reproduce temperature change in a global data set produced by a three-dimensional general circulation model with realistic variability. We find that meaningful global temperature change can be obtained for the past century, despite the fact that the meteorological stations are confined mainly to continental and island locations. The results indicate a global warming of about 0.5-0.7°C in the past century, with warming of similar magnitude in both hemispheres; the northern hemisphere result is similar to that found by several other investigators. A strong warming trend between 1965 and 1980 raised the global mean temperature in 1980 and 1981 to the highest level in the period of instrumental records. The warm period in recent years differs qualitatively from the earlier warm period centered around 1940; the earlier warming was focused at high northern latitudes, while the recent warming is more global. We present selected graphs and maps of the temperature change in each of the eight latitude zones. A computer tape of the derived regional and global temperature changes is available from the authors.

    Is this something you can read? (That’s rhetorical, as I know you are no kind of scientist.)

    These guys were trying to get good temperature data for a century organized – do you see “We find that meaningful global temperature change can be obtained for the last century…”? What they did is get these OBSERVATIONS organized. They were comparing their organization of the changes to that of other scientists, relating old-fashioned data from weather stations to 3-D atmospheric data from newer ways of measurement.

    There is nothing relating that to any predictive model using heat transfer, thermodynamics, etc. to determine these temperature change separately from some initial conditions. You have to have some initial conditions and math models of every process in the climate – radiation heat transfer from the surface, which has varying absorption/reflectivity depending on land cover, absorption/reflection of/by clouds, ocean currents, temperature profile of the oceans – there’s a whole lot to it. What is your baseline Earth Climate? See that’s a problem too.

    This abstract wasn’t at all about a predictive model of the climate. If you can’t even understand the ABSTRACT, how could you possibly read a whole paper like this. Don’t worry, though, anon, there are a lot of journalists out there just as stupid as you are. Some of them write in magazines even … about the world ending – 12 years, people!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  63. @Anonymous

    You don’t even have the smarts to have a sense of humor. My point about the aircraft was this: Who in hell was getting good enough readings of max wind speeds in the hurricanes of 18-freakin’-80″!? That one that hit Galveston a century or more ago – you think they knew that was coming? No, and the wind gauges probably got blown 5 miles away just like the houses on the sand bar

    We have hurricane hunter planes (Lockheed C-130’s), doppler weather radar, and other tools to measure enough to get a power dissipation rate (even though those scientists used some screwed-up units). They didn’t have that stuff 140 years ago, even 1/2 that long ago, so how was that graph of yours made?

    Next, on the snowfall, I can only hope it’s youth, not deliberate lying, that leads you to proclaim that you never heard Al Gore’s warning that we wouldn’t see snow in America by 2015. “Oh,” you may say, “well, he’s just an idiot politician so…” Yes, he certainly is, but there were no climate scientists correcting the man when he spouted that BS. At least a little “well, the man means well, he cares a lot – from his 10,000 ft^2 mansions – but, no, our models don’t predict anything that drastic.” Nope, not a peep!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  64. @Anonymous

    Paradoxically, climate change means that snowfalls may increase because the atmosphere can hold 4% more moisture for every 1°F increase in temperature. So as long as it does not warm above freezing, the result is a greater dump of snow.

    Oh, so the models of 2005 were wrong, then, the ones saying there would be no more snow in America? Like I said, let me know of people with a model they are using right now to predict the Earth’s climate – just regionally, as I wrote, with reasonable tolerance bands on yearly precip amounts, and average highs/lows for 10/20/30 years from now. If it all pans out, I’ll apologize to you here on unz in, let’s make it, 2029.

    Look man, you have hijacked a thread that Mr. Welton likely hopes would have contained discussion about radical climate wackos and how people get this way. He wrote a pretty good post here too. You had to fuck it all up.

    Can you leave us alone to possibly discuss the article?

    Why don’t you and Greta go get a room?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  65. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s so incredible that you re-posted exactly the same paper you posted in your comment #60 that states our planet is in “the current phase of global warming.” Going for three times a charm?

    p.s. Just to clarify, when I told you to “keep postin’ ’em,” I didn’t mean repeating the same article over and over again. Maybe you ought to let the booze wear off until morning, clear your copy ‘n’ paste cache, and find a new one after a pot of coffee. 🙂

    • Replies: @restless94110
  66. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Say whut? Which 2005 climate models (or even a scientific journal article) predicted “no more snow in America” by now? Do tell!

    > just regionally | Global warming means, you know, global warming. Ever see a globe? I suppose not. Can we arrange a time for you to look at one?

    > You had to fuck it all up. | Science has a way of doing that to you science-deniers. I’m rubbing my two fingers together now, playing the worlds smallest violin for you. Since you’re kvetching like it’s anudduh Shoah, let’s make it John Williams’ theme from Schindler’s List. Do I play as mournfully as Itzhak Perlman?

    p.s. Is it your warm, salty tears that melts ice? If not, do you have any clue what melts ice?

    Source: NASA Graphic: Dramatic glacier melt

  67. fish says:

    …..well….if it kills you guys.

    it’s a small price to pay.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > you never heard Al Gore’s

    True, I never heard that. Al Gore is a politician whom I’ve never really liked, I voted against him, and never watched his movie, other than seeing short clips of it on youtube. If you say some politician said that, what does it matter to science?

    > warning that we wouldn’t see snow in America by 2015

    Since you feel so persecuted, like it’s annudah shoah here, I’m in a helpful mood and just googled snow and al gore and got this:

    Gore also predicted in the film that “within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” University of Massachusetts scientist Doug Hardy, who was a co-author of a 2002 Science article upon which Gore’s statement was based, notes that the former vice president was taking a little literary license, since research shows that the snow cover has come and gone seasonally there for at least a century and a half. But the larger point — that the mountain’s glaciers rapidly are vanishing — is essentially on the mark.

    What ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change

    What are scientists supposed be be apologizing for? LOL Anyway, good buddy, have you figured out what melts ice?

  69. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Your attempting to attribute to me your own deliberately belabored sense of confusion about GISTEMP models and how it is used in models is humorous. You could break into comedy with a routine like that, it’s better than Who’s on First!

    > the world ending – 12 years

    Who says that? I hear it a bunch from science-deniers. Can you link to it? Thanks!

    p.s. Ever find out what melts ice?

  70. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s that smell? What are you going to do, hold your breath?

    Prominent researchers such as Ward and Kump propose that hydrogen sulfide production by sulfate reducing bacteria is a primary extinction mechanism

    Awakening the Horrors of the Ancient Hothouse — Hydrogen Sulfide in the World’s Warming Oceans

    And it’s already happening in small areas around the globe. Pop into NASA’s Earth Observatory below to see how it looks from space:

    The brilliant burst of neon blue and green that hugs the shore of Namibia in this photo-like image might be beautiful from space, but it is deadly on the ground. The color is caused by hydrogen sulfide erupting to the surface. The foul-smelling gas is toxic…

    Hydrogen Sulfide Eruption off Namibia

  71. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    If the Stupid Party had not abdicated the Cathedral’s realm of science to the Left at the Scopes Monkey Trial, they could have been helping push anti-immigration environmentalism…

    “…a stable U.S. population size is essential if we are to prevent further deterioration of the very system that supports us—our environment and natural resource base.”

    Why Excess Immigration Damages the Environment.
    Population and Environment, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Summer, 1992), pp. 303-312

    …instead of building a fabled Ark in Kentucky. President Trump’s apparent climate science denialism is simply playing the necessary rightwing politics to get and stay elected, yet President Trump knows that the scientific evidence of global warming is valid, and has explicitly and publicly stated so:

    “We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today. Please don’t postpone the earth. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.” /s/ Donald J. Trump

    An Ad Trump Signed Supporting Action on Climate Change

    So I’m going to create another fantasy tweet, copying words from the above journal article, that Trump could use to capture the climate science flag for nationalism. Here goes…

    Will the Stupid Party ever learn to quit playing defense and strike an offensive campaign to win?

  72. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Greg Bacon

    I got called a Deplorable. My President is Trump!

    And that’s how the Right (1) agrees & amplifies, (2) captures the flag in the most polarizing issue*—even more than abortion—today, and (3) quits playing defense and attacks with the enemy’s re-purposed weapon. Trump has already laid the groundwork for the offensive.

    * Climate crisis more politically polarizing than abortion for US voters, study finds

  73. @Anonymous

    What next, coating riverbeds with concrete to stop water erosion?

  74. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The only radical climate wackos are you and your science-denying ilk. You’re stupid enough to think that there are zero consequences for evaporating earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere. How did you people get that way? Millions spent on Big Tobacco PR firms convincing easily-manipulable dolts like you that cancer from smoking or global warming from CO2 is “junk science.”

    Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
    As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change

    You need to get out of your mother’s basement and get outdoors. Anybody who gardens or takes a walk in the woods can tell the climate is changing for the warmer. Shoot, look at Kentucky, it was mostly green (zone 6) with a little dark green (zone 5.) Now, it’s all yellow (zone 7.)

  75. @Anonymous

    Confucius say: Man who argues with a fool, is same.

    You are clearly just a fool. Have fun.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  76. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    I hope you finally discover an answer to the question of what melts ice.

  77. @Anonymous

    You’re an idiot. Climate change is bogus and related to geo-engineered weather modification for reasons that are beyond you. Carbon taxes, localized famines, floods, land theft, etc.

    • Replies: @🙉RetroTrump2009
  78. @the grand wazoo

    Do you have any clue what melts ice? I’d like to hear your weather modification theory that affects, for example, Glacier National Park, which is losing glacial ice mass rapidly. Many have already disappeared.

    Source: Mapping 50 Years of Melting Ice in Glacier National Park


  79. @Anonymous

    Why did you post the cover from An Inconvenient Truth? Who the hell is that supposed to persuade? Contrary to Gore’s 2006 predictions:
    -There’s still snow on Kilimanjaro
    -Polar bears are alive and well
    -Florida is above water, and the ocean has not risen 20 ft
    -Hurricanes and tornadoes have not increased in frequency or intensity
    -There’s still ice in the Arctic

    And so on. The whole thing is about how CO2 is the great danger, and it uses steam vapor to depict it. Which is ironic considering that water is by far the most potent greenhouse gas, yet no one can accurately model how clouds form, whether they’ll be the type to reflect or absorb sunlight, or what will trigger them to condense into rain. It was only recently determined that rain can form from bacteria released by trees, which only adds to the complexity of the system.

    The last ice age had CO2 levels that put plants on a starvation diet. Their optimum levels are at least 1600 ppm, and many continue to see productivity boosts well past that. Plants are going to eat up all the carbon they can, resulting in a negative feedback. Higher levels mean plants grow with less light and less water, allowing deserts to shrink and taiga to expand north.

    To predict the climate requires knowing all physical factors going on in and around the world, all biological processes at play in the entire world, and chaos theory has to be somehow negated. It’s the height of insanity.

    • Replies: @james charles
  80. Fairfax says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    ‘Paul’ should be Saul… who was a total converso ….of coursh.

  81. @NobodyKnowsImADog

    ‘Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released Monday.
    A world that heats up by 2C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—long regarded as the temperature ceiling for a climate-safe planet—could see mass displacement due to rising seas, a drop in per capita income, regional shortages of food and fresh water, and the loss of animal and plant species at an accelerated speed.
    Poor and emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will get hit hardest, according to the studies in the British Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions A.
    “We are detecting large changes in climate impacts for a 2C world, and so should take steps to avoid this,” said lead editor Dann Mitchell, an assistant professor at the University of Bristol.
    The 197-nation Paris climate treaty, inked in 2015, vows to halt warming at “well under” 2C compared to mid-19th century levels, and “pursue efforts” to cap the rise at 1.5C.’

    Will there be change?
    “Today’s global consumption of fossil fuels now stands at roughly five times what it was in the 1950s, and one-and-half times that of the 1980s when the science of global warming had already been confirmed and accepted by governments with the implication that there was an urgent need to act. Tomes of scientific studies have been logged in the last several decades documenting the deteriorating biospheric health, yet nothing substantive has been done to curtail it. More CO2 has been emitted since the inception of the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 than in all of human history. CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, manmade greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World