The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Baggins Ph.D. Archive
Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions and Why People Believe Them
Earth Day, 2019
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

Two of the most important problems that the so-called Green New Deal will attempt to solve at the cost of incalculable trillions are global warming and its consequences, including drought, famine, floods and massive starvation. You may recall that Obama in his 2015 State of the Union speech declared that the greatest threat facing us was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn’t nuclear weapons in rogue states either. “No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama.

His entire administration including Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry, frequently repeated the claim that climate change was the greatest threat facing the world. It was a sentiment Obama stressed again during an Earth Day trip to the Florida Everglades where he said, “This is not a problem for another generation. It has serious implications for the way we live right now”.

More recently, presidential hopefuls like Beto O’Rourke, along with most Democrat candidates, declared their zealous support for the Green New Deal in forecasting that the world will end in 12 years if nothing is done. “This is the final chance, the scientists are absolutely unanimous on this — that we have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis. Not to be melodramatic, but the future of the world depends on us right now here where we are.”

This leads to the question I pose in this brief, data-driven, essay: What kind of track record do the politicians and their experts have in their climate predictions? After all, some of these predictions were made 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. Can’t we now look back at their predictions and begin to hold them accountable?

As others have done, I have chosen to begin with the first Earth Day “Celebration” in 1970. Now who can be against Earth Day? It’s a charming idea, and I have been an enthusiastic supporter since my college days in Ann Arbor, when we celebrated the event on the campus of the University of Michigan.

Here’s what the experts were saying almost a half century ago on Earth Day, 1970:

  1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
    Harvard biologist George Wald
  1. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
    Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  1. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human
    Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  1. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100–200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years. … Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born. … [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
    Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  1. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions …. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
    North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  1. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”
    Life magazine
  2. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable. … By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any. … The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
    — Kenneth Watt

Global Warming and Massive Starvation

I will focus my attention on the two most important predictions: Global Warming and Massive Starvation. If we return to the failed prediction of global cooling noted above, we can put the temperature data in a wider perspective. NASA data show that a period of warming in the 1920’s and 30’s was followed by two or three decades of cooling temperatures, from the 1940s to 1970. At that time many experts, including Carl Sagan, warned us of a possible ice age—only to have the climate change on them. From the 1970s to the late 1990s, scientists began to record slightly warmer temperatures. Curiously, as we look back at this period NASA sounded the alarm for global warming while a short time later the New York Times cited NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] data showing no warming over the past 100 years in the US.

Since then, group think and political correctness, plus rewards in government grants and university promotions, have created incentives for nearly everyone to jump onto the current bandwagon of projecting an escalating warming trend. Once again we came back to the doomsday scenario that characterized 1970’s.

Then, out of the blue, the darned climate changed again. Global temperature data has been roughly flat since about 1998, even cooling by .056 degrees C from February 2016 to February 2018, according to official NASA global temperature data. Of course, this is just a two-year trend.

You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.

This raises the question: How would an informed citizen make sense of our current predicament?

Without question there has been an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. A majority of scientists believe this to be the primary source of the global warming that has occurred.

Just how much warming has occurred?

The scientific consensus is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen about 0.4 °C over the past 100 years. This is far less than experts predicted. And therein lies the problem: scientists are better at observation than prediction.

A case in point: experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have now predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100. Notice the nearly 5-fold difference between the conservative and more liberal (one is tempted to say “progressive”) estimates. This strikes me as akin to meteorologists predicting tomorrow’s high as somewhere between 40 and 80 degrees. Not much of a forecast if you are trying to decide whether to head to the beach or not. The confidence interval seems pretty safe, but the precision leaves much to be desired. Just how much faith should one put in such projections, given the flawed models and track record of failed predictions?

Regarding the other staggering Earth Day forecast of widespread starvation into hundreds of millions, recent satellite data from NASA and NOAA offer a compelling explanation for the spectacular failure of these predictions.

Almost half of Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the past 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions.

This greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States, or more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the early 2000’s. That increase represents an enormous amount of food to feed a hungry planet, which is one reason the Earth Day predictions of mass starvation never materialized.

Because the mainstream media refuses to report such important data as this is from NASA and NOAA that do not support their doomsday narrative, I have never actually met anyone who knew anything about this when I mention it. I only learned about this myself a few years ago because of Matt Ridley, whose excellent blog I recommend without reserve:

You may remember from high school biology that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth. Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide with nitrogen drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. The good news is that the impact that this greening has had in reducing hunger and starvation around the globe is undiminished, despite going unreported. When is the last time you heard a report of massive human starvation of hundreds of millions, or even tens of milions. How about 1 million … do I hear a hundred thousand, anyone? Anyone?

Fact Check: Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters.

This is clearly the opposite of what you hear from the mainstream media, which loves to provide as much coverage as possible of one disaster after another. A more rational analysis would examine the average number of deaths per decade from 1920-1917. But this would show a “huuuge” decline in deaths caused by climate change, and we can’t have that now can we? The data below are from the most respected global database, the International Disaster Database.

In contrast to the dire Earth Day predictions of 1970, climate-related deaths have been declining strongly for 70 years. Notice that this decline in the absolute number deaths occurred while the global population increased four-fold. Thus, the individual risk of dying from climate-related disasters has declined almost 99% from the 1920s to the present day. Our increased wealth and technological capacity to respond to natural disasters has greatly reduced our collective human climate vulnerability – Good news for rational beings, bad news for Democrat candidates.

Scientists have known for some time that their predictive models of global warming were at increasing odds with the data. More recently, they have begun to pinpoint some of the faulty assumptions in the models used to make projections (not observations) of global warming. One example of this type of correction is a 2018 article published in the prestigious journal, Science.

Nitrogen availability is a central controller of terrestrial plant growth and, thereby, of the carbon cycle and global climate change. It has been widely assumed that the atmosphere is the main source of terrestrial nitrogen input. Surprisingly, Houlton et al. now show that bedrock is just as large a nitrogen source across major sectors of the global terrestrial environment.

Climate scientists have long known that plants offset some of the effects of climate change by absorbing and storing CO2. But they assumed that the ability to plants to perform this function was limited because the availability of nitrogen in the atmosphere was limited. As an earlier 2003 study published in Science stated, “there will not be enough nitrogen available to sustain the high carbon uptake scenarios.”

But this idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air has been refuted in a more recent article, also in Science. Now we know that there are vast storehouses of nitrogen in the planet’s bedrock that plants can also feed on. In light of these findings, Ronald Amundson, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, told Chemical and Engineering News that “If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think.”

With more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating. This “has the potential to change all projections related to climate change,” because there could be more carbon storage on land and less in the atmosphere than the models assume.

For interested readers, a series of articles on this topic reveal other evidence of weaknesses in climate models used to predict future warming. These models failed to predict a decade-long pause in global temperatures. Nor have various calamities that were supposed to have occurred by now materialized. And a recent paper published in another prestigious scientific journal, Nature, has also concluded that the planet is less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the computer models assume.

Of course the sky is falling, but maybe not as fast as is being predicted by the left-wing media. Beware of self-serving socialist projections based on outdated computer models, or sometimes just nothing at all. The notorious AOC and her ilk can get away with unprecedented levels of ignorance given the current state of American journalism as long as the errors are in the left direction. But any curious citizen can look back at what previous “experts” claimed was supposed to happen over the past half century and confirm just how erroneous and exaggerated their claims have been all along.

Over thirteen years ago, Al Gore declared the earth to be in a “true planetary emergency” with only a decade left to save the planet from global warming. The former vice president said, that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.”

Gore’s movie, Inconvenient Truth, was found by a British judge to contain nine errors. The judge said it could not be shown to students unless it included a notice pointing out the errors. Here are nine of Al Gore’s guilt/fear producing predictions that never materialized.

  1. Rising Sea Levels Threatening Coastal Cities and Islands
  2. Increased Tornadoes
  3. New Ice Age in Europe
  4. South Sahara Drying Up
  5. Massive Flooding in China and India
  6. Drastic Loss of Arctic Ice
  7. Polar Bear Extinction
  8. Dramatic Rise in Global Temperature Due to CO2
  9. Katrina a Foreshadow of Future Increase in Hurricanes

Gore’s point of “no return” was back in 2016. Of course, his movie won an Oscar, and the hero of Hollywood was fast-tracked to becoming the first “carbon billionaire.” In just 7 years between 2000 and 2007, Gore’s assets soared 50-fold from an estimated \$780,000–\$1.9 million to “well in excess” of \$100 million. Besides his hit movie, Gore used his climate panic lobbying to sway the government to invest in the economic sectors he was poised and ready to profit from. By 2008, Gore put \$300 million into a campaign to promote climate fears while offering carbon reduction solutions that benefited the firms he was invested in. When the sympathetic Obama Administration introduced a “renewable energy” solution for the economy, fourteen of the tech firms Gore was invested in had received and/or benefited from over \$2.5 billion in loans, grants, and tax breaks.

Democrats count on the public to forget each dire warning that they issue about the end of the world in ten years. Then ten years later they make the same predictions. And the shocking thing is that somehow the public does forget, or at least the Democrats do. As each new generation of American schoolchildren are indoctrinated to believe this doomsday prediction, they march to protest “climate inaction” and set out to save the planet.

The inconvenient truth for Gore, Obama, and the current crop of Democrat hopefuls is that there is no planetary emergency. Not one of their dire predictions has come to pass. Why do they and their multitude of followers continue to believe their doomsday prophecies in the face of 50 years of disconfirmation? It turns out that psychologists have a compelling explanation.

In the 1950s, psychologist Leon Festinger became intrigued with a news story about a doomsday cult led by Dorothy Martin, a suburban housewife who claimed she’d received messages about the impending flooding of the Earth. Festinger was already developing his theory of cognitive dissonance and recognized the situation as a unique laboratory to study what would happen when a deeply-held belief was disconfirmed. He saw this as a case that would lead to the arousal of dissonance when the prophecy inevitably failed. He thought that altering or denying the original belief would be very difficult, as Martin and her group were fiercely committed to it. For an excellent application of cognitive dissonance theory to the liberal mind, see here.

Thus began a unique observational study of this small apocalyptic cult that laid the foundation for one of the most influential psychological theories in the history of the field. Martin claimed to have received messages from “the Guardians,” a group of superior beings from another planet, who said a flood would destroy the world on December 21, 1954. Three psychologists and several more assistants joined the cult and observed proceedings firsthand for months before and after the predicted apocalypse. Many of the group members quit their jobs and disposed of their possessions in preparation for the apocalypse. When doomsday came and went, Martin claimed that the world had been spared because of the “force of good and light” that the group members had spread throughout the world. Rather than abandoning their discredited beliefs, group members adhered to them even more strongly and began proselytizing with fervor.

Festinger had predicted exactly this reaction. He argued that proselytizing provided a way for them to gain more social support and thus lessen the dissonance of disconfirmation. As Festinger wrote, “If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct.” As he wrote in his classic book about the case, When Prophecy Fails, the group’s belief system did not just remain intact, it became even stronger.

This has close parallels with today’s climate alarmists who have been forecasting the end of the world as we know it in ten years and renewing that prophecy with more fervor with each passing decade since 1970. The pervasive cultural and institutional power held by the Democrat media (film, the talk show universe (whether morning, noon or late-night), TV news broadcasts, major newspapers and magazines, etc.) represent a particularly powerful form of social support. After all, if you are in a position of tremendous institutional or political power, then not only are you hugely confirmed by the colleagues who share your beliefs, but questioning them would threaten everything you hold dear: job, reputation, future career and social standing. Festinger paid special attention to this role the society plays in keeping dissonance at bay: “The more people who hold a belief in common with you, the greater the amount of consonance that is built up and the less dissonance that is encountered when there is a disagreement.”

The doomsday paradigm initiated by true believers on Earth Day in 1970 and echoed by multiple generations of Democrat leaders from Gore to Obama to the current “Green New Deal” continues to develop widening cracks as the ratrio of contradiction to reality increases. The cognitive dissonance caused by being on such intellectually shaky ground insures that this doomsday belief system will remain intact for the foreseeable future, producing more denial and dysfunctional thinking, more hysterical calls and campaigns for the moral exclusion of “climate deniers”, and more desperate measures against them.

For Festinger’s theory, see:

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: American Media, Climate Change, Global Warming 
Hide 689 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Gordo says:

    People who say they care about global warming yet welcome mass coloured immigration into the West are taking the piss.

  2. anon[315] • Disclaimer says:

    i get to the point where i start thinking the world is filled with nothing but liars

    why even listen to the MSM?

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  3. Anonymous [AKA "Richard Waddy"] says:

    Are Humans Innately Religious?

    Do you BELIEVE in climate change (global warming, hole in the ozone layer, etc.)

    Some data is used but the construct necessitates “belief” as well.

    What were the old established religions criticised for?
    Bigotry – I am right, spiritual, anointed so I do not need to listen to you.
    You are beyond the pale, unqualified to think, demonic, so your ideas are not even worth considering.
    Ghetto mentality. Everything outside the church is demonic, tainted, misguided so we can avoid it.
    Dialogue amounts to fraternising with the enemy.
    Ranting: Emotional responses to ‘wrong thought’, the demonic are totally acceptable and prove one’s real commitment to the cause.

    Various modern ideologies seem to be as religiously enthusiastic as formal religions were in the past.

  4. G. Poulin says:

    “Not to be melodramatic, but…” What a worthless bunch of insane idiots it is who rule us. Time to start unpacking the guillotines.

    • Replies: @Sowhat
    , @anon
  5. TG says:

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions”

    Um, but that turned out to be mostly correct. China is doing well because they limited their fertility rate, but India, Pakistan, the Near East, Central America, and Africa, are very much not.

    Anyone talking about “widespread famine” simply does not know the basics of economics. Malthus was quite explicit that outright famine was only nature’s means of last resort at limiting population growth rates to those that can actually be achieved. Most of the time, when the people of a given country try to double their population every 25 years, generation after generation, they fail, and it is chronic malnutrition that limits growth, NOT famine. We are seeing this now in Pakistan and Bangladesh and India: women are so malnourished that they are physically unable to have seven kids each no matter how much they may try, and chronically malnourished kids will die from diseases that well-fed kids can mostly shrug off even without modern medicine.

    Yes, the apocalyptic projections were wrong-headed in predicting massive famine instead of the reality, which is slow grinding crushing misery. But before you scoff at those predictions, consider a country like Pakistan, where the latest national survey showed that 31.5% of the children were stunted, 45% were underweight, and 10.5% literally “wasted.” Maybe not a big flashy sudden famine, but sure looks like a disaster to me. I mean, would you like to be an average worker in one of those countries? They make the late unlamented Soviet Union really look like a worker’s paradise, after all…

  6. They who interest in the issue can do a search for Hal (Harold) Lewis and see what he had to say.

  7. @Anonymous

    Various modern ideologies seem to be as religiously enthusiastic as formal religions were in the past.

    Well, the authors and consumers of ideologies are humans as they were ere; I would instead be surprised if the constant human template was missing in a new ideology.

  8. anon[280] • Disclaimer says:

    is the author related to Bilbo?

    • Replies: @Ragno
  9. SND says:

    Rather than abandoning their discredited beliefs, group members adhered to them even more strongly and began proselytizing with fervor.

    Gosh, sounds a lot like Trump/Russia!

  10. @anon

    Generally, the human world is filled with that which most or nearly all of humans need or pine for.
    The media are reflections of people’s needs and pinings. Same with mainline “social sciences”.
    Same with small talk, social talk, mating talk.

    What people want is, in every scenario (from presidential elections to mating talk) not what they believe they want or say they want: it is what they reward others for giving them.

    Genuine debate is even more disliked and avoided than truth.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Fuerchtegott
    , @anon
  11. David says:

    The leaf area study was the most interesting detail of this story. I would add that the more CO2 in the air, the less leaf area, in proportion to root systems, is needed to supply plants. Which implies that a disproportionate share of the new biomass is growing underground, where it will improve soil quality while sequestering CO2.

    • Replies: @Herald
    , @SBaker
    , @akkra
  12. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

    This article is a compiled list of debunked climate change myths from SkepticalScience. Example:

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  13. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

    Let’s watch you avoid the truth. What is it that melts ice, hmm? Simple one word answer.

  14. Daruma says: • Website

    Belief in catastrophic man-made climate change is indeed a religious mania. A similar thing happend to the Xhosa, and it did not end well…

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  15. With all due respect to everyone involved in this debate, it’s unlikely we can get through the next 12 years without a third world war. That’s what the pattern of history suggests.

  16. @TG

    We are seeing this now in Pakistan and Bangladesh and India: women are so malnourished that they are physically unable to have seven kids each no matter how much they may try, and chronically malnourished kids will die from diseases that well-fed kids can mostly shrug off even without modern medicine.

    All it takes is a slight change in the ability to produce or deliver food and the slow grinding malnourishment you speak of becomes catastrophic.

    In 100 years, actually about 70, everybody alive today will be dead. We all will have been replaced by those who show up. That’s 7 billion divided by 36,500 days (for 100 years) so a steady natural death rate of about 200,000 per day, assuming no wars or other such increasing factors.

    We live in the age of oil. Oil powers the tractors, fuels the combine harvesters, powers the trucks, trains, ships and airplanes that bring the food. Almost everything else depends on oil. Without oil it all comes to a screeching halt. Even wind generators need oil for their bearings.

    Without oil, 7 billion is not possible.


    Humans are an adaptive species. I have faith in the future. Whatever adjustments become necessary will occur. We will not be around to see it, but it will happen. The future is unpredictable.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Johnny Rico
  17. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    I too have faith in the future, that humans will survive in numbers much like the reindeer on St. Matthew Island.


  18. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    Both sides do agree that calling something a religion is an insult.

    The Religion of Climate Change Denial
    by Paul Brown / September 26th, 2016

  19. renfro says:

    Climate Change For Dummies

    Chapter One You Need the Earth.
    Chapter Two The Earth Does Not Need You

    • Agree: Daniel Rich, Liza
  20. wayfarer says:

    Planning for the future is like going fishing in a dry gulch. Nothing ever works out as you wanted, so give up all your schemes and ambitions. If you have got to think about something, make it the uncertainty of the hour of your death.

    – Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.

    “Earth’s Weakening Magnetic Field Is Accelerating.”

  21. I did lots of research into this over a decade ago while writing for Sanders Research. I recall a great article about a Dutch steel mill relocating to Morocco because of global warming. The Dutch union explained that it had the world’s greatest environmental controls, Morocco had none, but did have one-tenth its labor costs.

    The bankers devised a corrupt system of nation limits based on population. Industrialized nations were over limit, while Third Worlders were under limit. So the bankers demanded that modern nations pay them for credits from poor nations that didn’t produce anything more than babies. This also allowed greedy billionaires to say they must move production from nations like Holland to Morocco, because of global warming.

    Here is something related from my blog:

    May 7, 2017 – California Leaders Deny Climate Change

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Tony B.
  22. FB says: • Website

    It’s already well known that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in increased plant life…ie increased greening…just search ‘benefits of climate change’…and that the climate computer ‘models’ are less than worthless…so nothing new here…

    What isn’t known is that the climate change hoax is supposedly a ‘socialist’ agenda…a rather nutty confabulation that erases any credibility this clown may think he has…

  23. This entire article is a knuckleheaded exercise in The Straw Man Fallacy.

  24. While the actual facts of climate change obviously matter to most rational people, the facts have little relevance to the fanatics who want immediate government intervention whatever the social cost. This is because climate change is a cover for what is a religion: the religion of Environmentalism, Gaia, or Mother Earth. This is real, it’s the core of the PC Cult, the religion of Antifa n the Dem Party. This is their rationale for shutting down all oil & gas drilling n fracking, i.e., it harms Mother Earth. It sounds silly, but they are deadly serious, they really do believe that the Earth is conscious, feminine, n being harmed by everything masculine, “toxic masculinity”, with economic growth by white males damaging their Earth Mother, n the sacred “people of color”, i.e., the Earth-people, identifiable by their holy sign of melanin. Jews, being “black” as they insist (I know: who ya gonna believe, them or your lyin eyes?), tenured Jewish professors are the priesthood of this PC Earth-Mother cult, they n their MSM public relations wing constantly promote the sinlessness of anyone with melanin, the evil of white males who are harming their great Earth Mother, the evil of capitalism which promotes economic growth, n the special role or special burden that Jews bear in coordinating the war against white males to save Mother Earth. Watch for these signs in the media, in the movies, n in your favorite TV shows. If you look for them, you’ll see them.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Sin City Milla
  25. Anonymous [AKA "Lopi"] says:

    For almost all of the existence of Homo-sapiens the atmospheric concentration of CO2 fluctuated around 280 ppm. In the last sixty years or so it has risen to above 410 ppm and on current projections it will soon be well over 500 ppm.

    Now I’m not certain about climate change but I’m damned sure this incredible increase in CO2 will have major biological effects on plants, animals and HUMANS. CO2 is a potent chemical! It is used to kill animals in US abattoirs. There has been speculation that its increase is linked to the epidemic of human obesity. People worry about Ocean Acidification. It’s threatening the krill etc. What about Human Acidification ? Even a slight fluctuation in the bodily pH of the human body can have enormous health effects. If the salt concentration of the ocean doubled wouldn’t we be concerned? Well CO2 is in this category of chemicals. Every breath you breathe today lowers your body’s pH slightly compared to historical norms.

    CO2 might be food for plants but it’s a serious poison for humans. Why is there hardly any concern about this subject?

  26. Menteo says:

    Mother Nature Demands Child Sacrifice

    • Agree: Agent76
  27. As the entire planet was frozen over once, hit by asteroids several times, with an estimated age tag of around 4,5 billion years and achieved all this without our presence, it’s fair to say when humans believe they can save the planet, the entire cosmos roars with silent laughter.

    However, there are changes. I’ve seen them with my own eyes. Retreating glaciers. Melting ice. Rise in sea levels. Whatever name it’s given, I don’t care, and, yes, like with so many other events, it becomes cult-like, replaces religions, gets its own light bearers, its personal banner wavers. Earth couldn’t care less about us. She has shown to be amply able to deal with destruction on a scale that would kill all of us in the blink of a universal eye, without any hiccup. But again, there are changes.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  28. @Anonymous

    Please don’t allow your plausible generalisations to prevent you taking care about the facts so that any good influence you have on others is undermined. The effects of hydrofluorocarbons on the ozone layer were real and important. A pity that the excellent international effort to deal with the problem has not, at least to my knowledge, been made the model for solving other genuine problems.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
    , @anonymous
  29. Excellent article.

    By the way, in case anyone is interested, here’s a fantastic investigative journalism series examining the global warming scam from a dissident left perspective. It turns out that the so-called ‘Green New Deal’ is really just a giant rip-off of the tax-payer by the big multinational banks and corporations–yet another massive upward transfer of wealth to keep the profits flowing in a dying economy:

    Along the way, the author gives us some brilliant exposés of the Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez psy-ops. You’ll love it!

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @anon
  30. Gene says:

    Who is peter Baggins? I never heard of him. Anyone can provide a bio of him?

    • Replies: @anon
  31. @atlantis_dweller

    Debate is the biggest enemy of truth.

  32. @anon

    I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that this piece was in the Occidental Observer. I don’t know if that is good for credibility for the O.O or the author as a science journalist or scientist. I would be pleased to see how well the author can deal with SkepticalScience’s points – not that i am a fan of that webzine, not least because I tbink it ignores Australia’s interests in favour of moral posturing.

  33. Vojkan says:

    Scaremongering, guiltmongering and warmongering make up the “nuclear trident” of the strategy for controlling the masses by the elites.
    Climate on Earth has always been changing, the Sun’s activity is varying, magnetic poles are moving, yet people driving cars and farting cows are to blame.
    What about the pollution by sea transported climate-aware vegans’ favourites organic quinoa or soya bean sprouts? Well they pretend that the fossil oil cargos burn amounts to less CO2 than road transport overall, but what about sulphur, and what about the garbage left in the oceans that imapacts directly CO2 recycling plancton? And what about the explosion in air traffic? Isn’t it odd that all the sacrifices in order to overcome “global warming” are imposed on car-dependent rural and small town folks, i.e. people who are rooted in their communities, while the highly mobile urban crowd can enjoy all the comfort provided by modern technology? Having lived in both environments, I am less than convinced that the cosmopolitan way of life pollutes less than than the one in the countryside.
    When you dig a little deeper in the discourse, many many questions such as those pop up and you realise that there is one constant: the taxpayers have to pay, preferrably the taxpayers who are not in a position to dodge taxes, or revolt against the blatant iniquity.

    • Replies: @anon
  34. Can’t controll ya fertility?
    Maybe ya aren’t a human.

  35. If these climate “human made global warming” cult fanatics and criminals had even an ounce of integrity and credibility, they’d attempt to eliminate the biggest CO2 producer and dry them, the naughty oceans.

    I wonder why farmers add CO2 in their greenhouses? However, the earth in not a closed system like a greenhouse.

    • Replies: @anon
  36. Epigon says:

    You’re an imbecile.
    CO2 is the most common product of human body.

    You obviously never heard of buffers or the role of CO2/HCO3- buffer complex in human body.

  37. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    Before spouting a climate myth, or rattling off a list of the most used myths like you did, you should check and make sure it hasn’t been debunked.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  38. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    Do you really imagine that humans can evaporate earth’s oil fields and coal beds into the atmosphere without any consequences?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @AnonFromTN
  39. @Wizard of Oz

    Plastic has to be tackled on a worldwide scale otherwise our beaches will look like this – Link to LiveMint

    More [2011] news still being relevant today [2019] @

    Excerpt+ Trash Travels estimates that plastic bags can take 20 years to decompose, plastic bottles up to 450 years, and fishing line, 600 years; but in fact, no one really knows how long plastics will remain in the ocean. With exposure to UV rays and the ocean environment, plastic breaks down into smaller and smaller fragments. The majority of the plastic found in the ocean are tiny pieces less than 1 cm. in size, with the mass of 1/10 of a paper clip.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  40. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sin City Milla

    The actual facts: Ice melts when warming occurs. Global ice melts when global warming occurs.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  41. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s already well known that you’re repeating climate myths that have been debunked at No, the climate models aren’t worthless; they are quite accurate, as this graph from shows:


  42. Anonymous [AKA "Anon210"] says:

    A very engaging book on the subject of the relentless climate scam is Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” (2005). It’s a close look at how and why people are being manipulated (and threatened) into supporting all the climate bs.

    Good article, Mr. Baggins!

  43. Excellent article. It’s time that we recognized the benefits of CO2 as well as its perils.

    Meanwhile, the hype and dangers of ‘climate change’ have been exaggerated and deviously politicized. Environmentalists (many of whom are well-meaning) often go way overboard. And today it’s gotten worse.

    The anti-business, multi-cult Left now feels as if their personal climate neuroses entitle them to take ‘whatever political actions are necessary’ (to save the planet). “It’s an existential threat!” (From whom did we hear that overwrought phrase before?)

    This organized hysteria (and agenda) over modest atmospheric warming (that has now paused) is a sure recipe for higher energy taxes, more government interference, and a rising number of government boondoggles. This scenario is a loser.

    The growing anxiety over ‘climate change’ also fits the definition of a manufactured crisis. After all, climate always changes.

    Why hasn’t this fact been explained to the general public?

    A changing climate may be disruptive, but it is normal and natural. Why do the warmists pretend otherwise?

    By comparison, consider the forgotten phenomena of ‘global cooling’.

    As a college student studying journalism in 70s, I wrote about the 30-year-long phenomena of ‘global cooling’ as it happened. I was there. ‘Global cooling’ was real and it was recorded by science (or so I was told). Then it stopped.

    Average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere did drop (slightly) from about 1945 to 1975.

    Since then, they have (on average) moved upwards very slightly.

    But so what?

    What we’re talking about here are averages that amount to less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over many decades.

    By contrast, on an average day, plants and animals routinely endure temperature variations of 30 or 40 degrees. In just 24 hours! With no ill effect!

    Further, Humans (advanced, scientific and tech-savvy ones, anyway) can live comfortably anywhere on earth, even in outer space.

    It’s revealing to note that the ‘global cooling’ phenomena of yesteryear has been largely memory holed (deliberately forgotten).

    But why?

    Could it be that the climate ‘experts’ (and their cronies in the MSM) are covering the tracks of previous false alarms? It sure smells like it.

    It’s also worth remembering that during the ‘global cooling’ era there was a continuous rise in atmospheric CO2.

    Shouldn’t temperatures have risen during this era as well?

    Yes. But curiously they did not.

    No wonder the ‘global cooling’ scare is now forgotten. Hoaxes are often retired quietly.

    The recurring phenomenon of climate change informs us that natural and complex forces (including the Sun) are the primary drivers of the earth’s climate– just as with all the other planets in our solar system. The influence of mankind is, by comparison, modest at most.

    As for ‘climate change’, recent discoveries reveal that the earth periodically (and cyclically) goes into a prolonged frigid spells. These are called ‘glacial periods’.

    Throughout the past one million years, for instance, we’ve had about eight (long) glacial periods on earth, and as many (short) interglacial periods.

    Today, humanity is enjoying a relatively warm, wet and bountiful ‘interglacial’ era. It may be no coincidence that mankind has risen and flourished during this era of relative ‘global warming’ which began only about 13,000 years ago, when the last glacial period ended. But don’t expect this wet and wonderful warmth to last forever.

    According to climatic cycles as expressed in various ice core samples taken from Greenland and Antarctica, we’re (probably) due for another arid and deep freeze pretty soon–at least within the next 1000 years or so (give or take a century). So be prepared!

    When the next ‘glacial maximum’ hits, it will very likely test the staying power of humankind.

    Not only does cold kill far more humans each year than extreme heat, but icy and dry conditions greatly diminish crop production. This may spell extreme food shortages for much of humanity.

    Maybe the famines will come someday after all. But who knows?

  44. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    OK. But melted ice is water and it has to go somewhere. So where is all this extra water going? According to your chart, we probably should have lost New York, San Francisco and Amsterdam long ago. Maybe Bangladesh, too. Yet, as far as I’m aware, we still haven’t lost so much as a single Pacific atoll!

    Mysteries of the world …

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  45. Global warming is real but Greens are scamsters. Nobody can make any sort of predictions when such huge complex system is involved. Green scam has nothing to do with socialism. Some are indeed sincere in their emotional stupidity and they are used by politicians to reap population off just like Trudeau has been doing in Canada. I also wonder how is the weather in Shire?

    • Replies: @anon
  46. Tulips says:

    What a piece of cherry-picking disinformation! The author quotes the NY Times that there is no evidence of temperature increase and the puts up a graph showing almost 1 degree C. Increase in past 100 years. I don’t like Al Gore, but his list of predictions are happening, as predicted. Think! Canada’s Fort McMurray burned in a MARCH forest fire. Those historically come in July-August. NY City was flooded by a DECEMBER hurricane. Hurricane season is August to October, and they have never flooded NY City. Last summer, Ottawa, CANADA, was hit by tornadoes. Right, we are not in Kansas anymore. This is a new world and it is not just witches that are melting. One of the predictable responses to a fatal diagnosis is denial. That is what this essay is. A human frightened by climate induced collapse of security, climate disorder, and mass death, and trying to construct an explanation that this cannot be happening to me, not now.

  47. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    If you read the article above, you can easily answer your own question: Because, according to the author, more CO2 means more plant life on earth, which, in turn, means more Oxygen for us, since plants convert CO2 into Oxygen through photosynthesis. All clear now?

  48. Herald says:

    So there’s no need to stop ripping up the rain forests, that’s a relief.

  49. dearieme says:
    @Daniel Rich

    there are changes. I’ve seen them with my own eyes. … Rise in sea levels.

    Bollocks, your own eyes have seen nothing of the sort. Sea level has been rising at the same slow rate for centuries – there is no sign at all of an acceleration.

  50. @HallParvey

    The future is predictable. No oil, no 7 billion people. We live on a rock.

    It is the past that is unpredictable — you need look no further than the pages of UNZ Review to see that.

  51. macilrae says:

    NASA ground temperature history has been compiled including data from sites which have undergone massive local anthropogenic energy dissipation growth – in particular airports. Sites which have remained rural do not in general confirm a warming trend.

    See for example:

    Granted that the earth has undergone a steady natural temperature increase since the end of the last mini ice-age: sea levels increasing slowly in consequence due to ice-melt and thermal expansion; the most reassuring fact comes from NASA itself which is that the rise of sea level is not accelerating in tandem with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This, combined with NASA’s admission that the Antarctic ice cap is growing steadily, provides us with the best of natural ‘thermometers’.

    Incidentally, while Venice recently experienced tidal flooding we have heard remarkably little in recent years to the effect that the city is under threat of inundation.

    • Replies: @anon
  52. Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions and Why People Believe Them

    Would that I could bring myself to read the article. It may help me understand why people still believe and parrot century old war propaganda, 250 year old constitution propaganda, or 2,000 year old crackpot “Yahweh” mythology.

    Is bullshit that believable or what?

  53. @Anonymous

    CO2 is a potent chemical! It is used to kill animals in US abattoirs.

    Here’s to really hoping you’re kidding here. “Potent chemical”, sure, like the black stuff I pull out from between my toes at night once a week. That’s why I hate this BS term “emissions”. It’s a way to make the necessary-for-life-on-Earth, trace gas (whether it’s 280 ppm or 500 ppm, it’s still a trace gas – less concentration than Argon (at 9300 ppm)) into a poison. I really think some of the ctrl-left behind this scam want the less chemically-inclined among us to confuse it with Carbon Monoxide, which IS poisonous. “Emissions”! Actually some emissions are not half bad ….

    You say you can put down an animal by filling a chamber with CO2. Sure, try it with N2 – molecular Nitrogen – only about 80% of the air we breath. Try it with water vapor. Try it with Eau de Cologne or Estée Lauder’s Amber Mysitique. Stay in the same room for 2 hours with a bean-eating Labrador Retriever. Try it with anything but O2, and yeah, someone’s gonna die.

    There has been speculation that its increase is linked to the epidemic of human obesity.

    Fat chance of that. Yeah, blame it on the atmosphere, that’s the ticket. That way you can stay on your Krispy Creme/Coca-Cola/Chicken Wings* diet and VOTE FOR SLENDERNESS. Hell of a meme though.


    * Containing pretty much all of the post-modern 4 basic food groups.

    • Replies: @anon
  54. Jake says:

    Climate Change Prophets of Doom are as insanely wrong as the Second Coming Evangelicals.

  55. Global warming is a diabolical scam to deindustrialize the US and to reduce our live styles to third world status as laid out in UN agenda 21 and UN agenda 2030, anyone interested in these two draconian deals can google and read them.

    The zio/US gov has a program of spraying Chemtrails over the US which blocks the suns rays and creates a whitish haze across the sky and by spraying nano particles of aluminum and o and barium into the air the gov creates the air into a conductor of electromatic waves put out by HAARP installations to guide storms and control the weather.

    So at the same time that the zio/US gov is saying that global warming is going to end all life on earth these satanic bastards are spraying us with toxic barium and aluminum and strontium which is going into our air and soil and water on a daily basis!

    Co2 is necessary for life and plants create oxygen by taking in Co2 and giving off oxygen without which all life on earth would cease to exist!

    There is a report by NASA that states that Co2 acts as a coolant in the atmosphere, this report can be googled and reveals global warming for the draconian lie that it is!

    Check for details.

    • Replies: @anon
  56. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:

    Floating sea ice, when it melts, does not raise water level. Didn’t your mommy ever put ice in your lemonade for you? Ask her to do it this summer. Tell all your friends about how the glass doesn’t overflow as it melts.

    • Replies: @Chaotic Neutral
  57. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    There is a report by NASA…. Bullshit. I’m calling you out for the draconian lie that it is!

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  58. Saggy says: • Website

    Why in hell does the ‘right wing’, who by and large know absolutely nothing about climate science, think that they are smarter than the scientists who spend their lives studying the subject?

    I am an engineering PhD, and I studied the climate question for about 3 months, and discovered I couldn’t really get a handle on it. I won’t go over the reasons, suffice it to say it isn’t simple.

    Here is the reality, the only graph you need to know –– the world population graph, and it hasn’t even been projected.

    We know were destroying the forests, polluting the oceans, eliminating species, etc., and the pace of the destruction is increasing. It’s way past time to start trying to understand what we are doing to the planet, and we don’t need the idiotic right as exemplified by Trump to help.

    • Replies: @renfro
    , @Pontius
  59. anarchyst says:

    If environmentalism restricted itself to truly caring for our natural resources, I would have no problem with it. However, with the secret science and questionable funding that these environmental groups possess taints the whole barrel. It turns out that many claims that environmentalists make have no basis in fact and are not based on good, honest, scientific investigation. This is why environmental scientists have to hide their data, as it does not fit their agenda. A good example of this is the so-called global warming crap, now renamed climate change. For one, the climate is always changing. The East Anglia emails in which data was purposely falsified by climate scientists comes to mind. Not only that, the climate scientists purposely installed temperature monitoring sensors in cities, contrary to manufacturers recommendations and good scientific practices, in asphalt-covered parking lots, and other heat sink areas in order to prove their (faulty) hypothesis. This is scientific dishonesty at its worst.
    It turns out that the solar system is in a cooling cycle due to decreased solar activity. There are two long-term solar cycles that reinforce themselves when in phase and cancel themselves out when out-of-phase. Look up the Maunder minimum. There are no SUVs on Mars or other planets, yet they are also experiencing the same solar variability.
    Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society, especially in the USA.
    Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these anointed types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population by any means necessary.
    Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced land use controls on private property owners without compensation, clearly an unconstitutional taking of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves, not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is shoot, shovel, and shut up.
    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to pristine wilderness (rural) areas would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these anointed environmentalists.
    The endangered species act is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments-survival if the fittest. In fact, the hoopla over the spotted owl (that placed much northwest timber land off-limits to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
    More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to plant lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas off-limits for logging or development. Fortunately, these scientists were caught, however, no punishment was imposed.
    In order to promote the false religion of “global warming” aka “climate change”, NASA “scientists” purposely installed temperature sensors in city parking lots and roads contrary to good scientific principles and practices in order to “skew” the “global warming” results.
    In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism like watermelon-green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside.
    It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist countries to improve their conditions first. Here is a question for you environmentalists: Why is there a push for restrictive environmental regulations, but only on the developed first-world countries, and not the gross polluters such as India and China?

  60. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The necessary-for-life-on-Earth, trace gas is also a “greenhouse gas,” i.e., a gas that prevents a certain amount of heat radiation escaping back to space. The science is long established on this fact. You’re 150 years behind. You should be as embarrassed by your ignorance as the Lopi you’re correcting. I’ll help you catch up:

    Source: The History of Climate Science

  61. @FB

    Of course it’s a Socialist agenda, and you are a denier of that truth because you are a Socialist. I don’t say that in particular it’s an agenda with a written plan, and a committee that meets every Friday with Robert’s Rules of Order and all that. It’s just a very nice theme upon to lay even more of a Socialist/Communist set of rule for control of the population. Matter of fact, I really don’t think that any Socialist has had the brainpower to think of this scheme from scratch – it came out of the once-worthwhile environmental movement, and as a stoke of luck, has become a way to justify taxing and regulating the living shit of the world’s non-elite population to an ever greater degree than exists already.

    As far as computer modeling goes, again, I don’t believe you are a real engineer of ANY kind, other than the euphemisms written for people who write software, etc, etc. I know about computer modeling, and even when you DO HAVE every one of the piece part processes that go into a big model DOWN PAT, with the right math that’s been proven to predict each process, it ain’t all gonna work together without a whole lot more research. The problem with Global Climate Disruption(TM) modeling is that NOT all of the myriad physical/chemical processes involved are even KNOWN ABOUT*, much less been modeled accurately.

    Hey, I don’t put down the scientists that work in Climatology – most of them are just doing the science, and a math model of the whole Earth’s climate is a big old work in progress. That’s how research/academic publishing works (or is supposed to). It’s when BIG-DUMB “Journalism” gets ahold of a paper and can read nothing but the quick Conclusion with no regard to the assumptions mentioned, the warnings of error ranges, etc., and then the Pols with the vested interest in Socialism get at it, the science turns bogus.


    * Disagree? Then tell me if the causes of the ice ages are REALLY known and that the next one has been predicted. On a smaller level, tell me when will be the next El Nino/La Nina event will occur. Serious Climatologists and Meteorologists will tell you it’s gonna happen about NEGATIVE 3 months before, as in “OK, we now know that the weather pattern this season is due to an El Nino that started back 3 months ago.” Hey, I don’t mind honesty at all – Speaking of weather, the short-term phenomenon, it’s so chaotic that any forecast out to more than 4 days is just rectal extraction. They like to tell you on TV about a week from Friday, but even my 7 y/o knows that’s total guesswork. Yes, I know, “Weather is not Climate”.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @anon
  62. Even if they were right, global-warming gurus want to exempt the industrial powerhouse of China (and India) from their GW agreements, nullifying any gains since the environment is a whole, not a compartmentalized thing. The sheep in Scotland were affected by the Chernobyl meltdown. Could global-warming types be naive about exempting the cheap-labor Meccas of China & India from environmental restrictions?

    No, it is so multinational corporations can continue to offshore production, rather than hiring Americans at a decent wage, until they get the robot replacements refined, after which US-owned corporations will bring the factories back home to pollute away since it will be 1) more convenient for the top 20% who benefit from the few high-paying jobs and the stock investments in those multinationals and 2) cheaper than offshoring production at that point.

    And Green New Deal people are just using the trendy Green motif to promote an FDR-style stimulus plan to put the 95 million US citizens (ages 16 to 65) who are out of the labor force to work, specifically the millions of un and underemployed males. The stimulus they are proposing will mostly apply to male-dominated jobs. The big issue is: will the construction jobs mostly go to illegal aliens and legal immigrants?

    The average, “employed” person in the USA works part time—officially—and if they counted all of the above-firing, highly paid married moms in dual-high-earner households who work unofficially part time in family-friendly, back-watching jobs with nearly all parent employees, while taking off a ton of time beyond their PTO and pregnancy leaves, the number of part-time workers would be even higher.

    GNDealers are fine with this; they want their wives and daughters to get a piece of the corrupt crony-parent job network.

    Low-wage daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters or elderly grandparents raise the kids of the dual-high-earner parents so that the moms can help to halve the size of the middle class by keeping two household-supporting jobs under one roof.

    At least, the absurdity of paying another woman (very little) to do the work of raising another woman’s kids is a little less glaring when one of the women actually makes a lot of money in her absenteeism-friendly job.


    Using taxpayer money to pay a low-wage worker to raise the children of another woman so that she can take a low-wage job that will not cover her government-subsidized rent is beyond absurd, but in honor of Fake Womb-Centric Feminism, the GND includes another free, government-funded daycare measure.

    Government already provides childcare assistance to low-income women in multiple forms. Not that most single moms actually spend their up to \$6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash on daycare, in that their mothers often do it for them essentially for free, giving them back the money after providing proof of a small childcare expense for tax-preparation purposes. But there is another whole program that provides monthly childcare assistance outside of the refundable child tax credits that are often used to finance beach trips with boyfriends since the moms’ main monthly bills are covered by welfare.

    GNDealers do not want to change anything about the corrupt system that rigs the bottom of the female-dominated labor market for part-time-working moms. This includes many part-time-working moms with a child support check big enough to cover their major household bills.

    It also includes the many single moms who are incentivized to work part time due to multi-layered welfare streams, covering every monthly bill from rent to food, plus refundable child tax credits up to \$6,431 and monthly cash assistance, given to them as long as they work part time for low wages that keep them under the earned-income limits for welfare.

    There are tons of welfare-ineligible, single, childless women and single moms with kids over 18, needing for wages alone to cover all household bills, competing hopelessly for those female-dominated / mom-dominated / voted-best-for-moms discrimination-gang jobs.

    The part-time mom worker group also includes many married moms, working in jobs with libertine absenteeism arrangements for moms. They are doing it just for keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ income, even though they have spousal income that could support a modest (or better) middle-class lifestyle, especially in the era before Barbie-princess palaces became a requirement for a middle-class lifestyle.

    That wasn’t necessary for a respectable, middle-class lifestyle in the late Sixties / early Seventies, when most moms still raised their own children. Even many of the women married to men with several grad degrees lived in modest ranch houses, not the trendy Craftsman bungalows that are priced higher (despite their size) due to style issues…………. What trendy dual high earners pay for a small Carftsman bungalow will buy them a much bigger feminist-princess palace in another architectural style.

    Back in the Sixties — at the height of the widespread US middle class — it was only the truly successful business elites and the top echelon of professionals in market-rewarded professions, like MDs, that had a better grade of house. And even most of those top earners had less Gilded Age fare.

    The middle class was defined up as it disappeared.

    The real middle class of the widespread-prosperity days had mostly married, stay-at-home moms who mostly retired into paid-for, modest homes, whereas this New Gilded Age has more unmarried people than ever before, and more working moms than ever before, and far more working women will not have a paid-for home at retirement.

    Women in the Fake Feninist Era will retire with SS checks that are on-average \$1,300 per month, with rent costs at \$900 per month for a one-room s********e apartment.

    The Green New Deal (CCC Camp) plan might help to prevent a Yellow Vests, USA movement, though, in that it would get the underemployed males out from under their mommas’ thumbs, providing rent-covering jobs. The stimulus plan needn’t have a green theme, recalling all of the many green-energy businesses that were given government contracts during the Obama years. Many of those businesses had ties to friends of Obama, and all of those cronies failed in the marketplace.

    Green energy businesses are not really producing many products that are salable, and if they ever do, the businesses probably won’t spring up from the government-funding trough.

    Just like with the high-priced small Craftsman bungalows, the Green theme is more of a style issue than Democrats want to admit. All things Green are trendy for progressive intellectuals, regardless of the pesky details like unprofitable green-energy businesses.

    The Chinese government, in contrast, just calls a stimulus what it is: an economic plan. They have been undertaking massive infrastructure projects for years, which are apparently a big part of their so-called economic miracle (or not if you believe David Stockman’s “Red Ponzi”) assessment.

    I always thought the US export market was a bigger portion of China’s economic build-up, but US exports are apparently just 18% of China’s GDP. If you add in the economic value to China from all of the jobs shipped there by American-owned corporations — 6 million just between 2000 – 2010 — the contribution of US elites to China’s economy is bigger.

    But still, Chinese government’s own infrastructure-building stimulus plan has a lot to do with it. Since GDP went from negative numbers in the Great Depression to over 9%, staying there all during the Thirties except for one year, there is a good argument for an infrastructure stimulus, but only if American citizens get the jobs, not immigrants pumping out US-born kids that qualify them for welfare and child tax credits.

    Much of that money will not even circulate in the USA since immigrants send \$120 billion (in total) per year out of the US economy in the form of remittances. That will not work to restore the American middle class.

    Partially due to China’s infrastructure-building frenzy, the sand that is a building block of everything from bridges, to buildings, to roads, to silicon chips is running out, creating a problem for infrastructure stimulus plans that is as much a mechanical or a business-supply problem as it is an environmental issue. Better focus on learning to recycle concrete before undertaking more building, rather than just repairing structures that have had no attention in 50 years.

    The funny thing is that, regardless of whether you label it “green” or just plain-old infrastructure spending, an infrastructure stimulus will not be good for the environment so treasured by the trendies because environmentalism is, well, intellectually trendy. Any building spree will consume more natural resources, as does paying single-mom citizens and Third World foreign nationals to have sex and reproduce via government programs, with each additional birth guaranteeing them more monthly welfare and yearly child tax credit cash.

    That just begets more natural-resource consumers.

    One thing is for sure: no Fake Republican Uniparty member will insist that any of that massive government outlay for infrastructure spending be allocated to the Southern Border Wall, the thing that citizens in a Fake Republic voted for. It’ll all go for more contracts for cronies of the Congressional Critters at \$174k.

    My buddy from my days at Yale has this Green Energy business….

  63. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:

    NASA’s admission that the Antarctic ice cap is growing steadily? LOL! Here’s what NASA really says:

    Source: Ramp-up in Antarctic ice loss speeds sea level rise

    • Replies: @anon
    , @macilrae
  64. @Daniel Rich

    And too easily swallowed by fish I guess so that unnatural selection favours those that aren’t necessarily the fish we like to eat….

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  65. “Sort of like when people argue that Christianity was a control mechanism.

    For example, medieval peasants couldn’t read and so priests and royals who could read translated the Bible for the peasants and the peasants were told how to live accordingly.

    Similarly, today’s peasants do not hold degrees in climate science or atmospheric science and so the scientists and politicians translate the climate science and peasants live accordingly.

    We were once told we would go to hell for sinning.

    Now we are told the world will end every ten years if we don’t obey.”

    It’s all about the control(and money), and nothing else..

    Fraud has traditionally been driven by desperation,
    greed, opportunity and the rationalisation that
    the perpetrator is entitled to commit the fraud.
    Rationalisation is typically ‘they can afford it’ or ‘it’s a
    victimless crime’: both approaches significantly impact
    big business and government.

    • Replies: @anon
  66. @anon

    Look it up , it is a fact and global warming is a draconian lie, google and read UN Agenda 21 and you will see what this global warming scam is all about!


    • Replies: @anon
  67. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:

    Wrong. There are signs of acceleration.


    So a broader view of the historical record reveals that sea level is not just rising. The rate of sea level rise has been increasing since the late 19th century.

    How much is sea level rising?

    • Replies: @Wavelet
    , @ThreeCranes
  68. Obesity, which is a solvable problem poses a far greater threat to human survival than anything else.

  69. @anon

    I don’t trust any statistics I did not fake myself, and climate cult statistics are outright hoaxes.
    Human contribution to Co2 is absurdly low(3%), compared to 75% CO2 produced by the oceans alone.
    You morons simply don’t get there are cycles at work, long term cycles, nothing to do with human activity. But your geo engineering does contribute greatly to the destruction of the environment and mother earth. You lunatics even cut down massively trees to make room for the 5G weapon system.

    • Replies: @anon
  70. Anonymous [AKA "Peixe"] says:

    Apocalyptic obsessions are symptoms of the oldest heresy in the world; gnosticism, or the belief that the material world is inherently evil and deserves to be destroyed.
    With the exception of Catholicism all religions are gnostic to a greater or lesser degree. Puritanism is gnostic with it’s belief that the source of evil is material, drink, tobacco, dance etc.
    It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that God created a good world and that the source of evil is man’s twisted will to abuse the good things that God has given us. Unfortunately, since the Church denied the Faith at Vatican II, Puritanism and apocalyptic obsessions, Fatima, have gained traction in the Church as well through the so-called traditional sects which deny the same Dogmas.
    Christian Zionists are extreme examples of gnosticism as they actively work towards creating the conditions for Armageddon.

  71. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Today’s peasants do not hold degrees in climate science or atmospheric science, true, but they do have the ability to observe trees budding earlier. The new 2006 Hardiness Zone Map is consistent with the consensus of climate scientists that global warming is underway.
    Source: New Hardiness Zone Map Reflects Warmer Climate

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  72. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    Generally, the human world is filled with that which most or nearly all of humans need or pine for. The media are reflections of people’s needs and pinings. Same with mainline “social sciences”.

    i don’t pine for or need jewish lies and propaganda.

    • Replies: @2stateshmustate
  73. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    last i heard NASA’s mission was mooslim outreach so why should i take anything they have to say on science seriously?

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @anon
  74. FB says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a ‘socialist’ agenda…but it’s being pushed by our ruling elite which is run by billionaires…?

    No further discussion needed…

    Btw look up Milankovitch cycles…

    PS..still waiting to hear you to back up your supposed knowledge of aircraft longitudinal flying qualities…fact is you ran away you useless little shrimp…I could devise a hundred more tests to show you have zero engineering qualifications. .

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  75. Tab says:

    if someone believes that 2+2=5 you will never convince them otherwise. “global warming” is the new “hole in the ozone” hoax.

  76. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    As much as you try to detract, the climate models are accurate. And quite conservative, as this one shows:

    Source: How reliable are climate models?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  77. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    When the there was all the noise about the ozone hole in Antarctica and everyone had to change their refrigerant or we were all going to die, I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe it now. The companies that manufactured the refrigerants made billions of dollars from that fraud and the carbon credit fraud is just the latest in a series of big money making scams by big industry and big government. I am a staunch environmentalist and engage in reducing waste, recycling and driving less but anything that comes out of big government, big business or big environmental organizations I listen to with suspicion.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Wizard of Oz
  78. macilrae says:

    Yet consider this, also from NASA:

    I recall the ’embarrassment’ of the 20 year ‘hiatus’ (of global temperature rise) and how that eventually had to be accounted for with ‘new models’ and by allegedly not having taken into account the orbital degradation of the satellites providing the embarrassing data.

    If the sea levels ain’t rising faster as the CO2 rises that’s pretty telling. Remember that CO2 is a feeble greenhouse gas compared to water vapour.

    Too much politicking, too little good science.

    • Replies: @anon
  79. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Your claim that CO2 is coming from the ocean is one of the debunked climate myths, addressed here:

    Climate Myth: CO2 is coming from the ocean
    What the science says: Measurements of carbon isotopes and falling oxygen in the atmosphere show that rising carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels and cannot be coming from the ocean.

    Oceans are acidifying from absorbed CO2

    Your claim that it’s just a natural cycle is also debunked here:

    Climate Myth: It’s a natural cycle
    What the science says: A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming – except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

    Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles is fun!

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  80. , jjOn the article itself, that’s a pretty good summary of the big picture, Mr. Baggins. Good job!. I don’t agree 100% that the sky-is-falling folks of the Club of Rome and subsequent movements are completely wrong on everything, especially the population aspect. Yes, they’ve been dead wrong on energy, as it’s not just new sources, but much more efficient ways of converting potential energy to useful work for us that has kept the population in heat/A/C, food, and transportation.

    There is still an ultimate limit to energy required to simply required to keep a nearing 10,000,000,000 people crowd warm and with enough calories. There is also the quality-of-life part that may be not near any physical limit yet, but near some intangible limits, meaning reaching a level of misery that causes violence and even war.

    Anyway, thank you for focusing on the Global Climate Disruption(TM) scam here on I hope you don’t mind a link bomb, as Peak Stupidity has written on both the math-modeling aspect that causes due skepticism in “There is no working model of the world’s climate, dammit!”, with Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and summary Part 1 and Part 2, and the political aspects of it under the Global Climate Stupidity topic key (scroll down on that last link.)

    • Replies: @anon
  81. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    You look it up. Thing is, “it” can’t be found. You made a stupid claim you can’t back up. And isn’t I caught you in a lie. Now you’re trying to weasel out of it, instead of doing the manly thing and admitting you were wrong. NASA never claimed what you say they claimed. Stop lying. And if you don’t stop, I’m going to keep further embarrassing you.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  82. Tulips says:

    Who is “Peter Baggins, Ph.D.” ? If you search Google Scholar for “Peter Baggins”, there is nothing. If you Boolean search Google for “Peter Baggins” AND university , there is nothing. If you search the Library of Congress for “Peter Baggins”, there is nothing. If you search the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books, there is no “Peter Baggins”. It is doubtful that there is a scholar named Peter Baggins, who has a Ph.D. or has a Ph.D. on something that gives his essay credence. Reading the commentaries here, it is sad and tragic that there are so many people so desperate to continue on our path to planetary suicide. There will be no satisfaction in saying, “I told you so” or “I was right”.

  83. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    NASA’s mission statement is here: Do you really think in the age of the internet that you can tell bald-faced lies like that?

    The neat thing about NASA’s climate science is that it is publicly verifiable. You can verify their science with as simple of an instrument as a thermometer in your own locale. The record of global warming is available to the public online, such as with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature data (GISTEMP). Peruse it here:

    • Replies: @anon
  84. anarchyst says:

    You are correct. The patents for Freon R-12 were running out so anyone could produce it. Freon R-12 is still one of the best refrigerants made, but has been outlawed due to faulty science. The chlorine molecule in the chlorofluorocarbon compound that was supposedly destroying the “ozone layer” is actually “too heavy” to make it up to the stratosphere and was in no way responsible for the “ozone hole”.
    Once again, “junk science” triumphed, not unlike the questionable scientific falsifications of the whole environmental movement.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  85. @anon

    Dude, I understand the “greenhouse effect” and the absorption of different wavelengths of radiation outbound vs. transparency of radiation inbound. I GET THAT! /Tucker. If you would read on to another comment of mine, you would get to some links on mathematical modeling and the complications therein. There are hundreds, if not thousand of individual physical processes, (cloud cover/albedo, absorption of gases by the oceans, albedo differences due to varied ground cover, effects of ocean currents, and on and on) that all have to be modeled very accurately before any composite model of the whole shebang would have a chance in hell of working.

    Hey, I’ll change my mind if I see a forecast with some numbers that are reasonably close after 10 years. They don’t have to be good to a couple of percent, just a decrease in rainfall by (I’ll give you 25% on your ranges) over in this region, an increase in temperature by this much (again 25% error band would be fine), ocean levels going up by this much along such-and-such a shoreline ….

    When people who really don’t know any science hear crap about no more snowfall to be seen by, what was it, 5 years ago now, as predicted by the noted drop-out Climatologist with the sea-level mansion in California and 20,000 sq-ft house in Tennessee, what the hell was the gentleman’s name??? Oh, it’s so INCONVENIENT when I have this senior moment …. oh, yeah, then they just really see through the bullshit in a fundamental way. Then, people do start to note exactly what type of people are the ones ALWAYS pushing this scam.

    The assumption, usually a pretty good one, that people don’t have long-term memories about stuff that’s not personal (especially with Americans and politics) has worked well for the climate scammers, but it didn’t quite last them enough to get the whole economy clamped down tight with carbon regulation. Close call, people.

    • Replies: @anon
  86. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    if you really believe in global warming you should do the right thing and cut WAY WAY back on your carbon footprint

    only in that way would a righteous person be able to sleep well at night

  87. @anon

    Can I call you Greta?

    Anyway Greta, a whois query of the site you promote here is pretty interesting.
    Britsh, John Cook, Sevloid Art. Artists.

    • Replies: @anon
  88. Jmaie says:

    The malnutrition afflicting Pakistan and the other areas listed is not due to a drop in the global food supply but rather poor economic and delivery systems.

  89. Wavelet says:

    There is no acceleration of sea level rise:

    “” is not only on this issue deceptive, but is pure alarmist propaganga:

    It’s creator is the author of the first famous and misleading “97% agree” study.

    • Replies: @anon
  90. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    That’s sea ice increase; meanwhile Antarctica continues to lose land ice, as addressed here.

    Climate Myth: Antarctica is gaining ice
    What the science says: Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.

    Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

    And your trotting out old news. This is the new reality on the sea ice extent around Antarctica:

    Source: NASA Current State of the Sea Ice Cover

    The 20 year ‘hiatus’ (of global temperature rise)? No such thing.

    Source: Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

    But do keep up your arguments. It’s important to debunk them.

    • Replies: @Poco
  91. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Can I call you Desperado? Can’t discuss science now? When you can, get back with me, ok?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  92. @FB

    I told you, if you me to want to copy/paste off the web like some of your stuff, it’s not worth the trouble for me. I also wrote that you don’t explain details like an engineer. There’s absolutely no point running a test on the internet, when the guy can just duckduckgo everything he wants. Stupidity at its finest, that thought is. You may work in flight-test as a technician, but that’s as far as I can believe.

    Nope, I won’t dox myself with my resume on here. I can tell you I know more mechanical engineering than you do. I know more about flying than you do. I may not know all the details on that 737-Max, but that’s why I talked to 3 pilots (for about 5-10 minutes apiece) that fly(flew) it to get the skinny, at least as much as they knew as 737 pilots.

    Yes, Billionairs can be plenty Socialist, FB. Why would you think not? Once you get the Crony Capitalism (basically Fascism economically with a name that doesn’t flag moderators so much) bigger than the free-market economy, these people become Socialist. They make the rules via their cronies in Big-Gov, so what do they have against bigger government?

    Your Socialist agenda has come to light in my mind via a random comment of yours I saw on some article totally different from the 737-Max ones. I’m guessing you’re one of Godfree Roberts’ Comm-in-tards, but I don’t read his stuff. At least the guy is very nice and polite in his replies to me under other articles, versus your extra juvenile insults thrown in, in 1/2 your comments.

    • Replies: @FB
  93. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    NASA’s mission statement is here: Do you really think in the age of the internet that you can tell bald-faced lies like that?

    here i go again telling bald-faced lies:


    NASA’s new secret Muslim outreach mission was conveniently omitted though the head of the agency finally revealed it this week. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden disclosed that Obama wants him to “find ways to reach out to dominantly Muslim countries” as part of the administration’s efforts to make the space agency a tool of international diplomacy.

    Bolden referred to the new mission as an effort to reach out to “non-traditional partners,” especially countries that don’t have an established space program. Of special focus is Indonesia because it’s the world’s largest Muslim nation, Bolden explained. No word yet on how much money the U.S. government will invest in the Muslim outreach.

    In July of 2010, NASA chief Charles Bolden said in an interview with Al-Jazeera,

    “When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.”

    • Replies: @anon
  94. @anon

    I took a look and noted the “Hindcasting”. I understand the concept, but that allows for lots of fudging, which is, in fact, pretty much what hindcasting is about. It’s very easy to say “oh, yeah, we should have this one factor here, this other here …” One can make lots of stuff work this way. In the engineeringn world, as opposed to science, the numbers have to actually be right.

    Why do those guages show higher numbers, Anon? Do they actually differentiate between the local seabed and the actual level wrt the center of the earth? Are there tidal effects for thes certain stations that show the increase? I don’t live by the ocean, but then an inch or 2 rise in 35 years is not something locals will detect.

    Nope, I’ll believe a model when I read the numbers from one of the more trustworthy organizations one day, and check back in 10 years, or whatever their timetable is. I’m pretty easy-going on this.

    • Replies: @anon
  95. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Achmed claims that “I’ll change my mind if I see a forecast with some numbers that are reasonably close after 10 years.” Bullshit. You won’t, because that is already available, and you totally ignore it. You’ll continue your ad hoc excuse-making, just as you’re doing now. You’re a big, fat liar. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model from 30 years ago is almost spot-on.

    Changed your mind yet? No? Didn’t figure a liar like you would.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Adrian E.
  96. Prusmc says:

    Excellent reason to bring them here to USSA. We can fix the nutritional problem and avoid it spreading. Then the National Health Cares system can cure or provide custody for those permanently damaged. Call Catholic Bishops Council, Lutheran, Methodist and Jewish charities.

  97. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions”

    Um, but that turned out to be mostly correct. China is doing well because they limited their fertility rate, but India, Pakistan, the Near East, Central America, and Africa, are very much not.

    sounds like they should have done what China did

  98. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Cheesy websites with goofy nazi photos that feign to discredit science don’t cut it, wavelet. Try harder.

    Misleading “97% agree” study? Not hardly. Who is misleading? You.

    • Replies: @Meimou
  99. @anon

    I don’t discuss quackery, you are a criminal cult, Greta.

    I still remember the Forest dieback, according to this conspiracy theory peddled, we should not have any trees left.
    I also remember the “Oy veh! The Ozone layer collapsing” conspiracy theory peddled, because the patents on FCKW ran out.

    Sevloid Art

    John Cook
    Resident cartoonist – creator of the Sev Wide Web. Works part time as a web publisher, spends the rest of his time peering at a computer monitor, hunched over his drawing desk or watching DS9 episodes.

    Btw, if you want to safe the planet, please stop breathing.

    • Replies: @anon
  100. @anon

    Mmmm…..Why did you start your graph at year 1870? Why didn’t you go back 12,000 years? Then you would have really captured rising sea levels!!!

    “Southampton researchers have estimated that sea-level rose by an average of about 1 metre per century at the end of the last Ice Age, interrupted by rapid ‘jumps’ during which it rose by up to 2.5 metres per century.”

    “Global sea level rose by a total of more than 120 metres as the vast ice sheets of the last Ice Age melted back. This melt-back lasted from about 19,000 to about 6,000 years ago, meaning that the average rate of sea-level rise was roughly 1 metre per century.”

    National Oceanography Center, Southhampton.

    So what if New York City, Los Angeles and Miami are inundated. By the time that happens their tired, old infrastructure will be so in need of updating that their demise will be a blessing. New cities can be built which will embody the novel infrastructure that our new technologies will demand.

    • Replies: @anon
  101. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Club of Rome and subsequent movements are completely wrong on everything? Achmed, it is you who is wrong on everything! 🙂 Here’s how well the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth predictions have tracked since 1972:

    Source: “The 1972 book Limits to Growth, which predicted our civilisation would probably collapse some time this century, has been criticised as doomsday fantasy since it was published. This research paper has found the book’s forecasts are accurate, 40 years on.”

  102. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    I see you remain steadfast in your refusal to discuss science, while deflecting with your Desperado ad hominem attacks. Oh well, it’s good for people to see just how frightened you are of real scientific data. Get back with us when you’re ready to discuss scientific data, ok?

  103. wayfarer says:

    “Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming?”

    “Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age.”

  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Still we’re changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, which is having measurable, and indeed measured, effects on the biosphere: specifically a large increase in global primary production with many consequences including, most likely, a greater human population and as already observedthe transformation of ecosystems resulting in a wave of species extinctions.

    In addition, there’s good evidence of significant adverse effects of carbon dioxide at low concentrations on human cognitive capacity.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @FB
    , @anon
  105. Vojkan says:

    Either you didn’t read what I wrote or you pretend that climate on Earth has never changed, in spite of the findings of geology, that magnetic poles don’t move, that the Sun doesn’t have cycles that influence climat, or you are saying that farting cows and that rural and small town drivers are indeed responsible for global warming and that cargo vessels and aircraft don’t pollute and there are no fields of plastic floating on the ocean. In any case, with regards to being non-sensical, I return you the compliment.

  106. @anon

    Yes, but the polar ice caps do draw water from the oceans as they expand. Hence the Berring strait was uncovered in the last ice age. You would expect water levels to be rising. Al Gore “predicts” this as well.

    • Replies: @anon
  107. What is this business about a lack of nitrogen? The atmosphere is about eighty percent nitrogen. Has this changed? It sounds nutty, so I must be missing something.

    Maybe this question is foolish as I have not studied the alleged warming, but it seems to me that either glaciers are or are not melting and it should be easy to determine. I don-t see how there can be debate–but again, I am a newbie to this.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Mike P
  108. FB says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Like I said loser why don’t you look up the answers to my very specific questions on the Internet, if it’s copy and paste…?…you ran away from the 737 max discussion without being able to look up the answers…do you want to finish that conversation…?

    You know zilch about engineering or aeronautics or computer models…especially fluid mechanics and heat transfer math that would be used…you may have completed some mickey mouse course here and there but you have never received an engineering degree…much less professional accreditation…and yes I can prove that…I’ve done it before with other mouthy whackos here…just check my comment history…

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  109. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    WN shouldn’t be wasting their time with enviro stuff anyway

    if our countries are to be flooded with 3rd world detritus and our people have no future why worry about supposed global warming? Let the globalists and their mulatto minions roast in a hell on earth 🙂

  110. @anonymous

    I am far from immune to the idea that commercial self interest could easily have played a part in the negotiation and acceptance of the Montreal Protocol but I cannot understand the reasoning fromwhat you have provided and nothing I have found in a few minutes searching the internet suggests that there was a problem of bad science and shysters. In particular I can’t see where expiring patents can have mattered. I look foeward eagerly to your elaboration and sources.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  111. Wally says:

    “Are Humans Innately Religious?”

    Belief in the scientifically impossible “holocaust” is another indicator that they are.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  112. @anon

    That graphic is less than persuasive if I may say so. On the face of it thrre are no proper sources and it is just a picture you have drawn on which, with considerable chutzpah, you have confined the label to “adjusted scenario”!! Is this a little joke, perhaps a private experiment to see what BS can pass unnoticed?

    • Replies: @anon
  113. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Achmed, you’re throwing up excuses that have already been addressed in detail by scientists. You’re not convinced by data, you’re trying to obfuscate the data.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  114. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    The public debate on climate is essentially political not scientific.

    Human activity affects climate in many ways and the focus on carbon dioxide is a distortion of the science.

    For example, the production of air-borne black carbon particles from the combustion of diesel and bunker fuel has a climate forcing comparable to that of the human-caused rise in carbon dioxide concentration.

    Burning sulfur-containing coal and oil adds white sulfate particles to the atmosphere, which have a cooling effect comparable in magnitude to the warming due to carbon dioxide.

    Land use changes are also important. Deforestation, though it raises atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the short run and hence has a warming effect, cools the planet in the long term by raising the land surface albedo (reflectance). Urbanization warms the planet because blacktop roads and most roofing materials have a low reflectance.

    What’s more, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

    • Replies: @anon
  115. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fred V. Reed

    What is this business about a lack of nitrogen? You tell us, Fred, since you’re the first to mention any “lack of nitrogen.” Nitrogen? 🙂

    Glaciers are or are not melting – true. They are. Go to Glacier National Park while you still can see glaciers, only 26 of the original 150 glaciers are left. But those are the little glaciers. Here is what is happening on earth’s two big ice caps on land:

  116. FB says: • Website

    We do have a huge problem with toxicity in our entire ecosystem…this is the real danger…this includes things like mercury levels in tuna…heavy metals in soils and many more nightmares…but the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not the slam dunk that the climate lobby is claiming…

    I have extensive experience in fluid mechanics…as in computational fluid dynamics [CFD] and I know that getting a good model requires lots of back and forth verification in the wind tunnel…and these CFD problems are nothing compared to trying to model the earth’s atmosphere…which we don’t even fully understand…it is absurd…

    The people who come on here and defend these models actually know nothing about fluid mechanics or heat transfer…

    • Replies: @anon
  117. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    No proper sources? Can you even read? Source is listed right in the graph. Hansen, 1988, Scenario B. Go to Scholar.Google and search “Hansen+1988.” Lots of results. If you can read.

  118. Highly recommended.

    Anthony L. Peratt is an American physicist whose most notable achievements and work have been in plasma physics, nuclear fusion and the monitoring of nuclear weapons.

    It all has to do with a suddenly changing field geometry of earth’s magnetic field.
    We live in an electric/plasma universe, not a mechanical one.

    Our ancestros all over the planet left us clues, in Petroglyphs and Geoglyphs.
    They witnessed such an event, and saw huge plasma filaments in the sky.

  119. @anon

    Google , NASA reports Co2 acts as a coolant in the atmosphere, the report is there, I looked at again this morning, you do know how to google, right.

    Here in Montana we have dinosaur and plant and sea fossils that prove that at one time millions of years ago this area was in a tropical climate and at another time was under the ocean and at another time was covered with glaciers, and no humans were on earth, thus proving that earth changes were not caused by humans.

    Also I never said that was connected to NASA, is one of the best sites on the governments chemtrail program and the govs HAARP program.

    If you want to see some of the dinosaur fossils that were found in Montana, go to Museum of the

    • Replies: @anon
  120. Anonymous [AKA "Mystery Man"] says:

    I’m going to help you solve the mystery. Put a couple of ice cubes in a glass of water. Mark the pre-melt level. Let the cubes melt. Check the post-melt level. Voila, the mystery is solved. If you are still mystified do some research on the difference between how land-based glaciers impact sea level rise vs. how water-based ice melt impacts sea level rise.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  121. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chaotic Neutral

    You would expect water levels to be rising, indeed. They are.

    Is sea level rising?
    Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate.

    National Ocean Service
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    U.S. Department of Commerce

    • Replies: @Fuerchtegott
  122. I’m a strong sceptic of anthropogenic climate change but not a bigot, and I’m working to understand it. I think the left may have become so fanatical and group thinkish on climate change because it has invested so much credibility in the issue, especially since the Al Gore movie. If climate change were admitted to be a hoax, what would that do to their credibility?

    I think a greater threat might be peak oil. If our population has been expanded way beyond the natural capacity of the planet during the burning off of fossil fuels, we may be in for a hard fall when these run out, be it in 100, 300, or 500 years. Logic says fossil fuels are a finite commodity.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  123. @anon

    Nope, I’ve seen lots of data including in graphical form showing all kinds of things. A few-decadal warming of a degree C or so that’s stopped a decade ago can have many causes. I’ve yet to see any model proven to predict the whole Earth’s climate. There are a lot of bullshitters, and unfortunately some of the Carl Sagan-style scientists are included. There’s too much fame and fortune in the sky-is-falling.

    Nobody, but nobody had a better one than the formerly erudite Carl Sagan with his “nuclear winter” bullshit. Nobody wants nuclear war – I think that’s an easy thing to figure, but I don’t like exaggerations to convince people, purported-comprehensive models that only work in hindsight, and just pure bullshit.

    • Replies: @anon
  124. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Do you realize Obozo hasn’t been President for years? NEWSFLASH: Trump was elected in 2016. Anyway, when you can discuss scientific data about global warming, instead of trying to detract from it with outdated ad hominem garbage, let us know. I bet you don’t discuss scientific data though.

    • Replies: @anon
  125. renfro says:

    We know were destroying the forests, polluting the oceans, eliminating species, etc., and the pace of the destruction is increasing. It’s way past time to start trying to understand what we are doing to the planet, and we don’t need the idiotic right as exemplified by Trump to help

    But trying to convince the human earthworms among us is useless. Like the earthworm their lives are restricted to eating , shitting and screwing themselves.

    • Replies: @Alice in Wonderland
  126. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Wrong. CO2 is by far the largest forcing factor, much larger than black carbon, which itself has a sizable forcing factor.

    Source: EPA, Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  127. Mike P says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    They really jumped the shark when they tried to pass of Al F. Gore as someone with science creds.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @ken
  128. macilrae says:

    Throughout human history there have been regions of academia which those who want to do serious study and report true results would do best to avoid.

    Today, any person inquiring into the racial basis for intelligence; a true account of the Nazi holocaust or the contribution of humanity to global warming – and subsequently reporting anything other than ‘settled science’ is currently guaranteed a trip to professional oblivion.

    Those who are trapped in these fields know what they have to do in order to survive.

  129. Mike P says:
    @Fred V. Reed

    It is not about molecular nitrogen (N2) but about nitrogen as part of organic matter. This is why nitrogen-based fertilizers (NH4NO3) are used. Alternatively, you can grow plants such as alfalfa, whose roots host symbiotic bacteria that can convert N2 to organic nitrogen.

  130. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    when fewer than 40% of “scientific studies” fail to be replicable, let me know

    until then its profession filled with liars and frauds

    • Replies: @anon
  131. Mike P says:

    That only applies to floating ice. Analogy for land-based glaciers: Put an ice cube into a cup all by itself. Watch it melt and observe the water level. Does it rise or not?

    • Replies: @Jim bob Lassiter
  132. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s absurd that you, arm waving about what a big expert you are in the subject, appear totally ignorant of just how accurate the climate models actually are.


    • LOL: FB
  133. sturbain says:

    The biggest food problem facing Central America today is obesity. I’ve traveled there frequently for 30 years. Even the “poor” are becoming huge.

  134. @anon

    Perhaps George Carlin said it best.

    • Replies: @anon
  135. Mike P says:

    You may recall that Obama in his 2015 State of the Union speech declared that the greatest threat facing us was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn’t nuclear weapons in rogue states either. “No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama.

    All of these “threats” fall under H. L. Mencken’s law:

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    • Agree: Vojkan
    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @anon
  136. Adrian E. says:

    “Achmed claims that “I’ll change my mind if I see a forecast with some numbers that are reasonably close after 10 years.” Bullshit. You won’t, because that is already available, and you totally ignore it. ”

    Such aggressive words and then look at the attached chart: *Adjusted Scenario B*

    So, no, there is no well-known scenario from the late 80es that fits the actual development of temperatures. They had to *adjust* it downwards so that there is less warming, and then it fits more or less. But that’s not all…

    Hansen had different scenarios. Scenario A was the one that was mainly used for scaring people (they called it “business as usual”). It showed much more warming that has actually occurred, no one seriously claims that that was what happened. Scenario B assumed significant carbon emission reductions, but it still shows much more warming than what actually happened (if anon was interested in being taken seriously, he would also show the *unadjusted* scenario B). Well, if it is adjusted towards less climate sensitivity (i.e. less warming), it somehow fits. I think that is just what critics of climate alarmists talk about. The alarmists have predictions of doom and gloom. Then, when decades later, people recognize that this has not happened, they present the old models *adjusted downwards* towards less warming and hope people don’t notice (and don’t think what they say currently should not be adjusted downwads, too).

    There were, of course, many different predictions, some more catastrophic, others less. In order to assess early predictions, I think it is important to focus on the ones that were most famous and most recocnized in the late 80es and early 90es. One of them is the models of Hansen that showed much more warming than what actually happened (except if his model B for the case that there are large emission reductions is taken and adjusted downwards towards less warming, see above). Onother landmark prediction is the policy summary of the first IPCC report from 1990. Everyone should read it and compare it with what actually happened. It predicted 0.3°C warming per decade (and a range of 0.2°C per decade to 0.4°C per decade). Furthermore, it predicted that temperatures would be around 1°C higher in 2025 than in 1990 (well, that is more or less what you would get with 0.3°C warming per decade).

    What has actually happened? It depends on how global average temperatures are measured. The most common time series with thermometers close to the ground (which are probably influenced by the urban heat island effect) show 0.19°C warming per decade since the end of the 70es. Measurements for the lowest layer of the athmosphere from satellites show 0.13°C warming per decade. So, in order not to be influenced by the potential urban heat island effect would be around 0.15°C per decade. That is below the lower range of the policy summary in the first IPCC report, and it is far below 0.3°C, the actual prediction of the IPCC (and very far below their upper range of 0.4°C).

    I think that anthropogenic climate change is real and that it can be a potential problem – at present, it is not clear whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but if it goes on a long time, a range where disadvantages clearly dominate could be reached. It is not likely that it will lead to a catastrophe in the next decades, but that does not mean that there is no reason for concern, at all.

    I would think it would benefit the credibility of warnings about global warming very much if people openly conceded that, as far as we can judge from how temperatures actually developed, it is a much less serious problem than people like Hansen thought in the 80es and 90es. A good credible message could be that it is less threatening than initially thought, but that this does not mean that it is not a problem, at all, in the long term.

    But climate alarmists who don’t recognize, at all, that there has been much less warming than predicted (and all the time have their cherrypicked “worse than we thought” factlets) just don’t have much credibility (partially, I regret this because it could mean that people are frightened too much, partially, I regret it because it undermines the warnings’ credibility so much that many people won’t believe in potential dangers of global warming any more, at all).

    Falsely claiming that temperatures have actually developed as Hansen predicted – and then presenting a chart of Hansen’s lower prediction further *adjusted* downwards towards a lower climate sensitivity and hence less warming is also something that is certainly not helping the credibility of warnings about climate change.

    We still have a few years to go, but I doubt many people still believe global average temperatures will be 1°C higher in 2025 than in 1990. That would be an extreme acceleration. So, it would be good to recognize that there has been much less warming than predicted (which does not mean that it is none at all and that it could not be a problem some time in the future).

    • Replies: @anon
  137. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    A few-decadal warming of a degree C or so that’s stopped a decade ago? When or where did it stop? Please be specific, by year, or approximation to year, or global region. You keep making claims you just cannot back up. Try backing up a claim of yours for once.

    Source: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
  138. Mike P says:

    May I remind the hyperventilating anonymous climate doomsters on this thread that hyperventilation releases CO2 – you are just making it worse, folks. If all doomsters stopped hyperventilating, global warming would stop, too.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @ken
    , @Vojkan
  139. @Mike P

    Their data is highly manipulated and very selective, simply fraudulent. It’s a political agenda, nothing at all to do with science. But what it proves, science is through and through corrupt. Gimme a central bank, and I will get the demanded “scientific” results I want.
    Their infamous “poor polar bear is gonna die” is absolutely absurd. These polar bears have survived much warmer periods in the past.

    From non doctored data, it is very clear, earth has alternating warmer and colder periods, because planets and stars are magneto-electric objects.

    The long time temperature curve looks thus like a sin wave as in A(lternating)C(current). The trigger are plasma discharges, which can also create these perfectly round craters with partially big and high plateaus in the center, which a plasma column lifts up. And these discharges can occur within hours, and hence they found flash frozen Mammoths in Siberia.

    • Replies: @anon
  140. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    You mention extinction. It is indeed already happening, often called the Sixth Mass Extinction. Let me introduce a new term to you: co-extinction.

    Graph source: Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change
    Source discussing the above Nature article: “New research has found that extreme climate change risks an extinction effect that could annihilate all life on earth.

    What does it mean? Deductive logic:
    Premise 1: The Trump Administration has already forecast 4°C warming in 80 years [The Trump Administration Forecasts 7 Degrees Fahrenheit of Global Warming by 2100, Popular Mechanics, Sept. 2018]
    Premise 2: Only 3°-5°C warming is necessary for co-extinction of most life on earth.
    Conclusion: Humans may go extinct within 80 years.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @anon
    , @CanSpeccy
  141. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Animals have been breathing and exhaling CO2 for the last 400,000 years without raising CO2 above 300. Now It’s well over 400. Breathing didn’t cause that abrupt rise in CO2. And you know it. Thanks for demonstrating the paucity of intellect in mouth-breathers like yourself.

  142. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    The trigger are plasma discharges? Wrong. Your goofy myth is debunked here: “What’s the link between cosmic rays and climate change?”

  143. I don’t trust anybody on either or any side of this issue. They all have ulterior motives. They all have hidden agendae. I think everybody’s wrong. Who knows what’s right. But one thing I am sure of. Everybody’s wrong.

    And another thing I am sure of: all this global warming emphasis buries plain old pollution, radiation, all sorts of plain as day proven dangers to human life.

  144. Mike P says:

    The long time temperature curve looks thus like a sine wave

    Yep, and there is no “consensus” as to what causes these oscillations. Since we don’t have an agreed-upon theory to quantitatively account for natural variation, we don’t know the baseline against which to measure the human contribution.

    If you compare current temperatures to he peak temperatures of the Holocene optimum, the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods, it becomes clear that the overall trend is down. A bit of man-made warming would do us good – help stave off the next ice age.

    And if all else fails, we can always light some nukes to get ourselves some “nuclear winter.” Strange how that hobgoblin has disappeared, isn’t it? For if it were true, then we could just “nuke” global warming – sure cheaper than the “Green New Deal.” Or, more “sustainably”, we could just cover the Sahara in tin foil to reflect some excess solar energy right back into space.

    But neither nukes nor tin foil will be needed – because it is all BS from top to bottom.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Germanicus
  145. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Wrong. CO2 is by far the largest forcing factor …

    I’m only quote James Hansen, the “father” of global warming theory, who estimated the cooling effect of reflective aerosols at negative 1.4 Watts m sup 2, or exactly equal and opposite to the then (2003) estimated effect of carbon dioxide.

    No doubt estimates have changed a bit since 2003, but I doubt if Hansen’s general conclusion has changed.

    There are many forcings, including forced changes in cloud cover and changes in solar output, that in total far exceed that of carbon dioxide.

    The Hansen paper was published in naturalSCIENCE, the world’s first web science magazine, which is now defunct, although the Hansen article is accessible on the wayback machine — if you wait long enough for the slow service.

  146. Mike P says:

    Premise 2: Only 3°-5°C warming is necessary for co-extinction of most life on earth.
    Conclusion: Humans may go extinct within 80 years.

    That’s right. We can go to Mars and live there sustainably, but on Earth, we will just have to stand by helplessly while 3 degrees of warming does us in.

    • Replies: @anon
  147. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adrian E.

    So, no, there is no well-known scenario from the late 80es that fits the actual development of temperatures? Wrong. More than wrong, you’re flat out lying, or at least repeating other liars, as explained here, as follows:

    Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth, which did not occur. In other words, to support the claim that Hansen’s projections were “an astounding failure,” Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality.

    Gavin Schmidt provides a comparison between all three scenarios and actual global surface temperature changes in Figure 3.

    Figure 3: Hansen’s projected vs. observed global temperature changes (Schmidt 2009)

    As you can see, Hansen’s projections showed slightly more warming than reality, but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4, nor were they “an astounding failure” by any reasonably honest assessment. Yet a common reaction to Hansen’s 1988 projections is “he overestimated the rate of warming, therefore Hansen was wrong.”

    What do we learn from James Hansen’s 1988 prediction?

  148. @FB

    If you had a way to prove it, Socialist bullshitter, it wouldn’t help, because I most certainly do. I’m not gonna go around looking up proper definitions of phugoids and other aspects of longitudinal stablity just to satisfy some nutcase on the internet.

    Just as your writing here doesn’t prove anything, that would not prove anything either. I know more about heat transfer than you could ever learn, as far as the analytical side. (I’ve been more in the stress-strain/structures end of things). Again, though, going through some sort of internet test wouldn’t prove a thing. I just see how you explain things only via cut-and-paste, not via nice accurate explanations (without the calculus) for the layman readers.

    I let slide your bullshit about railway wheels and friction a few days back just because I hate arguing with ‘tards all day long. Friction has nothing to do with the efficiency of rail travel, energy-wise. It’s important to have a high value for traction purposes (the reason sand is laid down in front of locomotive wheels up in the mountains/great-white-north). What matters to efficiency is rolling resistance which is not about friction but about deformation of the 2 materials in rolling contact. It’s a different animal, though laymen (see what I’m getting at) confuse these two and rightfully so, as the term “friction” is used anyway by people who don’t study it.

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
  149. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    He’s right. Along his lines, I think humans were put on earth to recreate a Jurassic Park by evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere. It’s a big project. The Chinese geneticists will resurrect dinosaurs just in time for humans to go extinct and dinosaurs to enjoy another Hothouse Earth. Then they’ll dieoff, make fossil fuel, and we can do it all over again! It’s probably already happened a billion times inside the computer simulation in which we live. 🙂

  150. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Except climate change isn’t “imaginary.” There is scientific evidence. Lots of it.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  151. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    When you’ll actually consider scientific evidence, instead of making excuses with logical fallacies to ignore it, let me know.

    • Replies: @anon
  152. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    They didn’t. Al Gore never claimed any false scientific credentials. To say so is a lie. His only credential at the beginning of the movie is a self-deprecating “former next president of the united states.” He never claimed to be anything more than a presenter of science as he understood it.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  153. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    You mention extinction. It is indeed already happening, often called the Sixth Mass Extinction. Let me introduce a new term to you: co-extinction.

    another idiot with a God complex

    • Replies: @anon
  154. Nobody needs me to point out that conservation and conservatism have the same root. It’s not an accident. If your belief system gives you faith that progress will solve all problems, you are by definition a progressive. Expecting change to trend towards positive results is the mindset that conservatism should be resisting. Environmentalism is only the enemy of conservatism when it’s patently an ideological power/money grab that mandates untested solutions at the cost of individual freedom.

  155. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Let me introduce a new term to you: co-extinction

    If you paid more attention to what other people said, rather than being such an annoying and arrogant anonymous prick you’d know that I have acknowledged the inevitability of what you call “co-extinction” in a blog post linked above where I point out that:

    rising carbon dioxide concentration is changing the species composition of plant communities and thereby changing the composition of the animal communities that depend on the plants for food and shelter.

    Such change in the “composition of animal communities” includes, obviously, extinctions, that is extinctions resulting from changes in the composition of the supporting plant communities.

    As for your statement:

    Only 3°-5°C warming is necessary for co-extinction of most life on earth

    you confound the number of species extinctions with “most life on earth,” which is quite unjustified. It is estimated that there may be a million or more species of beetle. If carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise, large areas of savanna will turn to forest, which means the possible extinction of a few dozen or, at most, hundred plant species, but the extinction of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of beetles and other species dependent on savanna vegetation. So yes, there could be many fewer bugs in the world, but “most life on earth” will not be extinguished. Indeed there will be more of it measured in total biomass.

    As for your statement:

    Conclusion: Humans may go extinct within 80 years.

    That is really absurd. Sure, we may wipe ourselves out with WMDs or be wiped out by an asteroid, but the effect of carbon dioxide on the rest of the biosphere will hardly touch us, and to the extent that it does, it will, by alleviating food shortages, likely raise the human population to a greater number than it would otherwise have been.

    • Replies: @anon
  156. mike k says:

    Climate crisis deniers speaking as industry trolls sure came out in numbers for this one. Unfortunately ordinary citizens who respect the overwhelming consensus of scientists on the reality of human caused global heating do not receive payment for their rational concerns. Talk about crackpot anti- evolution religion – welcome to the industry supporters who worship fossil fuel burning and the God of money.

  157. ken says:
    @Mike P

    Add to that the idea that politicians can solve a problem whether it’s real or not. The fact that the politicians pushing hardest are the wackiest, yell to shut down debate and reduce themselves to ad hominem attacks does more to increase my skepticism than any adjusted graph. Even that Hanson dude scoffed at the Paris Climate accord.

    • Agree: Mike P
  158. ken says:
    @Mike P

    They could all eat a bullet and do the rest of us the favor of fewer people driving in cars or flying in planes.

  159. MarkU says:

    Peter Baggins Phd, in what subject exactly? An admittedly quick search of the internet found nothing to resolve my question, maybe someone who has a Facebook account could find out. I would be willing to bet he is not a climate scientist.

    The article starts off by listing a lot of premature predictions of doom, fair enough, people usually underestimate our ability to postpone a problem, nearly always at the cost of making it worse in the long term.

    A lot of time is spent on Al Gore, not a climate scientist or indeed any type of scientist, who could have imagined that Al Gore’s work wouldn’t be definitive?

    Add to that some occasions where real scientists have found some errors in their models and admitted it, seemingly this means that science is corrupt and dishonest (I would have concluded the opposite but what do I know?)

    Add the less than stunning fact that Co2 is useful for plant growth and BINGO greenhouse gas driven climate change is a hoax or something.

    Call me Mr Unconvinced.

    • Replies: @anon
  160. @Tulips

    It’s becoming common practice for genuine academics to use pseudonyms when writing on controversial subjects, especially if expressing not generally accepted, or non-PC, views. Lasha Darkmoon Ph.D. comes to mind. I suppose we just have to trust their claims of academic credentials and it usually shows through their writings. There must be some falsely claiming they have Ph.D.s when using a pseudonym but there are also fake Ph.D.s in real life too. You’d be surprised how many there are with fake degrees working in various professions. What, you don’t have any Indian “doctors” with fake M.D. degrees working in US hospitals?

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  161. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Five mass extinctions have preceded the current Sixth. It’s just science. Can you read? It doesn’t take a god to read.

    • Replies: @anon
  162. Mike P says:

    Except climate change isn’t “imaginary.” There is scientific evidence. Lots of it.

    A link to a NASA website – impressive. The same guys who did such a stellar job preserving the evidence of the moon landings. NASA, the very model of scientific integrity.

    • Replies: @anon
  163. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    CS: you confound the number of species extinctions with “most life on earth,”

    Oh, really? I’m not sure you can read.

    “…the complete annihilation of all life…”

    Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change

    Don’t correct me if you can’t even read the article of which you claim to be so knowledgeable.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  164. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    when you’re done repeating yourself, let me know

  165. Mike P says:

    They didn’t. Al Gore never claimed any false scientific credentials. To say so is a lie.

    I said “science creds” – as in, geek creds, street creds – get it? Now bugger off, you little spam bot.

    • Replies: @anon
  166. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:

    it’s your attitude, fool

    you get your rocks off believing this garbage and pretending to educate others


    piss off Chicken Little

    • Replies: @anon
  167. @Tulips

    Many use pseudonyms, although I do think we need to be critical regarding titles like PHDs and etc on anonymous people

  168. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    There is no “consensus”? Study after study demonstrate just how wrong you are.
    Source: The 97% consensus on global warming

    That the overall trend is down? Wrong.

    Source: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures

    Mike P’s biggie! “If carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise, large areas of savanna will turn to forest..”

    LOL! Do provide the slightest evidence of your hare-brained claim. Please!

  169. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Let’s go back 200,000 years. I’m here to make you happy. 🙂

    Source: Sea Level in the Past 200,000 Years

  170. @Mike P

    But neither nukes nor tin foil will be needed – because it is all BS from top to bottom.

    Yup, and if you consider, they cut down trees and entire forests, to build 5G masts every few meters, because it is millimeter wave technology, while claiming CO2 would be a problem, it becomes absurd. They cut down the C02->O2 converters.

    This 5G stuff is this kind of technology, and it is a lethal weapon, depending on the energy input and frequency.

    Regarding consensus, yup, but there are very very strong indicators it all has to do with the sun, solar eruptions, coronal mass ejections, that cause changes in the magnetic field, and bring plasma discarges. Quite officially, the sun gets colder and colder towards its core, which is expected in an electric universe. Whats the bet at the center of planets and stars, at the core, you have 0K and 0 gravity?
    Also, in recent years, the magnetic poles moved with a pretty high speed, so they have to constantly adjust flight navigation and guidance systems earlier than expected.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  171. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    The Sixth Mass Extinction is already underway. No “chicken little” about it.

    Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
    Science Advances 19 Jun 2015: Vol. 1, no. 5, e1400253 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253

    • Replies: @MacNucc11
  172. MarkU says:

    To me these discussions always miss the elephant in the room, overpopulation. Both the right and the left are unwilling to discuss the subject for different reasons.

    The right usually don’t want to discuss it because the debt based capitalist economic system requires continual growth to function and population growth is just about the only way that the next generation can afford to pay the interest on the debts of the last. The fact that perpetual growth on a finite planet is logically impossible is apparently of no consequence to economists or bankers.

    The left won’t talk about it because it isn’t ‘whitey’ doing the overpopulating so even discussing it is racist (How and why the left have seemingly morphed into reality denying, holier than thou, social justice warriors is a discussion for another time)

    Meanwhile we are crapping up the planet bigtime and with no constraints on uncontrolled breeding we are also screwing up our own civilisation. The average IQ of the human race continues to decline because on average stupid people have more children than intelligent people.

    The obvious answer to most of humanities problems, resource depletion, species loss, pollution and other environmental concerns is population control.

    • Replies: @ken
  173. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Oh, and Al Gore was right about climate change affecting polar bears too.

    Source: How will global warming affect polar bears?

    Yes, there are some regions in which polar bear numbers are increasing, noted in the green. Note also how small that green section is becoming. But go ahead, dig around and find the study that shows that green section for me. I want you to do it.

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @ken
  174. MacNucc11 says:

    This sounds like total gibberish to me. First let’s assume this is somehow correct regarding women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. If you are too “malnourished” to have seven kids how are you not too malnourished to have 6? I would think at some point yes, after 6 kids sure food may be starting to get scarce but how many kids is it normal to have? That hardly sounds like a famine, mass starvation, or even mass malnutrition. What are the base line numbers of previous years that the stunted children in Pakistan and are based on and could these numbers actually represent an improvement?

  175. @anon

    Increasing tonnage thanks to maritime trade?

    • Replies: @anon
  176. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I wouldn’t bother with the attempt at education. You are obviouly dealing with someone who has a massive inferiority complex and is more interested in a dick measuring contest.

    Why is it that every charlatan I’ve met in my career goes out of his way to tell me how good he is while gaslighting? They all seem to have this desperation to establish some sort of credibility. Asking you to take an internet test instead of responding to the points in your argument is a new one though. Did he really suggest that? Anyway, that notion gave me a good chuckle.

  177. FB says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    So you have no answers to my very specific technical questions about longitudinal flying stability…?

    Yes or no…?

    You can bullshit all you want…but it doesn’t change the fact that you can’t look up those answers on the internet…and your continuing inability to do that for weeks now puts the lie to your bullshit…

    I issued that challenge to you because you disputed the fact that the 737 MAX is considered longitudinally unstable…and you responded that you know more than me…but you know diddly…I have already proved that…

    You didn’t even know the five measurable longitudinal flying qualities, except for static stability…I had to name the other four for you when you immediately cried uncle…it’s all in the record asswipe…

    Then I asked you to give me the units in which those four are measured…PLUS the CODIFIED STANDARDS that apply…

    A real aeronautical engineer will have no problem with this…and I stand ready to provide this information as soon as you cry uncle like you inevitably will…

    Did you really think you could keep operating your bullshit factory here, without eventually running into an actual competent professional who would tear you apart like a cardboard box…?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  178. MacNucc11 says:

    Really? It must be a mistake that they show what clearly looks like a deer as I have seen where populations are so high they are offering bounties to help bring them down. Planning to bring back predators for the same and attempting to get more hunters. Canada Geese populations have skyrocketed to the point they have had to euthanize large numbers where they have become a nuisance and bag limits are ridiculously high. I live in an urban area and we have huge populations of birds and mammals. I can see raccoons, possum, squirrels, chipmunks, skunks, feral cats, birds, rabbits, woodchucks, beaver, eagles, hawks, falcons, coyotes, mice, moles, ducks, fish of all kinds, and all form of insects including supposedly endangered praying mantis. Sure in other countries this may be true to some extent but look for it to reverse as modernization occurs.

    • Replies: @anon
  179. @Wizard of Oz

    The ozone hole opens every year. Ozone is a product of sunlight and O2. In the Southern Hemisphere’s winter, there isn’t much sun.

    My heavens, people are easy to fool.

    I’d give you citations but it appears that Orwell’s Memory Hole has been especially effective these days.

    If you assume everything you read that is produced by any corporation (and the MSM is entirely made of corporations) is a lie, you’ll be right essentially all the time. Surely you know this.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Wizard of Oz
  180. Mike P says:

    The ozone hole opens every year … but it appears that Orwell’s Memory Hole has been especially effective these days.

    Wait. Could this be related? Could it be that the ozone hole is the memory hole? After all, fridges caused the ozone hole, and I read somewhere that fridges cause Alzheimer’s, too … or did I just make this up? don’t remember … then again, the ozone hole is high up, whereas you throw things down the memory hole. So, probably not.

    Glad we could clear this up.

    • Replies: @anon
  181. How does one tell the difference between a theory that simply isn’t complete and a theory that’s utter BS?

    Example: In 1922 Ludwig von Mises published Socialism, in which he irrefutably proves that resource allocation within a socialist “economy” (AKA an “economy” that does not establish prices in for factors in production via free choice) will be utterly random and wasteful.

    Despite this, the USSR lasted another 71 years and outlived Mises by almost 20. The theory (criticism) is based on economic axioms, akin to making predictions based on mathematical constants. Yet it didn’t prove to be useful in a timely way.

    I believe that we’re (hopefully) nearing the end of the longest, highest amplitude credit bubble in recorded history. I base this on the following factors:
    1. The bond market reached a 35 year bear market low in 1981.
    2. Since then, prices for debt have risen.
    3. Bonds are an intangible asset and thus do not obey “Econ 101” supply-demand price models. In fact, as price for an intangible rises in a bull market, demand rises, too.
    4. The rising value of debt allowed an OCEAN of bonds to be issued.
    5. All that debt issuance had a perverse effect: For every dollar borrowed and spent, at least two dollars of wealth emerged. (1) Dollar was spent into the GDP-counting economy and traveled around at the velocity of money, and (2) a second dollar, an asset, was added to the bondholder’s balance sheet. This had the effect of making it look like borrowing-to-spend was a wealth-creation machine.

    For nearly 40 years governments, businesses and individuals borrowed and spent, creating vast wealth (or so it seems.) This artificially stimulated demand for all kinds of goods and services, and the organizations committed to supplying these grew like crazy, employing tens of millions of people in North America alone. These people borrowed and spent, and what they saved ended up as demand in the bond market, keeping prices elevated (in that bull market.)

    I believe this is a vast credit bubble, and no matter how much more debt is issued and no matter how high the stock market soars, I don’t see a reason to change my analysis. The theory (above) is in my view irrefutable. But it’s obvious that it has been of zero, if not outright negative predictive value.

    Someday people will stop being so trusting of everything (including the honor of those who issued all that debt.) Someday the social trust will change to social fear and distrust, and the wealth value of most of that debt will evaporate, as will ALL of the artificially-stimulated economic demand for all kinds of goods and services. It should be the MOTHER of ALL Deflationary Depressions.

    So am I a fool for seeing things this way, and resisting the notion that this Long Boom’s continuation belies my entire premise?

    BTW, anthropogenic climate change is obvious baloney, as life on Earth wouldn’t still exist were it not an incredibly buffered system.

    • Replies: @anon
  182. MarkU says:

    Quite officially, the sun gets colder and colder towards its core, which is expected in an electric universe. Whats the bet at the center of planets and stars, at the core, you have 0K and 0 gravity?

    Are you seriously trying to pass this stuff off as accepted astrophysics?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  183. I can see raccoons, possum, squirrels, chipmunks, skunks, feral cats, birds, rabbits, woodchucks, beaver, eagles, hawks, falcons, coyotes, mice, moles, ducks, fish of all kinds, and all form of insects including supposedly endangered praying mantis

    I hope they don’t cover your area with 5G, you will see less and less of these beauties, they gonna try to flee, go crazy or die from the constant non ionized radiation that is pulsed in the environment.

    I also can’t confirm the bee decrease, but I know its a problem in the US, due to the industrial usage of the bees and pesticides, and 5G.
    In fact, this year, bees moved in the roof instead of wasps.

  184. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    How is inundation of coastal infrastructure, especially during storm surges, going to help maritime trade? Might want to talk to a re-insurance agent about that. Or the Navy.

    Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate
    Insurers are at the vanguard of a movement to put a value today on the unpredictable future of a warming planet

    “Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and may limit the availability of overseas bases.”
    global climate change –

  185. @FB

    Nope it’s all there on that thread, buddy. I disputed your contention that that aircraft is longitudinally unstable IN GENERAL. The MCAS system was developed (not that I think this is the way to design aircraft) to correct longitudinal stability problems at only the specific conditions at the high angle of attack that it should not be flown at to begin with (but s__t happens in flying, including wind shear and wake turbulence – I get that.) This was all explained to you in the other thread, but you were way too busy cutting and pasting in pics and videos (though I do like that pilot out in the Pac NW – I watched that whole thing) to read through my comments enough to comprehend.

    Nope your simple questions were of definitions and units. Of course anyone could look that up – it just takes typing the words in in duckduckgo, bing, or google. How could you not be able to look it up? Try it – is the 100 year old math on stability a trade secret? Not hardly. I’m not gonna be your internet go-to guy. If you have something to dispute than DO IT WITH FACTUAL ARGUMENTS, not this BS about your being a test pilot (and test pilots are actual engineers, unless things have changed in the last 10 years.) All you can do is dispute my qualifications to write here, but I’m not going to post .jpg of diplomas and FAA certs./ratings. Screw off, Euro-trash.

    • Replies: @FB
  186. utu says:

    Global Warming is Pseudoscience by Ivar Giaever (1973 Nobel Prize in Physics)

    • Replies: @anon
  187. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re obfuscating the fact that the ozone hole has grown in size with pollution, and remains well above average. And the amount of protective ozone has decreased below average.


    Citations? Show em if you got ’em. You’re not fooling anybody but yourself.

  188. @MarkU

    Are you seriously trying to pass this stuff off as accepted astrophysics?

    Alright, can you define magnetism? What is it?

    • Replies: @MarkU
  189. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    Deer is a category of animals, not a species; there are more species of deer than whitetail. The Red Deer in Scotland and the Key Deer in Florida are both on the endangered species list. Yes, Canadian geese population has exploded for one reason: they’re thriving in human habitat that is covering more and more area, and many are not not migrating anymore.

  190. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    And this is his shtick, in his own words: “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google…”

    LoL! Real expert there! This illustration describes the behavior of Ivar Giaever to a ‘T’

    Source: Ivar Giaever – Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

    • Replies: @utu
  191. macilrae says:

    The truth is that the ‘signal’ we are looking for to prove AGW is so buried in noise (including political noise) that the case is, as yet, incapable of being made thirty years on and more. Those who assert that AGW is fact are growing, year by year, ever more frustrated because they believed and promised that it would be self-evident by now.

    Causing the least skeptical to say:
    “Doesn’t look as bad as we thought eh?”

    • Replies: @anon
  192. MarkU says:

    Magnetism is a class of physical phenomena that are mediated by magnetic fields. Electric currents and the magnetic moments of elementary particles give rise to a magnetic field, which acts on other currents and magnetic moments.

    So now you are passing off a question as some sort of a point?

    I have read that ‘electric universe’ stuff, it looked very interesting but you can hardly pass it off as mainstream astrophysics.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  193. FB says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Sure bullshit artist…so now you are saying you can look up the answers but you just don’t want to…?

    Here is a news flash for you…there are these things called books…and I have about 300 of them in my engineering library…

    And not everything that’s in aeronautical engineering books is on the Internet asswipe…maybe you didn’t know that either…

    So here’s the thing…I’m going to give you 24 hours to look up the answers on the internet…[on top of the several weeks you’ve already spent searching fruitlessly]…LOL

    And then I will consider that you are crying uncle and will proceed to post the pertinent images of the pages from the book on flight dynamics where this information is covered in detail…

    How does that sound asswipe…?

    Or you can surprise all of us by looking up the answers on those search engines like you say you can…[but of course we know that’s bullshit]….

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  194. So, in a nutshell, what does the author of this is saying? He is saying that, contrary to environmentalists’ “doomsday predictions”, we are not pressed for time, let alone out of time, for doing something to save the environment. His advice? Let us do nothing. The big problem? Al Gore is profitting. Gee, this is terrible. We’d much rather have, say, Exxon, or any other giant corporation profit. Because we hate the new rich. The old ones are much better.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  195. Sean says:

    Like intellectuals since the Enilghtenment, they believe that religion and nations states must be transcended and so they want to believe in a threat the human life on the planet, which will require cooperation, and everyone paying attention to scientists instead of political leaders

    In his own way–typical of hard scientists–Carroll is just like Zizek and Peterson, who Carroll scolds for obscuring the value of their viewpoints under a vast superstructure of pretentiousness. But look at what Carrol believes in the area in which he is an expert:

    The Many Worlds Theory of quantum behavior says that every time there is a quantum event, a world splits off with everything in it the same, except in that other world the quantum event didn’t happen. As you read this, you are splitting into multiple copies of yourself thousands of times per second. Step-by-step in Carroll’s uniquely lucid way, he sets out the major objections to this utterly mind-blowing notion until his case is inescapably established

    Back to the post:

    You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.

    Ah, but what if human ingenuity is the problem?

    I think we can divide the space of possible AI minds into two reasonably distinct categories. One category comprises the “passive AI minds” that seemed to be the main focus of the Chalmers-Dennett exchange. These are driven by large data sets and optimize their performance relative to some externally imposed choice of “objective function” that specifies what we want them to do—win at GO, or improve paperclip manufacture. And Dennett and Chalmers are right—we do indeed need to be very careful about what we ask them to do, and about how much power they have to implement their own solutions to these pre-set puzzles.

    The other category comprises active AIs with broad brush-strokes imperatives. These include Karl Friston’s Active Inference machines. AI’s like these spawn their own goals and sub-goals by environmental immersion and selective action. Such artificial agents will pursue epistemic agendas and have an Umwelt of their own. These are the only kind of AIs that may, I believe, end up being conscious of themselves and their worlds—at least in any way remotely recognizable as such to us humans. They are the AIs who could be our friends, or who could (if that blunt general imperative was played out within certain kinds of environment) become genuine enemies. It is these radicalized embodied AIs I would worry about most. At the same time (and for the same reasons) I’d greatly like to see powerful AIs from that second category emerge. For they would be real explorations within the vast space of possible minds.

  196. @MarkU

    I have read that ‘electric universe’ stuff, it looked very interesting but you can hardly pass it off as mainstream astrophysics.

    I just asked, because none of the official sciences can answer this simple question.
    I simply don’t care for corrupt mainstream physics. They are true idiots with childish conceptions, and their degrees and titles don’t mean anything.

    If you look it up, pretty recent thermal measurements of these sun spots show to official science’s shock, temperatures are colder inside. That’s a problem for them, I am aware of that, and I am giggling about it.

    Watch and learn

    Mr Wheeler with his taped together ferrocell does more actual science than any of the atomists and virtual unicorn particle hunters.

    And the fun aspect, it is repeatable at home by everyone interested. Costs only a few bucks to build the cell, and its great if you can actually explain your children what school can’t do, fail to do.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  197. Mike P says:
    @Brás Cubas

    If there really is no emergency, why should we go along with all those harebrained schemes? The “climate change” hysteria is whipped up in order to rob the sheeple of even more money, and to ram all manner of globalist control down their throats. Ever wondered why the answer to the problem lies in those sweeping international agreements that infringe more and more on national sovereignty?

    The “climate change” hoax was invented by the globalist cabal because the nuke scare didn’t work anymore; people had become inured to it. Once the climate change scare has run its course, they are going to trash that, too, and replace it with another bogeyman.

    (Maybe a computer virus that evolved among AI bots and infects the brains of all those humans that refuse to get an immunising chip implanted? Protect your loved ones – get your FREE chip implant today! Just a suggestion.)

    I am sure Anon 122 and his fellow trolls and shills will apprise us of it in due course.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    , @anon
    , @anon
  198. roonaldo says:

    Over half a century ago, Edward Lorenz’s attempt to use computers to improve weather forecasting led him to the discovery of the chaos principle–that a minute difference in initial conditions of even the most stripped-down model produced widely divergent results from what was expected. The implications were staggering–chaotic physical systems are inherently unpredictable and future states of complex systems are not predictable. We cannot know where a system ends up nor why. There is an implacable limit to our knowledge.

    If weather systems elude predictability, so must climate systems, obviously. There is no getting around this, try as some might. One can “yeah but this scientist, yeah but that Paris Accord, yeah but there’s a consensus” until you’re blue in the face, but you’re still shit-out-of-luck. Claiming otherwise is pure charlatanism.

  199. anarchyst says:
    @Chaotic Neutral

    Oil (hydrocarbon products) are abiotic in nature and are constantly being created by yet unknown processes, deep within the earth. Russian (and other) oil interests are drilling oil wells miles into the earth, well below the depths of “decayed fossil plant and animal material” and are coming up with oil. In fact, many of our old, depleted oil wells are “filling back up”, oil IS migrating from the depths.
    The term “fossil fuel” came into being in the 1950s, when little was known about the dynamics and origin of hydrocarbon products.
    The “peak oil” proponents and others who HATE hydrocarbons being a “renewable resource” are livid over the concept that oil is constantly being created deep within the earth.
    Observations by scientists of other celestial bodies note that some of them are showing evidence of massive hydrocarbon deposits.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  200. utu says:

    The points that Ivar Giaever makes in his lecture are well framed and very sensible and to any reasonable person who has some background in science and its methodology and some understanding of epistemology should give a pause to be cautions and skeptical about the the avalanche of claims that are being made by agitated true believers like you.

    I posted the link to Ivar Giaever talk because it is very refreshing. It is taken form a position of rational and reasonable man not form a position of a fanatic or ideologue.

    • Replies: @anon
  201. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    AGW is so buried in noise? Maybe in 1990. Not any more, the signal is loud and clear, as in “99.999 percent” sure. Of course, that leaves the ol’ 1 chance in 100,000 that AGW theory is wrong.

    The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions.

    A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes

    • Replies: @macilrae
  202. @anon

    So, what caused all these other similar peaks, thousands of years before industrial age? While we are at it, the warmest period in Earth history was Mesozoic era, millions of years before humans or even apes emerged. What caused that?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Sergey Krieger
  203. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    Eight paragraphs of libertarian economics followed by a single sentence on AGW stating an obvious fact with which any AGW scientist would agree. What the hell? Climate scientists are well aware that Earth has “an incredibly buffered system,” dumbass.

    Earth’s oceans provide a crucial buffer against climate change by swallowing 93 percent of the excess heat trapped by the greenhouse gases humans are spewing into the atmosphere.

    Oceans had their hottest year on record in 2018 as global warming accelerates

    Of course, buffers can only absorb so much abuse.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  204. @Mike P

    Capitalists are globalists too. Do you think Exxon or Shell care one iota about the U.S. as a nation? Why do you think a global government is worse than the rule of big capital? Big Capital tells us lies daily, but rightwing conspiracists do not seem to care about them, because there does not seem to be a unifying plan to them. Why are people more scared of diffuse evil than of concentrated one? It does not make sense. Schopenhauer has rightly pondered that evil in one place is better than spread all around us. The world would be better off in the long run under a global government of a less than democratic nature than under thousands of “democracies”, semi-“democracies” and outright dictatorships.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  205. @Achmed E. Newman

    I do not like to interfere but now you speak total nonsense. Actually total idiocy. Friction is everything, and materials in rolling contact have the surfaces infused with carbon and are tempered and there is absolutely no deflection. (You just speak garbage.)

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @anon
  206. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    What you falsely deride are scientific facts with plenty of evidence that you, as a “fanatic or ideologue,” refuse to accept. Climate scientists are already “cautious and skeptical.” In fact, they’re too conservative, as scientists are by trade.

    Climate scientists have been so conservative and so far behind the eight ball, that many newer journal articles on climate change have included the term “faster than expected” or similar, so much so that an observer started a blog by that name: The faster than expected climate change is now being described as “abrupt climate change.”

    Interestingly enough, Google Scholar lists 108 articles that include both the terms, “faster than expected”+”abrupt climate change.”

    Source: moi

    • Replies: @utu
  207. SBaker says:

    The comment on leaf area is nothing new. I had a discussion with my nephew about 10 years ago on said stimulation of plant growth by CO2, a concept known for many decades. Since I own and rent a few hundred acres of tillable land, I suggested to him that I had a negative carbon footprint by virtue of the fact, based on calculations, of the CO2 extracted from the air by 400 acres of corn. He had no supportable response; in fact, he would not even discuss it. Corn, a close relative of bamboo, grows at an astonishing rate from seed to 12 feet tall in 4-5 months. It is a CO2 sink unmatched by very few plants, turning CO2 and other nutrients, into food and biomass using sunlight to synthesize high energy molecules. The staggering amount of leaf area that produces 200 bushels of corn per acre continues to feed the world with astonishing efficiency. IN fact, overproduction has corn prices in the cellar.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  208. Realist says:

    You need 3,500 words to explain why stupid, ignorant people believe in AGW???

    • Replies: @Sean
  209. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    Climate science are well aware of prior warm periods, have addressed those periods and why they happened, and even know the rate at which they warmed. Your query stems from the deniers saying “climate has changed before,” and is addressed here, including a neat little chart that shows CO2 levels for the last 400,000,000 years.

    Climate Myth: Climate’s changed before. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen…
    • What the science says: Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

    What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

  210. I remember!
    I remember about forty years ago Maple tree farmer were complaining about acid rain destroying their trees. Also some farmers were complaining that acid rain is destroying their crop.
    It is not happening now. Rain and even ocean waves are washing out carbon dioxide from air.
    So all those CO2 Graphs are false.

    • Replies: @anon
  211. Anonymous [AKA "OneEarth"] says:

    Whether or not the climate change debate is correct, other issues such as deforestation and loss of habitats and eco-systems; mass extinctions and loss of bio-diversity; land and air pollution and plastic contamination of the oceans, etc, ARE real and must be addressed. “Our Planet” provides a sobering look at the environmental catastrophes facing ALL life on earth, not just humans.

    Since most wars were fought over access to resources, it is naive to think that the global population can grow exponentially without serious consequences. This may or may not lead mass starvation, but the quality of life for many will be adversely affected. The main losers will no doubt be the natural world.

    Most UNZ writers approach environmental issues from a purely materialistic and humanistic perspective. However, do we humans really have the absolute right to use the planet for our own benefit, to the exclusion of all others, and regardless of the consequences? Has our ‘advanced’ society forgotten what ‘primitive’ Native Americans instinctively knew: that we cannot eat money? As some wiser voices here have pointed out, we humans need Planet Earth more than Earth needs us. So lets lose the divisive ‘angry politics’, and work together for a greener planet.

    • Replies: @ken
    , @Sin City Milla
  212. And anyway!
    About 99,9 % of CO2 is coming from car emission. That little bit of CO2 coming from burning coal and oil in power plants does not even tip the scale. So all it is only FN hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @anon
  213. ken says:

    It’s probably because you are so late to the game. Global total fertility rate peaked around 1960-1965.
    The rate is now half that around 2.5. With this trend the population could begin shrinking in 20-50 years. I doubt we ever hit 10 billion. China’s workforce is already decreasing and they can’t induce people to have two children. Some regions of China have a TFR below 1.0. So it’s more likely going to be an economic shit show in the coming decades than complete depletion of natural resources.

  214. macilrae says:

    That’s what I mean by political noise – and, climate-gate aside, all the bollocks that’s talked and the data that gets revised ever-upwards to “make the case”. I personally do not believe that it is possible to discern a global sea level change of a few mm but, if you accept NASA’s data, it asserts that there’s been no acceleration in the natural warming trend of the past 100 years, despite an undeniable and significant CO2 increase – using the very earth itself as a giant thermometer!

    The Arctic ice cap is still very much with us and the predicted sea level changes haven’t happened. In land-sites which have remained rural and undeveloped the temperature has followed its century-old pattern – but those next to big airports and industrial developments are also used and they push the numbers up.

    • Replies: @anon
  215. ken says:

    Who gives a shit about polar bears? Of all the species dying each year I can’t believe they are the most significant.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @anon
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  216. Sean says:

    The intelligentsia want the world to be one, so they unlessly come up with problems that require global unity.

    These bien pensant thinkers do not understand the fruitfulness and value of endless division, conflict and war between groups, which is how we got to be sitting listening to them, but taking it all with a pinch of salt because at bottom they are just another group who want to rule the world.

    • Replies: @anon
  217. ken says:

    “Since most wars were fought over access to resources, it is naive to think that the global population can grow exponentially without serious consequences.” I would argue the three largest, militaristic nations are Russia, China and the US. Russia’s population is already shrinking. China’s may already be or soon will be shrinking and the only reason we’re growing is because of immigration. I don’t see any wars being fought for this reason.

  218. FB says: • Website

    Extremely idiotic comment…Apex predators are incredibly important to the food chain…not to mention awesome creatures…I’d gladly trade about a billion of the likes of you for even a handful of lions and polar bears…

    • Replies: @ken
    , @wayfarer
  219. MarkU says:

    If you look it up, pretty recent thermal measurements of these sun spots show to official science’s shock, temperatures are colder inside. That’s a problem for them, I am aware of that, and I am giggling about it.

    I’m not sure what you mean tbh, sunspots are known to be cooler than the rest of the sun’s surface, that is why they appear as dark spots. I first read about that in The Observers book of Astronomy by Patrick Moore in 1967 when I was about 10 years old. If you type sun spots into google the very first thing you get is..

    Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the Sun’s photosphere that appear as spots darker than the surrounding areas. They are regions of reduced surface temperature caused by concentrations of magnetic field flux that inhibit convection.

    So how is that a shock to anyone? Perhaps I am missing your point somehow?

    My original remark was an objection to your saying..

    “Quite officially, the sun gets colder and colder towards its core” I still stand by that objection as there is no way that something can be touted as “Quite officially” when it is contrary to mainstream astrophysics.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  220. utu says:

    I got 107 hits to “faster than expected”+”abrupt climate change” but 1950 to “slower than expected”+”climate change”.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @CanSpeccy
  221. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Just because there are layer after layer of politics in developing nuclear weapons doesn’t mean E=/=MC2.

  222. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Keeling Curve keeps rising steadily, year after year, in spite of your inanity.

  223. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Are you clueless? Three other folks in this article and comment section mentioned polar bears before I did, because Al Gore mentioned polar bears in his famous movie. duh!

    • Replies: @ken
  224. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Don’t correct me if you can’t even read the article of which you claim to be so knowledgeable.

    Here’s what the article says.

    By subjecting a large set of virtual Earths to different trajectories of extreme environmental change (global heating and cooling), and by tracking species loss up to the complete annihilation of all life either accounting or not for co-extinction processes, we show how ecological dependencies amplify the direct effects of environmental change on the collapse of planetary diversity by up to ten times.

    So they modeled conditions that ensured complete extinction. Well, suuure, any fool can prove that raising global temperature to 100 degrees C will ensure “complete extinction”. But that’s not what even the silliest climate alarmist is predicting. What they, and you, have talked about is a warming of several degrees Celcius, which is hardly likely to drive all life to extinction. On the contrary, if accompanied by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, it will likely greatly increase global primary production.

    So, in future, do try not to be such a wanker.

    • Replies: @anon
  225. @FB

    Yes, we all have engineering books. The text in all but the high-level cutting edge grad-school stuff is all based on Newton, basic thermo laws, calculus (of course) and a host of other theory developed from 50 (say, your fracture mechanics) to a century or more ago. Of course you can look it up on the internet. How retarded are you, FB? How many times do I have to write you that it you seem to want a test of copying sections of flight dynamics or any control-theory stuff off a good website, and oftentimes, even Wiki (they are pretty good on anything that does not or can’t have politics involved).

    Nope, I’ll keep saying it until carpal tunnel sets in, but you’re not gonna get me to be your internet butt-boy just to help you try to ascertain my qualifications to write about airplanes (and other technical stuff).

    You may fool lots of people, FB, but from your writing style here, I find it hard to believe you are a degreed engineer.

    • Replies: @FB
  226. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    LOL! Ok, I’ll hop in your clown car and run with your implied theory. There are 3,105 results for “faster than expected”+”climate change”! And 23,700 results for “abrupt climate change”! Now whatcha gonna do? 🙂

    • Replies: @utu
  227. @anon

    Try to read more carefully. You quoted me completely backwards.

    • Replies: @anon
  228. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I got 107 hits to “faster than expected”+”abrupt climate change” but 1950 to “slower than expected”+”climate change”

    And here’s what Michael Mann of hockey-stick-graph fame and colleagues have to say on the accuracy of the models:

    Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
    Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins, Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou

    Nature Geoscience (2017) doi:10.1038/ngeo2973

    In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. …model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

    i.e., all the models overpredict warming, as your literature survey suggests.

    • Replies: @anon
  229. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    100 degrees? Sorry, but “Complete extinction” happened at “around 5 °C.” Can you even read, brah? 🙂

    “…complete extinction (in the co-extinction scenario) was abrupt, and happened far from their tolerance limits, and close to global diversity collapse (around 5 °C…”

    And remember, the Trump Administration has already promised 4°C by 2100.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  230. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    With all sober respect (when the time comes), Miss Rozu, there is deflection in anything but the idealized un-real “rigid body” from Statics class. That’s why there is so much time spent on studying “springs” in engineering, with the spring constant and dampers being idealized. It’s not that springs are important in what most Mech. Engineers do – but the analogy works for any real material. The “spring constants” have nothing to do with a number of coils, and diameter as in your plain old helical spring, but all material in whatever shape or form has a compliance and a damping effect, be it easy or hard to calculate.

    EVERYTHING deforms under load, Miss Rozu. Read up on rolling resistance. It is called “rolling friction” but that misnomer is what has non-engineers like FB here befulddled enough to not even write back on it. Now, if he would just get on the internet for a bit and read up ….

  231. utu says:

    I have only pushed the clown car that you have erected.

    • Replies: @anon
  232. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I see that, and apologize. Even so, the Club of Rome predictions are more accurate than you characterized them.

  233. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    I simply showed a couple terms were being used in scientific literature. You attempted to demonstrate something different, and I took your hypothesis and beat you at your own game. A rehash, since you don’t want to admit what you did:

    • 1950 to “slower than expected”+”climate change” [Source: utu, comment #222]
    • 3105 to “faster than expected”+”climate change”

    You should have searched the latter before crowing about the former.

    • Replies: @utu
  234. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry there, slick, “residual errors” in reading the satellite data have been corrected. If you’re going to play games like you’re doing, you have to keep up with the literature, which states that satellite temperature measurement of the “troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models.”

    Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data

  235. FB says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    So you are crying uncle already…because you can’t look up the answer to my very specific question about longitudinal flying qualities…?

    Do you think anyone seriously believes your spiel that the answers are supposedly there…on the internet…but you prefer to formally lose the challenge I threw down…than to actually go and look it up…?

    And now supposedly I require your help in looking it up…?

    How does that make any sense…I have the answers…they are in postgraduate level flight mechanics books which I own…why on earth would I need you to google this for me…?

    That bullshit is more comical than the clinically retarded kid saying the dog ate his homework…and actually meaning it…LOL

    The depths of your humiliation are truly remarkable…I have to let you know that your pathetic wriggling and squirming is pure delight for me…like crushing your soft little skull…you are getting what you deserve…being shown up as a mouthy know-nothing that gets the shit kicked out of him plain as day on a perfectly precise technical challenge that you are unable to answer…

    You tried to answer…I will put up all the links of your futile attempts…[but now you are looking it up as a service to me…?…LOL]

    You are now one big steaming pile of bullshit…that somehow managed to grow bullshit-based appendages with which to bang on a keyboard…

  236. utu says:

    You are an autistic idiot.

  237. ken says:

    I am an apex predator dumbass and I’m out-breeding you. Enjoy the taste of my heel.

    • Replies: @FB
  238. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    If you’re going to play games like you’re doing

    What are you talking about. I not playing any games. I merely quoted a recent paper by Santer et al. that concluded that all the climate models were wrong. Now, apparently, the same people, mostly now say, “oops, we were wrong the models are right.” So are the models right or wrong? I don’t know. But these people don’t seem exactly reliable when it comes to deciding the issue.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @utu
  239. ken says:

    The world will warm at the same rate without them. Prove me wrong.

  240. wayfarer says:

    Agree 100%: wayfarer
    [jury-rigged option-button]

  241. Anyway! All bearing manufacturers supply in their catalogs permissible loading on each bearing and life of bearing under permissible loading.

  242. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    > Climategate

    Yet another myth trotted out. Addressed here:

    > no acceleration

    Wrong again. “The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.”

    > Arctic ice cap is still very much with us

    Sure, a whole 30% of the former summer-time ice volume. [Source: PIOMAS chart in comment #13]

    > those next to big airports

    Is this bullshit still being trotted out? Good grief! Addressed here:

    • Replies: @macilrae
  243. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    100 degrees? Sorry, but “Complete extinction” happened at “around 5 °C.”

    Proving the paper you cite to be absurd.

    There has been variation in global temperature of 10 C during the last half billion years, and the biosphere’s doing fine, so the model that the authors used is evidently not realistic. In fact, what they assert, according to your synopsis, is that a 5 C temperature rise will kill off every species of plant on earth, which is obviously a ridiculous claim.

    In fact, all that your paper shows is that species which are not primary producers, i.e., autotrophic plants, die if the plants (or the intermediate species) on which they depend for food are eliminated, a point that is (a) obvious and (b) one that I had already made. As for a realistic model of species extinctions with rising global temperature, they don’t have one.

    • Replies: @anon
  244. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    “Friction is everything, and materials in rolling contact have the surfaces infused”

    Erotica? Girly engineering? News at 11! We report, you decide. 🙂 lol

  245. @FB

    As much as I hate wasting my time writing you an inter-tard, it beats being given ultimatums from Mr. Cut & Paste. No, I did not try any answer – I just got done telling you, what 4 times, maybe only 3, that any answer I put in here could have been cut straight out of some text online so proves nothing. Do you suppose I’m going to write a partial thesis on stability and have you tell me it’s straight from the internet?

    I’ll give you 24 hours to shut the fuck up with your internet tough guy crap. Could you handle that one?

    Tell me about rolling resistance, but NOT OFF THE INTERNET. Do you get it now? It doesn’t work. It’s like asking people to play a trivia game without putting away their cell phones .. a different world now for testing.

    However, the fact that you confused rolling resistance with friction and went on about the fact that low steel-on-steel friction is what helps a choo-choo train go is what I see that makes me think you’re a poser engineer. Low friction only hurts traction – try pulling 1,000s of tons of freight and rolling stock with lower traction.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Philip Owen
  246. @dearieme

    Well, in that case, please explain the palm tree stump, sticking out of the Gulf of Thailand, about 45 feet from the beach, where, according to locals, the beach used to be 25 years ago…

    Additionally, I did not mention anything about speed or something speeding up. That’s your imagination or fantasy taking your for a spin.

    • Replies: @anon
  247. @FB

    Oh, I forgot, FB, how old are you? Seriously, if I found out I’m “corresponding” with a 20 y/o soy-boy, I’ll never forgive myself – the weather’s been too nice outside for this.

  248. @Sin City Milla

    The Awakening of Gaia:

    Note the false presumptions of blank slate, a conscious Earth, one race, n one-world-ism. This is the theological core of the PC Cult, today’s Dem Party. Also note how all the villains in the video are white males while all the oppressed “Earth-people” have melanin.

    • Replies: @anon
  249. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re playing games, because the article you quoted as gospel had been superseded by the paper I quoted. Now you are rejecting the science outright because your panties are in a bunch that the science isn’t confirming your bias. Aww, poor baby.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  250. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    There has been variation in global temperature of 10 C during the last half billion years, and the biosphere’s doing fine—sure, as long as you don’t forget the mass extinctions from a 10°C variation, dumbass. Did you forget about those?

    “…10 degrees Celsius (20 degrees Fahrenheit) higher…high-latitude species, especially those with high oxygen demands, were nearly completely wiped out….”

    Biggest mass extinction caused by global warming leaving ocean animals gasping for breath

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  251. anon[642] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Once the climate change scare has run its course, they are going to trash that, too, and replace it with another bogeyman.

    wonder what the next one will be

    maybe we can guess before they try to trot it out

  252. anon[642] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Rich

    maybe the techtonic plates under it are sinking?

    seems like if the oceans were rising they would be rising everywhere

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  253. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Sin City: While the actual facts of climate change obviously matter to most rational people…

    Yet Sin City still won’t discuss them. Is he not rational?

    Sorry, I’m not Democrat, I voted for Trump. I’m a white male. Now, can you discuss scientifically evidenced facts? Or not?

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  254. Vojkan says:
    @Mike P

    CO2 is good for green plants. I suggest that if they can’t refrain from hypeventilating, they do it over a green plant. Their CO2 will feed the plant, oxygen will be released which will cool the air and thus, their rant will actually have some usefulness and won’t be wasted on people like us who are immune to it. The alternative solution if they are so wary of producing CO2 is that they stop breathing.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @crimson2
  255. macilrae says:

    OK, mate, we’ll just have to wait and see. I have a hunch we shall know within the next five years.

    • Replies: @anon
  256. FB says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman


    More helpless squirming from a mouthy know-nothing on UNZ…

    You specifically said you know more than me about aircraft stability [in the context of your flat wrong remarks about the 737 MAX’s instability in a critical portion of the flight envelope]…

    I gave you a knowledge challenge to show you up as the know-nothing you are…after a couple of feeble attempts at trying to come up with the answers…you scurried away from that 737 MAX thread like a little mouse…never to show up there again…especially after the preliminary report was issued and my analysis of an aerodynamically stuck stabilator were confirmed by Bjorn Fehrm former fighter pilot and aeronautical engineer…as well as by Mentour Pilot who is a 737 Check Airman…

    They confirmed my previous explanation of how to get out of that dangerous situation, which is by unloading the tailplane by nosing the airplane over even more if the mis-trim is nose down…I called that the yo yo maneuver which is what it was called back in the day on the727…I also stated that I remember this used to be in the flight crew training manual years ago…but has long since been discontinued…

    All of this has now been confirmed…see Mentour’s latest video…he even shows an old manual with this text highlighted…Boeing called it the roller coaster maneuver…

    Each and every one of my predictions about what happened in the ET302 crash has been proved correct…that includes that the crew did engage the trim cutout switches, but in a severe mistrim this could make it impossible to move the stabilizer with manual trim…it’s all there on the record…and Mentour demonstrates in the 737 full flight sim how he and his copilot can’t move that stabilator…exactly as I explained weeks before…

    Now you are trying to do what you pathetic little piece of dung…?…you ran away like a little mouse…you are [supposedly] a private pilot and all your bullshit in that thread has been exploded…we will revisit that and document everything with links to your dipshit comments…that now stand as testimony to your lack of aeronautical knowledge and your propensity to lie…

    So now after all that you think I’m going to let you squirm off the hook you pathetic, desperately wriggling little worm…?

    You challenged me…by saying you know more about aeronautics than me…[LOL]…and now what do you say…?

    Do you admit that you cannot answer the technical question…?…or do you continue your sad charade of bullshit…that you can supposedly look it up but you don’t ‘want to’…LOL

  257. FB says: • Website

    You’re an Apex Dumbass…?…how interesting…how’s that working out for you…?

  258. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    You’re all bullshit this that and the other, but unable to discuss science. Typical of deniers. They can’t handle evidence.

    • Replies: @anon
  259. @Commentator Mike

    Fake degrees are common. I knew a Nigerian immigrant who boasted that he had obtained a PhD online “for life experience” n it only cost him \$1500 up front. No one checked n he received sweet Minority Business Enterprise contracts from my local city hall. I’ve met a few Arabs who did similar, or who simply lied. More “enrichment” from immigration.

  260. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re “immune to” scientific evidence? I wouldn’t brag about that. So is a chimp.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  261. anon[642] • Disclaimer says:

    those who believe in the Church of Global Warming need to do the right thing and cut way back on their carbon footprint

    • Replies: @anon
  262. utu says:

    The following data set covers the period when we had true global temperature measurements via satellites. Furthermore this data set is in a custody of guys (Spencer and Christi) who are nor exactly the global warming enthusiasts. So no shenanigans with local data adjustments and dubious schemes of homogenization that are practiced by the keepers of ground station data.

    As you can see in 40 years the temperature increase by 0.5-0.6°C. The exact value can’t be arrived at because the value of trend is definition dependent on data that has high temporal viability like this data. Anyway we get about 1.25-1.5° C per century.

    In last 40 years CO2 concentration increased by about 70 ppm from 340ppm to 410ppm as measured at Mauna Loa by NOAA. The value of 410 ppm was more or less confirmed by Japanese Ibuki satellite which confirms the earlier held assumption that Mauna Loa data can be considered to be a good estimate of global average which until Ibuki was not certain. See the graph of ppm vs. year here:

    Is the temperature change of 0.5-0.6°C driven solely by 70 ppm CO2 increase? Is CO2 a direct cause or also a proxy of other effects? How much of 70 ppm change is due to human activity in last 40 years?

    If we make the assumption of validity of linear extrapolation we get that doubling of CO2 from current 400 ppm to 800 ppm would increase temperature by 3.43°C and this would occur in 228 years. Obviously the rate of CO2 increase might be faster and non-linear. But still this does not look very alarming. 1.5° C or even 2 °C change in 100 years does not seem to be that much.

    Judith Curry (who has balls and integrity unlike majority of her colleagues in the Global Warming Racket) worked on estimates of the worst case scenario of climate sensitivity.

    where she tried to put bounds on

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is defined as the amount of temperature change in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, after the climate system has reached equilibrium.

    Here are her estimates:

    ECS ECS < 1 °C: implies negative feedback (unverified possibility)

    1.0 ≤ ECS ≤ 1.2 °C: no feedback climate sensitivity (strongly verified, based on theoretical analysis and empirical observations).

    1.05 ≤ ECS ≤ 2.7 °C: empirically-derived values based on energy balance models from the instrumental period with verified statistical and uncertainty analysis methods (Lewis and Curry, 2018) (corroborated possibilities)

    1.15 ≤ ECS ≤ 4.05 °C: empirically-derived values including paleoclimate estimates (Lewis and Grunwald, 2018) (verified possibilities)

    2.1 ≤ ECS ≤ 4.1 °C: derived from climate model simulations whose values of TCR do not exceed 2.0 °C. (Table 9.5, IPCC AR5) (verified possibilities)

    4.5 6oC: impossible

    This may suggest that what we got from Spencer and Christi global temperatures and Mauna Loa CO2 concentration under the assumption of linear extrapolation may actually overestimate the response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that ECS is below 3°C.

    Unfortunately the message of sober minded people like Judith Curry or Roy Spencer is not a part of the repertoire of propaganda machine on MSM which basically is alarmism only with lots of falsehoods and disinformation. Their job is too scar you.

  263. @Wally

    Yes! People are inherently religious, or more accurately, mythical thinkers. Science manages to squeeze its way into peoples’ thinking once in a while, but only temporarily, n even then only in the thinking of a few elites. Most people cannot comprehend the tools of science n see everything in terms of good n evil. Entire continents have never produced a single Nobel laureate. Not good news for Fabian Socialists.

  264. anon[642] • Disclaimer says:

    you probably believe in Santa Claus and call anyone that doesn’t a “denier”

    • Replies: @anon
  265. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Why? That would be stupid. Cutting back pollution will only accelerate global warming by removing global dimming particulates that are keeping the earth much cooler right now. It’s called McPherson’s Paradox, described as follows:

    A) if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels and cut out the CO2 going into the atmosphere, runaway greenhouse will kill us;


    B) if we DO stop burning fossil fuels, particulates will stop going into the atmosphere and will stop reflecting sunlight back into outer space, i.e., “global dimming” will go away. Once it goes away, temperatures will go up at 1.3 C in a matter of weeks, which will push us over the 3 C temperature limit.


    🙂 Although global dimming is newly studied subject with much to learn, and McPherson’s Paradox is not yet in the scientific literature, if it ever will be, it really confounds the morons like you who think there is any recourse. There is no hope of escape from global warming extinction. And that is already established in the scientific literature. (Garrett, 2009)

    • Replies: @anon
  266. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    No. I call flat earthers science “deniers.” Like them, you are unable to comprehend scientific evidence, and are simply a little ankle-biter.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  267. @Anonymous

    Look out, SJW on board!

    do we humans really have the absolute right to use the planet for our own benefit, to the exclusion of all others, and regardless of the consequences? Has our ‘advanced’ society forgotten what ‘primitive’ Native Americans instinctively knew: that we cannot eat money? As some wiser voices here have pointed out, we humans need Planet Earth more than Earth needs us. So lets lose the divisive ‘angry politics’, and work together for a greener planet.

    Are you kidding me? There is no ‘we’ here! Assuming this is not a joke post, I would like to point out that it’s not the population of the US that is destroying its environment by reproducing themselves into oblivion. Our reproductive rate is quite modest n sustainable. China, India, Bangladesh n above all Africa have exploding populations n are actively ruining their environments. Africa has 1 1/2 billion people now n is projected to add another billion n 1/2 in another 40 years, which is as many people as China n India together. This will utterly destroy the African environment. That isn’t our fault, or our problem, n there is nothing that Americans can do to stop it.

    What’s this ‘Native Americans instinctively knew” nonsense? Indians (feather, not dot) spent their time genociding n enslaving each other every chance they got until diseases made them rarer than unicorns, n if they had had half a chance they would have killed off every animal n poisoned the land in just a few years. Mayans blew out their own environment years earlier , which was followed by a population collapse n cannibalism.

    For the state of the world environment, some groups are responsible n some are not, just as some groups keep breeding like rabbits without regard for their environment, while other groups (us) are trying to preserve their environment with no help from the low-IQ equatorial breeders.

    Meanwhile, to paraphrase a philosopher, if there were no one on Earth to watch it turn, would it even exist?

  268. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    True global temperature measurements via satellites? Do you realize there are no thermometers on those satellites? Not that the data isn’t good, but consider this:

    Satellites don’t measure temperature. As Carl Mears of the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset and Ben Santer wrote,

    they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data … were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.

    Scientists process the MSU data, applying a model to make numerous adjustments, in order to come up with a synthetic estimate of the atmospheric temperature.


    Since you claim that data adjustments are shenanigans, you’ve done shot yourself in the foot. Oops!

    • Replies: @utu
  269. Vojkan says:

    I am immune to politically motivated pseudo-scientific bullsh*t. You are free to believe it as you are free to believe in unicorns. What I refuse is that dimwits like you put their hands in my pockets and dictate my way of life.
    Dimwits that don’t understand that without CO2 there would be no life on Earth, that climate on Earth has been changing ever since the formation of Earth, that Earth has a moving iron core and that therefore magnetic poles are moving, that the Sun’s activity has cycles, that the Moon is slowly moving away from Earth, and that data collected during a little over a hundred years is insufficient to establish a climate model spanning over hundreds of millions of years, that geology has established climate variations that far exceed what we have experienced in the last decades, that massive deforestation has a much bigger influence on climate than peasants driving tractors, that plastic on oceans’ surface has a much bigger effect on biodiversity than people eating bacon, that quinoa eating vegans are responsible for much more CO2 production than I am by eating meat I buy directly from villagers in the mountains around my hometown, that “clean” energy, GMOs, and chemical industries produce much more soil pollution than cars, that CO2 actually is good for the growth of green plants that use the carbon and release the oxygen by day effectively preventing the atmosphere from going too hot, and that use oxygen and release CO2 by night, effectively preventing the atmosphere from going too cold. Btw that’s why the biggest variations of temperature occur in areas where vegetation is scarce.
    I am indeed immune to rubbish spewed by “scientists” who sell their soul to the devil in exchange for funds.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Germanicus
    , @Mike P
  270. @anon

    I wasn’t aware that my opinion was so important to you that you were waiting for me to post. I’m flattered. I certainly have opinions on climate change but it doesn’t interest me to get into it. There is no end to this circus, facts never changed anyone’s mind yet, on this topic or any other. I take comfort in knowing that in a mere few thousand years the next ice age will come n finally put an end to the debate. I’m sure it will continue to rage until then.

    • Replies: @anon
  271. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Regarding the UAH data:

    “.John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate…

    the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

    When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models.

    Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

    So funny! You claim adjustments are shenanigans, even though the satellite data requires adjustments for orbital decay. Then we find out it’s Christy and Spencer who are pulling the data adjustment shenanigans, and other scientists found them out, and corrected their shenanigans. You can’t make this stuff up!

  272. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    I am indeed immune to rubbish spewed by “scientists” who sell their soul to the devil in exchange for funds? Like climate change deniers? Koch Family Foundations have spent \$127,006,756 directly financing 92 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2017.

  273. @anon

    you are unable to comprehend scientific evidence, and are simply a little ankle-biter.

    I have to compliment you. That one is worth remembering.

  274. utu says:

    “true global temperature” and “…no shenanigans with local data adjustments and dubious schemes of homogenization that are practiced by the keepers of ground station data.”

    • Replies: @anon
  275. @Wizard of Oz

    Saw a dead, young whale being cut open. They found just over 10kg/25lbs of plastic inside its stomach. And I’m not talking about microplastics here. Those can be adsorbed by all aquatic organisms [aka the/our food chain]. Because this a relative ‘new’ phenomenon, science isn’t too sure about the effects on humans. My [non-scientific] gut-feelings tell me it won’t do us any good.

    2 links that might be of interest:

    1) How dangerous is microplastic? – Link to Phys Org [a 2019 article]

    2) Dangers of Micro-Plastic Pollution – Link to Energy Crossroads [a 2017 article]

  276. Vuu the Great [AKA "THE GREAT VUU"] says:

    I have a solution – mass beatings by the Chinese

  277. @Vojkan

    I like your comment, but I think

    , that Earth has a moving iron core and that therefore magnetic poles are moving

    is not correct, and the reason is, the iron core is officially molten iron. Molten iron has no magnetic properties whatsoever, many people don’t know this.

    Hence I go with a hydrogen plasma core, that brings about the same weight as assumed iron, but its cold there. Proton->Neutron->Hydrogen. Neutrons make the mass.
    The core in my book the same as what they call “space”, which has officially in average 1 hydrogen atom per square centimeter “space”.

  278. @MarkU

    So how is that a shock to anyone? Perhaps I am missing your point somehow?

    Absolutely. These “spots” are in fact enormous holes in the “surface”. Bigger than earth, and these holes have 3 dimensions, they have a depth, pointing inside the sun. Imagine a water drain.
    The temperatures measured deeper in the hole are lower than on the “surface”.

    Everything is field, and fields can’t be quantified. Fields do not care for particles, but an atom is basically nothing more than a field. Its a micro planet, a dynamo.

  279. crimson2 says:

    The scientific consensus is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen about 0.4 °C over the past 100 years.

    I know the people at Unz are incredibly stupid, but you could at least put a little effort into your bullshit. Even your decade-old graph shows twice this amount of warming.

    As usual, the stupid here burns.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  280. crimson2 says:

    The alternative solution if they are so wary of producing CO2 is that they stop breathing.

    If CO2 is so great, lock yourself in an airtight room full of it.

  281. @crimson2

    Icebergs were receding long before humanoids invented fire! How do you explain that?

    • Replies: @anon
  282. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    Judith Curry is a liar in pay of the Koch Bros., as shown here:


    After all, the study was privately funded, including by the anti-climate science Koch Brothers, and involved Richard Muller and Judith Curry, two scientists quite skeptical of the global warming theory.

  283. Mike P says:

    I suspect our indefatigable anon here is a bot. Seriously, how hard would it be to write a script that posts junk at his level of “intelligence”? All he seems to be doing is to pick up on words like “consensus” or phrases like “no sea level rise” and then carpet-bomb the thread with his canned graphs and insults, without ever making a real argument. I think it would take me about a day. How say you?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Vojkan
  284. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Facts never changed anyone’s mind yet? Actually, they do.

  285. macilrae says:

    I’d just like to say that if we assume AGW is significant and that current prophesies are accurate – God help us. The amount of time and resources deployed in an attempt to deal with the alleged problem has probably set a record in the field of fear-mongering and yet politicians with their 4-5 year time horizons have declined to take the action so urgently called for and so widely held to be necessary.

    Those of us who believe AGW to be a red herring should nevertheless be pretty apprehensive as to how a real emergency (candida auris perhaps, a rogue asteroid, or, yes, a new ice age!) is going to be fumbled.

    None of us can afford to be complacent if we deniers turn out to be right.

    • Replies: @anon
  286. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    Uh huh. Satellites don’t have thermometers, and your boys got caught in data adjustment shenanigans. Now that their shenanigans have been corrected, the satellite data agrees with the ground thermometer data. Read all about it here:

    Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data

  287. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    Climate has changed before! We know!

    alligators were found in Spitzbergen!

  288. @anon

    “Libertarian economics?”

    Who’s the dumbass? (facepalm.) Why does this happen so often, that I ask an open question seeking some insight and in reply I get midwit dogma. I guess keyboards are like mouths. Everybody has one, but most use theirs to show just how dull-witted they are.

    Care to explain to me what about paragraphs 4 through 8 is libertarian? Are you even remotely familiar with the Socionomic Theory of Finance? No, I didn’t think so. I guess your NPC programming tells you to see “Mises” and then select from one of the four standard tropes Dunning-Kruger types think pass for witty ripostes.

    The 2-sd IQ rule of communication rears its head yet again. Either you have an IQ above 175 or you were always too short to ride this discussion. I know which way to bet there.

    PS: Please provide me with a refutation of Mises’ central criticism of socialism, if he was (as you allude) such a fool. It should be easy for you. Five sentences at most, right? [By your measure, if Newton’s papers were found to include a complement to some unapproved contemporary you’d insist that all three of his “laws” were fallacious. I can only hope you’d then walk off a very high precipice.]

    • Replies: @anon
  289. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s real. And politicians know that there is nothing to do. A scientific paper was published a few years ago, and is quite unpopular, because it says there is nothing to do to stop global warming but completely dismantle civilization, or build 1 nuclear power plant per day, which isn’t going to happen. Conservation doesn’t help, because of Jevon’s Paradox. We’re speeding 67,000 miles an hour into a brick wall.

    Nov. 22, 2009 – In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions – the major cause of global warming – cannot be stabilized unless the world’s economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.

    “It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates,” says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

    Garrett’s study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by…

    Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

    So sit back and enjoy the ride, while it lasts. And when you hear some September of an Arctic “blue ocean event,” you’ll know it’s habbening now. If current trends stay in place, it won’t be but a few more years. You can see why Al Gore predicted 2016 for the Arctic “blue ocean event” (info he repeated from the US Navy warnings to the sub fleet) but the trend didn’t keep declining so quickly. PIOMAS is still trending down. 2025 now? Who knows.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  290. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    > Care to explain to me what about paragraphs 4 through 8 is libertarian?

    Can do!

    Ludwig von Mises: Remembering a Fountainhead of Modern Libertarianism

    It’s always hilarious when proponents of Mises try to deny he was Libertarian—when the Mises-worshipers in Auburn say he was a Fountainhead of it! Next time, check your premises. 🙂

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  291. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Ankle-biter “Mike P” is a rabid mexican chihuahua, which is why he prefers constant yapping about nothing over actually discussing the scientific evidence of climate change. Before you write your script, try writing a comment—just one—that includes scientific evidence. Any scientific evidence, pro or con.

  292. aspnaz says:

    Regurgitate and chew: What a meaningless article, it entirely misses the issue which is that people don’t know what or who to believe any more. All writers, including this author, now feel they do not have to research facts that could help us to resolve the issue but rather just have to produce copy, like this article.

  293. Sparkon says:

    A scientific paper was published a few years ago, and is quite unpopular, because it says there is nothing to do to stop global warming but completely dismantle civilization,

    Yeah, that’s it. Completely dismantle civilization. That should work: no hospitals, no power plants, no farms, no grocery stores, no running water. The last thing to go will be the Road to Hell, paved over with idiots.

    To quote Bugs Bunny:

    What a maroon!

    Here’s another:

    “By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human
    population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”

    — Sir James Lovelock,

    So far, there have been many predictions from hysterical Chicken Littles like Lovelock about the end of the world, but guess what?

    Look outside. Better yet, come up out of your rabbit hole occasionally to get some fresh air and sunshine. It’ll be good for you.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @Bombercommand
  294. Vojkan says:
    @Mike P

    Bear in mind that they probably have a database filled with pre-defined narrative points and that all it takes them to post a comment is to write a query, so I guess it takes them far less time than a thinking human with a name needs.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @anon
  295. macilrae says:

    anon 403:

    Using your graph showing the decline of the polar icecap I’ll create two headlines:



    Both equally misleading.

    I’ll stick with the global sea level data and challenge anybody to say how this could possibly have been measured accurately pre satellite era, let alone to mm accuracy!

    And then I shall definitely shut up.

    • Replies: @anon
  296. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    You’re playing games, because the article you quoted as gospel had been superseded by the paper I quoted.

    Like some other Anons here, you are evidently a twat devoted to spewing gratuitous insults.

    I cited a peer reviewed journal article. Period. If I had quoted it “as gospel,” I would have said that I was quoting it “as gospel.” When you pointed out that the same group (mostly) have now retracted the chief conclusion of that paper, I did not dispute either your claim or theirs. In fact, I have no opinion whatever about the work 0f Santer et al. I have not read their publications and am not familiar with the field.

    As for your statement that I am now “rejecting science outright” that is sheer silliness. What I ridicule is your claim that Donald Trump is personally responsible for the impending total extinction of life on earth by means of a 5 C increase in mean temperature. And if you really expect folks here to believe that, I suggest that instead of telling them to go read some obscure and quite probably nonsensical paper in Nature, you spell out the argument in plain language for all to assess.

    • Replies: @anon
  297. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Your quote:

    “…10 degrees Celsius (20 degrees Fahrenheit) higher…high-latitude species, especially those with high oxygen demands, were nearly completely wiped out….”

    As I said. Global temperature has fluctuated by 10 C (which is 18 F, not 20) and the biosphere is doing fine. Sure some species have been wiped out — indeed millions of them. That’s what evolution’s about. Some species die, new ones emerge.

    • Replies: @anon
  298. Poco says:

    This is great news.

  299. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Hey, Utu, those studies you cite were privately funded, which proves not only that you are a total cretin who rejects the entire scientific narrative, but that you are in the pay of the Coal Alliance, and that you are working on behalf of the Trump–Netanyahu axis for the destruction of the world.

    Incidentally, why does everyone extrapolate the effect if CO2 linearly? Carbon dioxide absorbs IR in a narrow waveband only. At some point that band becomes fully opaque to IR after which a further increase in CO2 has no effect on IR transmission.

    But CO2 at quite low concentrations does have substantial detrimental effects on cognition. This may be a problem with the Anons. Would write more but fortunately for the patience of all, I have an appointment to keep.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @utu
  300. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Sure some species have been wiped out? That happens every day, it’s called the “background extinction rate.” You keep trying to avoid the fact that just a few degrees difference in climate can cause a mass extinction event on earth. Sure, after millions of years, life recovers, and you can say it’s doing fine.

    You’re also oblivious to the rate of climate change.

    Rates of projected climate change dramatically exceed past rates of climatic niche evolution among vertebrate species.

    Humans are changing the climate now faster than it has ever changed before.

    • LOL: Vojkan
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  301. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Bear in mind you’re losing the argument to superior evidence, and you’re mighty butthurt about that.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  302. headrick says:

    Just a humble opinion. An effort to create a data base on weather data which is raw , not adjusted in any way, and agreed by all sides as neutral and fair- is a good start. Debates on whether a contribution is fair will invoke a 2 side legal examination/cross examination process until a panel of judges appointed with representatives from all sides can decide the merits, and I no consensus can be reached the datum is rejected from the database.
    Then people can do what ever math the want starting with the agreed upon data, with all arguments based on this standard judged however by both sides but based on the same basic data. There is no other way to separate methodology from base data in assessing conclusions. If one side or the other wants to introduce a new data base datum, then let it be subject to the same adjudication process until confirmed or rejected. Currently there is reigning confusion. It may take years to arrive at this data base consensus, and if the result is an empty data base, well then the proper conclusion is ADJUDICATED NOT KNOWN on AGW. Probably some stripped down satellite data data stripped of any inferences and based on raw instrument readings and a evaluation of the nature of the instrument measurement capability. For example, the data on carbon 14 decline since the CTBT treaty shows how long it takes for carbon dioxide molecule to be reabsorbed into the earth (oceans) This is a clean an very accurate measurement which I think would pass the tests as a valid datum, and data models which use the Bern method will be deprecated. Lets move the argument from conclusions to science and back all the way to the data. Physical processes like the ability of sea water at a given temperature and pressure to absort CO2 seems basic enough to be agreed upon. Temperature data from the US ground stations would fail miserably because heat island effects and changing conditions around the station as decades unwind. _ No “wise” ad hoc adjustments accepted remember.
    Tree rings and Ice cores can be candidates but probably will admit too many local features to pass. CO2 readings in Hawaii would pass I think. Maybe out of all this would arise some testing methodology that would pass muster, that would be great.
    The proceeding of this Data court would be published, examination and cross examination, and the judge panel ruling resulting from the hearing. Maybe levels of agreement could be established 3 of 5 judges, 4 of 5 judges and all 5 judges approve, so the next algorithm reference can be done at j3 j4 j5 … Its hard work but yelling over one another is not getting anywhere.

  303. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, you cited a peer reviewed journal article. And I cited a more recent peer reviewed journal article that showed how the data in your article was in error, and was corrected. Do you have the slightest understanding how science corrects itself when found in error?

    > your claim that Donald Trump is personally responsible

    Where the hell did I ever say that? Stop making up silly bullshit.

    • Troll: CanSpeccy
  304. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re quite the biggy boy showing off your ability to create what you admit are misleading headlines. Want a participation medal? You’ll stick with the global sea level data? That’s all I’ve ever presented, and you mock it like a moron. You’re not sticking to it, you’re rejecting it.

  305. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re twisting into a lie what the Garrett’s article posits. He’s not advocating the dismantling of civilization. He’s simply saying that to reduce carbon enough to avoid climate catastrophe, either 1 nuclear power plant per day must be built, or fossil-fuel civilization must be dismantled, because of Jevon’s Paradox that demonstrates conservation of fossil fuels only leads to greater use. And since neither quitting fossil fuels 100% nor building a nuclear power plant per day are anywhere close to feasible, we’re in trouble. Read to understand, not tell lies, shitbird.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  306. Vojkan says:

    Unfortunately, I can’t click LOL twice without a delay in between.

  307. Global warming is a Gods plan. Nations close to equator. will perish and nations close to poles Like Russia will prosper.

  308. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Look outside? Good idea! You should try it sometime. In most of the US, onset of spring is averaging at least a week earlier than normal, and as much as 40 days earlier in large areas of the upper midwest.

  309. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Correction: McPherson’s Paradox has made it to the scientific literature!

    Global efforts to improve air quality by developing cleaner fuels and burning less coal could end up harming our planet by reducing the number of aerosols in the atmosphere, and by doing so, diminishing aerosols’ cooling ability to offset global warming.

    Damn, I thought it was too controversial. Not so.

  310. @FB

    See, now here is the 800-odd-comment thread in question. If any reader is interested and has 4 hours on his hands, I’d recommend going through the whole thing.

    Mr. FB here thinks I’m a Private Pilot – well, you start off with that, but that’s not the deal now. My couple of comments regarding the General Aviation world in America, which FB seems to have no knowledge about, were to bring up the real-world experience level of non-military-background pilots that have been flying for the US Airlines. (It’s changed quite a bit over the last 5 years though, as it requires much more time to be in the RH seat of an airliner now, and yet, at the same time, the General Aviation world has been sick for > 1 decade – I don’t see any light there either, BTW.) I only commented on that because FB thinks lowly of American hobby pilots, many who had worked their way up, in bad weather and icing with many POS airplanes for 1,000s of hours before they could ever get into that right seat, simply due to supply and demand. The supply has gone down, and the demand up, over the last 5 years like a hard 180-degree turn!

    The point was to mention the experience level. I hesitate to 2nd-guess ANY pilot of the level of Ethiopian/Lion airways and exactly what actions they did or didn’t take. However, all the good information on the screwed-up* MCAS system is not what I disagreed with. It started with FB’s bullshit talk about this plane being unstable. I proceeded to correct him that the instablility was only particularly at the high AoA, not IN GENERAL. That’s what started Mr. FB’s badmouthing of my engineering knowledge, though I can’t ever seem to get him to explain anything in an engineering sense. It’s all just cut-and-paste and material from youtube videos**.

    I don’t mind some specific corrections on my knowledge of the 737-MAX, as I don’t fly it, or any 737. I spend another 5 minutes with a SW airlines F/O just now. Keep in mind, all those guys fly every variant (down to 3 now, I think) of the plane, and they’ve flown 75,000 hours (cannot remember that # exactly from a month back) on it. I have no idea how that stands up compared to the other airlines, but it’s just to state that, NO, SouthWest has never had the MCAS be activated in flight. Again, stuff can happen (wake turb, windshear) that is no fault of the pilots. The main thing from today was: yes, those guys needed to turn off those electric trim switches fairly quickly. I had no argument on that previous thread about what the terrible consequences would end up being later.

    I’ll write just a bit more on what the heck FB is really about.


    * a) I completely agree that this last extension/variant of the 737 model was “a plane too far”, and the software fix was not implemented correctly.

    b) Had there been much more training information on MCAS along with a warning EICAS message to indicate the system had been activated, we wouldn’t be writing here on it.


    ** I’ve got nothing against all that as a learning process, but it doesn’t make this guy some expert test pilot either. I’ve learned more than I ever wanted to know about the plane.

  311. @anon

    Next time, check your premises. 🙂

    Humor, thy name is projection.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @dc.sunsets
  312. Anonymous [AKA "Mark Millward"] says:

    TG, re Pakistani population, how much of what you describe might be attributable to first cousin marriage, for which Pakistan is notorious?

  313. @Sparkon

    I “look outside” and have seen drastic climate change beginning in the winter of 2000-2001 and getting worse every year. The winter of 2018-2019 has had the least snow ever and about one third the snow of the winter of 2017-2018. It has been a one way street, hotter and hotter. Summer now extends to the end of October. This is in SW Ontario when summer would end the first week of August and you needed the heat in in the first week of September. Our condominium has been saving thousands of dollars a year in heating cost, and less heat needed every year. Winter 2018-2019 I had the heat on only three days in four months of “winter”. Summer is truly scary however, we have 40C-45C hell temperature for months at a time. I don’t need a Climate Scientist to tell me the Global Warming is NOT A HOAX.

    • LOL: Germanicus
  314. @FB

    It’s been a while for the reply (and most likely the same for the next), as some of us have lives and jobs and try to sleep enough. From your comment just here, with “we will revisit” I have semi-confirmed my suspicion that you and your cohorts, incl. Airbus*, are just here to do some kind of mass bad-mouthing of Boeing for some unknown reason.

    I said this MCAS system was a bad move and implemented TERRIBLY at that. However, it’s not like Airbus has not had the same design philosophy as what caused these crashes for multiple decades now.

    I don’t doubt your knowledge of the current aerospace industry, here and around the world. I have not kept up in a long time, as aero-engineering is not my field. However, your Socialism comes through as you push for a new NASA over the private portion of this industry. (OK, yes, it’s pretty Crony-Capitalist nowadays, unfortunately.) What you ought to understand, but will just call anyone names about, is that the old NASA of the 1960’s (and NACA previously), along with the big contractors Grumman, N. American, Rockwell, Rocketdyne, and so on, were full of white men – I’m gonna go out on a limb and say 98% in the engineering/technician jobs – 98%!. Do you think NASA would run nowadays as probably-accurately depicted in Apollo 13, man? Really??

    I think you just want to push your Socialism, FB. Hey, knock yourself out with that shit – Ron Unz is the most tolerant of about any views in the world as I have ever seen. Why do you not link to your blog in text-area available to the right of your handle?


    * I really liked the guy Erebus, though, as he was very polite about everything, and is no internet tough guy threating violence to pixels on the web like your lame-ass. Anyone as hot-headed at you should be nowhere near the controls of an airplane.

  315. Sparkon says:

    I‘m not twisting anything, dimwit, let alone lying.

    It was a direct quote from anon[403], to whom my comment was addressed, so the only thing twisted here is your comprehension, as if I needed any further evidence.

    Let that blockquote thingy be a helpful clue for you next time you’re confused about who said what.

    • Replies: @anon
  316. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re still lying. You’ve construed the quote as advocating that. It’s not, and the article is clear it’s not. So when do you quit lying?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  317. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Indeed, I checked my premises before calling Mises a libertarian, and I had an article from to back up my premise. Thanks for the compliment.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  318. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Good observation. It’s pretty hard to deny the climate is changing – if one goes outside, like the hardiness zone changes show from comment #71. If you think summer in Ontario is truly scary now, just wait until wet bulb temps start reaching 35°C. Healthy adult humans die after a short 6 hours with wet bulb temps at 35°C.

    First pic is high wet bulb temps now. Second pic is predicted wet bulb temps with 10 degree rise in global warming. If that second pic seems far off into the future, the third pic shows an area in Missouri in 2016 reached a wet bulb temperature of 32.4°C (Heat Index of 140.4°F).

    Hell is coming to breakfast. -Josey Wales

    Might consider moving to the Yukon, because Ontario 10 degrees hotter is going to be as intolerable as Dubai.

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
  319. cassandra says:

    Thanks for the excellent PIOMAS graph.

    Climate alarm was also prevalent in the ’70’s, but then, the concern was over glaciation and cooling: global temperatures were so low that there were public fears of a new ice age. So this arctic ice decrease is exactly what you’d expect, coming out of a climate dip.

    To tell whether this ice decline truly a climate anomaly, we’d have to look back over a time period before this record, which likely begins at an arctic ice maximum, to assess the significance of what a “record low” actually means. We do know, for instance, that ice was sparse enough in 1903 to allow northwest passage without ships getting frozen; what were ice volumes and CO2 levels then?

    Heat waves in the ’30’s were severe enough to cause people to die in the streets, and climate fluctuated in the past when CO2 was constant. Those fluctuations followed sunspot activity as much as anything else (why the Farmer’s Almanac works at all). There are physical theories explaining why this might be so, involving cloud nucleation caused by solar electromagnetic interactions with cosmic rays (Svensmark, Charvatova, Zharkova, Soon, Shaviv). These effects occur over 2-century long cycles, which wouldn’t be apparent from measurements made over a quarter of that period.

    What is consistent over this period is politically-motivated alarmism. An interesting personage to start with is one Crispen Tickell. After writing a tract, for the CIA no less, on geopolitical effects of climate, he went on to become an advocate first for a global effort to prevent disastrous global cooling, which then changed seemlessley to a need for a global effort to prevent global warming. The climate may be changing, but the associated political alarmism and propaganda has been constant.

    Re CO2 policy, does anyone really believe that driving energy costs upward in west is really going to start freezing ice once again? IMHO, it seems quite the stretch.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @anon
  320. @Bombercommand

    Hello “Germanicus”, your “LOL” is imbecilic. I am reporting facts, you are quacking off like an IQ 70.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  321. @Bombercommand

    Thanks, I would love to push another lol, but I spent my one it seems.

    You guys are so transparent, tons of sock puppets accounts and the usual program runs, spam the nonsense desperately ad nauseam. LOL!

    • Replies: @anon
  322. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re trying to pass off two different climate myths.

    First, the “Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past” myth. It’s wrong, and addressed here:

    Source: Climate Myth: Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past
    Also see: Climate Myth: Arctic was warmer in 1940

    Second, you’re touting the “1934 is the hottest year on record” climate myth. Unfortunately, that heat wave (only the 6th hottest) was in the US only, and global average temp was actually cool.

    The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking sixth behind 2012, 2016, 2015, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet, including the oceans. The land area of the U.S. accounts for only 2% of Earth’s total surface area. Despite the U.S. sweltering in 1934, that year was not especially hot over the rest of the planet, as you can see on the 1934 map below. Globally, 1934 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the 20th century.

    Before positing climate myths, please check at to see if they’ve been debunked. Thank you.

    • Replies: @cassandra
  323. Sparkon says:

    I “look outside” and have seen drastic climate change beginning in the winter of 2000-2001 and getting worse every year.
    Our condominium has been saving thousands of dollars a year in heating cost, and less heat needed every year.
    Global Warming is NOT A HOAX.

    Hey Mr. Command. I think you’re setting up a strawman, cursing your good fortune, and focusing too much on your local conditions over a short time frame with vague language and no numbers to support your argument. Or maybe you’re just confused, but it’s true the Earth had been getting warmer in the recent past, and hardly anyone denies it, despite or even with your all caps. Whether or not the warming continues is not clear as other parts of N. America have had record snow and cold in 2017, 2018, and 2019. But of course by now everyone knows that whether the weather is hot or cold, it’s all caused by Global Warming.

    Yes, emphatically, the Earth has been getting warmer in the last 200 years or so, and also since the continental ice sheets last receded more than 10,000 years ago.

    Personally, I prefer warm weather. No ice or snow is wonderful. I see many Canadian cars in So. California every winter. Now I suppose many denizens of the Siberia of N. America will save themselves the long drive to Palm Springs once word gets out about the balmy winter conditions in SW Ontario, eh?

    But here’s the deal. The question is not so much whether or not it’s getting warmer, but rather the question is whether or not human activities have any effect on climate. The simplest and best argument is that climate has always changed on Earth, sometimes dramatically and rather suddenly, driven by powerful forces we understand only dimly, if at all. But humans always need scapegoats, so when it’s not witches, it’s Carbon.

    Against the backdrop of those titanic forces that can change climate suddenly and dramatically, it is clearly nothing but “special pleading” to argue that now man is the top dog driving climate change, which our hysterical and panicky alarmists want us to believe is leading to an impending “climate catastrophe,” and we’ve got to do something about it — right now!– even if we can’t, and even — or especially — if it’s a waste of money that will line someone’s pockets. Panic first. think later, if at all, if ever. But pay every step of the way.

    But don’t it feel good saving the Planet, even with all that pain in your wallet?

    I don’t think so.

    Sure, obviously we’ve had global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age less than 200 years ago, a period when the climate was so cold, wet and generally nasty, leading to crop failures, deadly storms, disease, and pestilence, that the climate alarmists of the day began burning witches at the stake, encouraged in their efforts by none other than the misnamed — but still Very Holy doncha know? — Pope Innocent VIII, in his Papal Bullshit from 1584, Summis desiderantes affectibus:

    Many persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation and straying from the Catholic Faith, have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi, and by their incantations, spells, conjurations, and other accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offences, have slain infants yet in the mother’s womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth
    these wretches furthermore afflict and torment men and women…they hinder men from performing the sexual act and women from conceiving, … at the instigation of the Enemy of Mankind they do not shrink from committing and perpetrating the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses to the deadly peril of their own souls, (…) the abominations and enormities in question remain unpunished not without open danger to the souls of many and peril of eternal damnation.

    An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine but because people refuse to see it

    because the climate changed. It got worse, that’s why it’s called The Dark Ages Cold Period.

    Enjoy life. Count your blessings. Throw another moose on the barbie.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Bombercommand
    , @anon
  324. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Do you believe in monsters under your bed too?

    1. I post anonymously for privacy reasons (if you have any inkling of how AI is developing right now, you would too), and have no control over what number Unz assigns. They seem random to me, but I think its to IP address, and mine must switch when I sign off and on the computer.
    2. My only “program” is to identify a climate change myth and run it by and debunk it online here. And the only reason I’m doing it, is because it helps me learn. You really don’t know a subject until you can teach it to somebody else, and handle questions and objections. So I’m here learning and having fun.

    I actually was a skeptic of climate change a year ago, and am thankful for for the facts that changed my mind. My politics haven’t changed. I voted for Trump, and like Trump I don’t think the US should cripple itself if other nations aren’t crippling themselves, and besides, Jevon’s Paradox ensures that if one nation conserves, it just makes a resource cheaper for another nation to use. (Garrett, 2009)

    And bringing up Garrett’s article that says climate change can’t be stopped by conservation enrages liberals just as much as you feel enraged by my presenting climate change facts. I guess I can’t please anybody! LOL Good reason to remain anon.

    P.S. I’ve actually perused the “electric universe” stuff for some years, and like some of it. But adequately explaining climate change it does not.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  325. Sparkon says:

    The words are there in black and white. It is no lie to quote what was written, but it is a waste of time to engage with deluded fanatics who throw words around as if they had no meaning. After a period of grace, all the anons are back on my ‘ignore’.

    • Replies: @anon
  326. @anon

    P.S. I’ve actually perused the “electric universe” stuff for some years, and like some of it. But adequately explaining climate change it does not.

    Ok, you are a nice learning bot of all the pseudoscience, such as man made global warming. Well done, but keep learning.

    The climate does change, and there is nothing you bots or the degenerates who program you can do about it. It changes and life will adapt, its nature.

    I suggest like many others, simply lower your CO2 footprint and stop breathing, you steal valuable O2 and produce evil CO2.
    But hey, even better, I will tax your breathing air, you produce too much CO2, you got to reduce it. It also has the nice effect, I can move forward with the smart grid, I keep the morons busy with CO2 BS, once that is done, I will sent armed drones for any CO2 tax violator, heretics and thought criminals.

    • Replies: @anon
  327. Anonymous [AKA "Michael Parish"] says:

    Gore also told us the first 200 yards of the West Cost would be underwater in 20 years. Five years later he purchased land within that 200 yards and in full view of the Pacific ocean. To date his land is not underwater and he’s property value has skyrocketed 300%. Not bad for scaring the owners just prior to him buying that very land.

    • Replies: @anon
  328. @anon

    The conditions I describe result from the current Average World Wide Temperature that is a mere 1.1C higher than the 1880-1910 Thirty Year Average, and the earth didn’t reach that until 2015. A 1.1C increase results in summers with a 10C-22C hotter temps that go on for weeks, even months, utterly mindboggling. This is the result of 400ppmCO2, when CO2 was only increasing 1ppm-2ppm/year. We are now at 414ppmCO2 and the yearly increase is now 3ppm-4ppm/year. I would not be surprised if we reach 450ppmCO2 in 2028 and no later than 2035. This monster is galloping. The 1.5C over 1880-1910 Average is disaster and we are going there, fast. In 2015 I got heat stroke for the first time in my life, martial arts training outdoors in the shade,weird dizziness, diarreah, the works, and I grew up in SE Texas in the 1960’s and never heard of anyone getting heatstroke. What’s coming for breakfast will scare the crap out of hell itself.

  329. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Gore also told us the first 200 yards of the West Cost would be underwater in 20 years?


  330. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Show us in black and white where Garrett advocates what you say he advocates. Oh right, it isn’t there. Go ahead, put me on ignore, that way you don’t have to suffer the embarrassment of getting called out as a liar again.

  331. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    And NPC Sparkon trotts out the “It’s not bad” climate myth.

    Climate Myth: It’s not bad
    What the science says: Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

  332. @AnonFromTN

    Farting dinosaurs. Imagine how much cellulose they had to digest in those huge bellies. Anyway, as Zhvanetsy once told:” whatever man is doing, he is slowly crawling towards his grave”.

  333. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re an idiot. You assign to me things I’ve never said, and then proceed to go full retard on that. Wow.

  334. CanSpeccy says:

    You’re also oblivious to the rate of climate change.

    What the Devil do you know of what I’m oblivious to or not?

    Why are you even attacking me? I have pointed out:

    (a) That rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is leading to an increased rate of species extinction.

    (b) That elevation of atmospheric carbon dioxide has detrimental effects on human cognition.

    (c) That there are many human impacts on climate other than via carbon dioxide.

    Those are the only positive assertions I have made here. Which one of them do you disagree with?

  335. @Sparkon

    I have seen drastic climate change since the winter of 2000-2001. It is getting worse every year. There are two forms of Denialism Of Reality: “Global-Warming-Is-A-Hoax” and “Renewables-Will-Save-The-Planet”. You live in a fuzzy-headed fantasy world, Sparkon. And so do the “Greenies”. You are both two sides of the same worthless coin.

  336. Meimou says:

    1. This is not the same thing as 97% scientists agree.

    2. How much of theses climate articles claim that a significant amout of warming is caused by human activity?

    3. The scientific establishment has little to zero credibility to non debunkers.

    4. Science is not a democracy.

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
    , @anon
  337. @anon

    I was thinking the same thing.

    • Replies: @Anon
  338. utu says:

    Once again I recommend to anybody listening to Ivar Giaever. Common sense questions and perspective.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @CanSpeccy
  339. Sparkon says:

    State and local temperature records in the U.S. have been largely out of reach of the climate data manipulators and alarmists. By looking at the state and local records, I suggest we can gain a better idea about recent temperature trends in the United States. Bear in mind the well known siting problems with some of the local records, where urban areas have grown up around the weather stations, possibly contaminating records due to the urban heat island effect.

    Despite that, and in the face of all the alarm about Global Warming, in the United States, nineteen individual states set their all-time official high temperature records way back about 80 years ago during the decade of the 1930s, while in the last 20 years since 2000, only one new high temperature record has been set, and one more tied.

    Meanwhile, the Sun recently has been mostly spotless, a condition also noted during the Maunder Minimum during the depth of the Little Ice Age when the witches were burning.

    Illinois is pretty much smack dab in the middle of the United States. In that Midwestern state, the previous all-time low temperature record had been set as recently as January 5, 1999 with −36 °F recorded at Congerville, near Peoria. For almost 70 years, Mt. Carroll had held the earlier record of −35 °F recorded on January 22, 1930. On January 15, 2009, −37 ° was recorded at Rochelle, near Rockford, but the low wasn’t recognized officially by the state. On January 31, 2019, a new Illinois state record low of −38 °F. was recorded at nearby Mt Carroll, Illinois.

    The highest temperature recorded in Illinois was 117 °F back on July 14, 1954 in East St. Louis, more than 60 years ago, while the all-time U.S. and now world high temperature record of 134°F was set on July 10, 1913 in Death Valley, California, more than 100 years ago.

    Sorry to burst your hysterical bubble alarmists, but the state and local records do not support your argument that it’s now getting warmer than ever before, nor do those ancient forests emerging from beneath melting glaciers in Alaska, and elsewhere testify than it’s never been this warm before, when there is clear and unequivocal evidence that it has in fact been warmer in the past during the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods, and earlier. Just ask Ötzi the Iceman.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Vojkan
  340. @Meimou

    Go to the SkepticalScience website, click on “Arguments” on the top bar.

  341. cassandra says:

    While having a name following in the finest traditions of public relations, scepticalscience is neither impartially sceptical of nor especially scientific, so I don’t see why you’d invoke them as a go-to authority, or expect anyone else to respect their say-so.

    There’s an issue in your graph that enables almost anyone to create their own personal hockey stick for anything. It relies upon a beginner’s error in signal-processing theory, which amounts to comparing apples and oranges in the frequency domain. “Reconstructed” measurements from ice cores report data points averaged over hundreds or even thousands of years. Kinnard applies a 40 year filter to his data, which does nothing to his ice core data, which has no time resolutio as fine as this value. The actual time resolution of his proxies isn’t mentioned. The “modern” short-term, more extreme, 40 year, fluctuations (which likely occurred before as well) would be smoothed and buried across the time averaging implicit in the measured data, before his 40 yr. filtering.

    Showing a graph with one temporal resolution for the past and a finer one revealing short-term fluctuations for the present is disingenuous. Data should be plotted with the same temporal resolution across the board, which would smooth out the ice dip. But that was exactly my point, that we need to look over a longer time window before regarding recent measurements as indicative of any long-term trends.

    I dunno, but a lot of climate discussions seem to suffer from an ignorance of fundamentals of statistical communication theory.

    Regarding the 30’s, I did mention that people were dying in the streets. Do we recently see conditions where people are fleeing en masse to air-conditioned environments to avoid an untimely demise? I think not. The burden is upon you, to reconcile present-day street conditions with historical reports. Claims of recent temperature extremes are based on ”reported” (i.e., massaged) data, in contrast to unadulterated “recorded” values, and the “adjustments” responsible for the difference between the 2 merit close examination.

    View this link to see the corruption of our temperature records that have enabled this deception:

    • Replies: @anon
  342. cassandra says:

    Ski California and stop worrying!

  343. @wayfarer

    Think Chernobyl … think Fukushima.

  344. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    State and local temperature records are right here, publicly available, and I’ve already presented data from them in comments #83 and #138.

    GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
    Station Data: GHCN v3 and SCAR

    You’re not bursting any bubbles, you’re just repeating an litany of bullshit that I’ve already debunked.

  345. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re parroting the disinformation and linking to the website of the infamous Tony Heller, a.k.a., Steve Goddard. He’s such a horribly bad liar, even climate deniers like Anthony Watts, for whom Tony Heller used to write, are embarrassed by him and shun him, and try to show the moron how wrong he is.

    Tony Heller’s lies you present in this comment are exposed by real climate scientists such as:

    How Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller does bad science

    USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

    • Replies: @cassandra
  346. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    And once again:

    Ivar Giaever – Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

  347. Agent76 says:

    April 4, 2019 Scientists Document No Clear Warming Role For CO2 During The Last Deglaciation – Or The Last 10,000 Years

    A new paper indicates the rise in CO2 concentration occurred well after the Northern Hemisphere’s ocean circulation changes drove the abrupt warming (~11,700 years ago) that ended the last ice age – a lag that effectively leaves no causal role for CO2 during deglaciation.

    Feb 26, 2019 Fatal Flaw In Climate Change Science

    We must stop pollution for reasons of biosphere toxicity, NOT because of climate change. The TSI model of solar forcing ignores nearly all climate forcing aspects of space weather AND applies that forcing to the human total. This video shows that fact in a way that anyone can understand.

    • Replies: @anon
  348. anon[831] • Disclaimer says:

    Your website is trotting out the long debunked “CO2 lags temperature” objections to climate science, addressed here:

    CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?

    • Replies: @NoGo
  349. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Predictions are hard, especially about the future, and especially long-term predictions about the weather.

    The climate alarmists have been crying wolf for more than half a century and still we’ve had no catasprophic famine or other spectacular climate-change-induced disaster. Moreover, they have used the bogeyman of human-caused climate warming to line their pockets, promote political agendas and, inflate research grants. Now they use it as a justification for insolent attacks on any expression of opinion or presentation of evidence that fails to defer to their own questionable claims.

    A good example is the anon (Germanicus seems to think that the Anons are bots, which seems plausible to me) insisting that: “Humans are changing the climate now faster than it has ever changed before.” He’s talking about the last 60 years, but there is no fine-grain record of global temperature since the year dot that could possibly verify such a claim.

    Moreover, even if it were true that the climate has warmed during the last 60 years faster than ever before, he/it has no firm basis for attributing the change solely, or even partly, to human activity. It wasn’t long ago that the alarmists were jeering at Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon’s claim that global warming was in part due to increased solar radiant flux. But if the planet starts to cool, you can be sure they’ll be telling you about the impending solar minimum.

    And they don’t talk much about variation in the sun’s magnetic field, which apparently affects climate radically by altering the flux of cosmic radiation impinging on the atmosphere, which by causing atmospheric ionization, affects cloud formation and hence the terrestrial energy balance. I guess they think that the public are too dumb to understand the complex causes of climate variation so they stick with the claim that ever rising CO2 causes ever rising temperature, although that cannot be true.

    But though criers of wolf many in the climate science community may be, it does not mean that there is no wolf. It just means that the decision on what to do about the hazard of climate change must be taken independently of what the climate scientists may say.

    My own view is that it is not sensible to change the chemical composition of the atmosphere in ways that (a) impact human cognitive capacity and (b) transform the biosphere through a huge increase in global primary production. So I think we should do something about it as I wrote here, although I fear that our leaders are too doped out on CO2 to think the matter through clearly.

    We should also do something, as indeed we are in some fashion, to combat other human impacts on the environment, and a big step in that direction would be to curb population growth. A useful start might be to end all Western aide to countries with a fertility rate in excess of the replacement rate. Once that is achieved, we could shoot for coordinated declines in human population to a more modest number, perhaps just over a couple of billion, the number of people on the face of the planet in the year I emerged to fret my hour upon this earthly stage. The world certainly seemed more spacious, less spoilt, then.

    • Replies: @anon
  350. anon[831] • Disclaimer says:

    Not the same? Good grief, I got the graph that has your panties in a significant twist from right here:

    The 97% consensus on global warming

    Science is not a democracy, correct. Nobody but you ever suggested it was, except you.

    Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework…

    • Replies: @NoGo
  351. FB says: • Website

    The fucking anons here are clearly part of some organized campaign…that is no longer in question…

    If people would simply refuse to respond to anons they would be forced to either go away, or use perfectly anonymous handles like everyone else…in fact I think formal registration would be a good idea…

    Many people have very reasonably stated that we need to protect our biosphere from toxic pollution which may be decimating the pollinating insect population and could crash our entire food supply which depends on pollination…

    We need to stop habitat loss that is endangering important species especially apex predators like the magnificent lion and other big cats…

    But nobody is proposing to do anything about any of that…why the fuck not…?

    Instead we have dropped down upon our heads like the stone tablets of Moses a completely ridiculous fucking fantasy about CO2…[and its bullshit corollary ‘fossil’ fuels…which have absolutely zilch to do with hydrocarbon fuels since the thermodynamics to make this chemical chain possible can only occur at great temperatures and pressures, which exist only at depths miles below where any form of life has ever existed…]

    We have lived for some time in a world dominated by a small plutocratic elite that has harnessed modern media to create alternative realities…we are massively indoctrinated and misinformed on just about every important facet of our very existence…

    Clearly the climate lobby is one such project…ordinary folks need to start taking a tougher line on this issue…we need to ask our elected representatives where they stand on this obvious project for even more plutocratic control…if they support this bullshit…kick them out…simple as that…

    And bring in people who want to talk about toxic pollution and habitat loss…how much longer are we going to be plain fucking stupid…?

    • Replies: @anon
  352. anon[831] • Disclaimer says:

    We’ve had no catasprophic famine or other spectacular climate-change-induced disaster? Might want to ask Kenneth Foster, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, about that. He writes:

    World hunger is on the rise again, and climate change is a culprit

    No firm basis for attributing the change solely, or even partly, to human activity? Wrong again; you’re parroting the “it’s not us” myth, debunked here:

    Climate Myth: It’s Not Us!

    Global warming was in part due to increased solar radiant flux? Wrong. Solar radiation is down, not up, for the last half century, and temps continue to climb. Graph:

    Source: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

    • Replies: @cassandra
  353. @renfro

    We know were destroying the forests, polluting the oceans, eliminating species, etc., and the pace of the destruction is increasing. It’s way past time to start trying to understand what we are doing to the planet, and we don’t need the idiotic right as exemplified by Trump to help

    But trying to convince the human earthworms among us is useless. Like the earthworm their lives are restricted to eating , shitting and screwing themselves.

    in fairness, no one is actually trying to convince the human earthworms. If leaders, etc., really believed we needed to use less fossil fuel, they would advocate halting all immigration into industrialized nations. The only foreign aid would be birth control. Fossil fuel imports would be banned. In fact all imports would be banned. So, for all the talk, the believers don’t believe it and, by extension, neither do the earthworms.

    • Replies: @anon
  354. anon[831] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m organized? Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. It’s better than being “nothing but unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shit.” My organization is simple: check clueless morons’ claim with to see if it has already been debunked. So far nobody has posted anything original; they merely parrot previously debunked denialist horseshit.

    I’m actually having fun. has 197 different climate myths. I’m trying to collect them all! 🙂

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  355. anon[831] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alice in Wonderland

    To use less fossil fuel is utterly pointless, because of Jevon’s Paradox. Conservation of a resource only makes it more economical and easier for another to use. Please consult Tim Garrett’s 2009 journal article that I’ve already discussed in comments #269 and #294. To clarify:

    “Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy,” says Garrett.

    He says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption – known as Jevons paradox – was proposed in the 1865 book “The Coal Question” by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal consumption soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency.

    Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

  356. cassandra says:

    Sure I read realclimatescience, but I’m hardly parroting Goddard in my criticism that our observations are too short-term to form conclusions or justify alarm. I level that criticism against some of what Heller says myself.

    But whether Heller lies or not isn’t relevant to my argument, unless you’re willing to claim that the newspaper reports he cites, especially over heat waves in the 30’s, have been fabricated. If you have any in mind, by all means, please point them out.

    As far as temperature is concerned, when I first began studying this issue seriously, I was immediately struck by the fact that opposing sides were reporting different temperature histories. How could this be? The explanation was that alarmist data had been “adjusted”, presumably to correct for one effect or another, but always downward in the past and upward in the present. Explanations for these self-serving operations were unsatisfactory. Justify, for example, the modification represented by the gif I showed. There seems to be a great deal of politically-motivated legerdemain, the Climategate episode being only the most well-known instance.

    So never mind Tony; lets confine the argument to the specifics.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  357. wayfarer says:

    “Secret Nature – Facts About Birds of Prey.”

    “How the Fastest Animal on Earth Attacks Its Prey.”

  358. anon[831] • Disclaimer says:

    Whether Heller lies or not isn’t relevant to my argument? LOL! It most certainly is relevant when you’re posting Tony Heller’s graphs from Tony Heller’s own website that perpetuate Tony Heller’s lies. Even climate denier Anthony Watts is embarrassed by him, and fired him as a writer on his website. You should be embarrassed too, his lies and manipulation of data are easily deconstructed.

    > Heat waves in the 30’s?

    It’s like you are utterly retarded. Can you even read? 1934 was the 6th hottest summer for the US, not the hottest. And the heatwave was local to the US, not global. I already debunked your 1930’s garbage in #327 with data from here: , and you just regurgitate it like a cow chewing cud.

    • Replies: @cassandra
  359. @anon

    I get, but for a long time haven’t read, the newsletters but, apart from once learning that it was the work od an enthusiastic young Queensland academic called John Cook I have learned nothing of it which should lead one to trust its take on anything it reports on. Sometimes correct no doubt, but why do you put it forward as authoritative and trustworthy? Are you one of Cook’s mates? Are you a scientist? Have you checked what it says – and what the underlying evidence and models are for yourself?

    • Replies: @anon
  360. Vojkan says:

    The problem with all monomaniacs like climate doomsters, “Christian armageddonists”, flat Earthers, feel free to add to the list, is that they they’re in their trip and, they behold the truth and everybody else is a heretic. I say climate change is nothing new, climate has always been changing and they say I deny climate is changing, I say CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, and they say lock yourself in an an airtight sealed CO2 filled room. They tell you temperatures have skyrocketed in big cities like Toronto and it’s not because everything in Toronto is heated, which necessarily heats up the air too, and yes the air up there too, since hot air has lower density and therefore tends to rise. No really, it’s all the fault of the peasant in Idaho using agricultural machines to work his fields, or the fault of the deplorables from Peoria who need their cars to drive to work. The problem is that such idiocy is a global epidemics.
    If they feel too hot in their big cities, I suggest they make a trip to the countryside if they need some cooling down. If warming is a global phenomenon, then I must live in an island, without sea at 400 km around, but I still have to shovel 4o-50 cm of snow four or five times every winter, I still have average temperatures of -5 to -10°C from November to March here in Europe. the same qs 35 years ago. Granted, I now live on the periphery of a small town, where I couldn’t survive without a car, not any more in an overheated megalopolis like Paris. As for Greta Thunberg’s Sweden, I bet it’s warmer there now that that they have an underground system heating sidewalks that they didn’t have a few decades ago.
    They are people who never heard of things like micro-climates. they are people who’ll never admit that supposing the increase in CO2 is indeed warming the planet, it’s their urban-nomadic-exotic vegetables consuming way of life that has the biggest impact as compared to the impact of the deplorables of this world.
    But no, they’re the righteous ones and they feel entitled to patronise everyone else. The problem is everyone else is starting to figure out their bullsh*t so they’re doubling down on their heavy CO2 consuming fancy propaganda. But in the end, people tend to believe their own experience vs. urban smugnorants’ rants.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @anon
  361. Wavelet says:

    On none of the controversial topics discussed on this site have the shills been sperging out this hard… So some counter perspective is due. After studying both sides of the climate science and debate for some time it is clear that “climate change” is modest and benign.

    My Summary:
    1) CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse” gas” but due to of a saturating effect, any further doubling of CO2 causes only a linear increase in “back-radiation”. This is called the “climate sensitivity”. Despite claims to the contrary, the value of the climate sensitivity is unknown. Alarmists claim 3 or more °C per doubling, various critics claim different lower values, some even zero. For the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 increased constantly at 2 ppm per year. It would thus take 200 years until the next doubling!
    2) The main fear from climate change or global warming comes from weather extremes and regions becoming uninhabitable. However this is unwarranted. No significant increase in weather extremes in the last 150 years is evident. The climate related death toll decreased significantly over the last decades. Food production increased faster than population. The CO2 increase helped in this regard with a fertilizing effect. Thus there is no reason to stop using fossil fuels as long as they last.
    3) As there is no problem, there is also no meaningful economic policy to counter a problem. Alarmists do not seem to know what they actually want – other than everyone else joining their belief system. Wind and Solar are not good enough to compensate for fossil fuels. Only 4th gen nuclear technology could replace them in the long run.
    4) My answer on the question of “why”, from the article above: The obvious right/left divide between climate alarmists and sceptics as well as the mass delusion of scientists and the general public is mysterious. An organic emergence out of pseudo-religious behavioural patterns, corruption and confirmation bias seems to be the most plausible explanation. The alternative, a long term, large scale conspiracy, as outlined in “Why big oil conquered the world!, by James Corbett, seems less likely to me.

    Some notes on the lies and deceptions of the main climate alarm propagandists:
    For any interested objective observer, who has bothered to read the climategate emails, it should be clear that mainstream climate science not only full with failed predictions, but also very corrupt. The “hockey stick” graph that attempted to erase the medieval warm period from history has become the figurehead of the climate fraud.
    The propagandists like to turn this around, but it is them who have preconceived conclusions, ignoring contradictory evidence and are unable or unwilling to change their mind – not the critics.
    The propagandists try to insult their critics with phrases like “conspiracy theorist” and “denier”, at the same time they often bring up, usually without evidence, the “big-oil-funds-climate-denial” conspiracy theory.
    With few exceptions the professional climate scientists refuse public debate with their criticial colleagues.
    In internet forums the propagandists use mendacious debate strategies that are primarily based on emotional mechanisms. Examples from this threat: Pretending to have been a skeptic before but having changed side; insulting the opponents as much as possible; denying any wrongdoing or mistakes of their side (“climategate-dindunothing”); pretending to win the argument by having the last word (although “skeptical-science” seems to have an answer to every comment, that does not mean that the answer is correct or compelling) … Longer analysis of the main propagandist blogs can be found here:
    All this makes it look like that, even if climate change would be a real problem, it is presented as if it would be a lie.

    The main sources, and recommended videos, that to support this assessment, are:
    A 30 page summary of the skeptical position on climate change:
    All information regarding sea level rise:
    Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Publishes large and comprehensive reports that challenge those by the “IPCC”:
    The world’s most viewed blog on climate science, “Watts Up With That”, by Anthony Watts:
    A very good collection of 100’s of skeptic papers:
    Important: Hurricanes & tropical cyclones are not worsening:
    Important: Droughts are not worsening:
    A comprehensive and neutral collection of climate data:
    Bjorn Lomborg, Invest in RD not useless subsidies:
    David MacKay, “Reality check on renewables” :
    R. Lindzen, No alarmism is justified, even according to official IPCC reports
    Patrick Moore, “Greenpeace co-founder: CO2 is wholy beneficial” :
    Roy Spencer, Alarmist Gavin Schmidt is scared of a debate:
    Will Happer, Technical details on how CO2 IR absorption works
    Nir Shaviv, How the sun and cosmic rays influence climate 1 :
    Henrik Svensmark, How the sun and cosmic rays influence climate 2 :
    Murry Salby, a different view of the CO2 cycle, even controversial among sceptics, but astonishing if correct:

  362. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

    Let’s list your excuse-making efforts:

    1. > I say climate change is nothing new, climate has always been changing

    Of course you do, it’s the #1 Climate Denial Myth! Tell us how alligators were found in Spitzbergen!

    2. > I say CO2 is necessary for life on Earth…

    Everybody knows it’s plant food. Nobody says otherwise. Water is plant food too, which according to your logic, means nothing bad can ever come from water.

    Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

    3. > too hot in their big cities

    I already live in the country. Who wants to live near niggers? Now let’s address your excuse-making:

    Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?

    4. > I still have to shovel

    OMG, it’s freaking cold!Source:

    5. > people tend to believe their own experience

    Exactly! Especially those who get outside with a thermometer, and keep records of their experience.

  363. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

    Your summary? Not hardly, pilgrim. You’re just parroting denialist shills. For instance:

    > 1) CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse” gas” but due to of a saturating effect…

    Where have we heard “your” bullshit before? It’s standard-issue denialist bullshit, debunked here:

    Climate Myth: CO2 effect is saturated
    Science says: The notion that the CO2 effect is ‘saturated’ is based on a misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

    > 2)…No significant increase in weather extremes…

    Wrong, bucko. Ask a reinsurance company like Munich Re, who provides data about the number of annual disasters, and the frequency of these events is indeed rising.

    After your starting off that badly, why keep debunking more of your stupid points? Mass delusion? It’s all yours.

    • Replies: @Wavelet
  364. Mike P says:

    Good overview. Roy Spencer, whom you mention in your video list, also maintains a good website of his own:

    His colleague, John Christy, is worth a mention. Here is an excellent presentation of his:

    Spencer and Christy are true scientists, which everyone who ever has been immersed in science himself will recognise – and they come down on a similar position to yours: CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but its effects are too minor to worry about.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  365. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Sometimes correct no doubt? Well now, point out an example where got it wrong. Go on, give it a whirl, you make it sound soooo easy. But I bet you don’t even try. You’re just butthurt that he’s created a website that is analogous to, an archive of creationist talking points that are debunked with scientific references to journal articles.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  366. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

    Wavelet: read the climategate emails
    Debunked: Nothingburger.

    Wavelet: “hockey stick” graph
    Debunked: Stick ain’t broke.

    Wavelet: attempted to erase the medieval warm period
    Debunked: IPCC did not “disappear” the MWP.

    Wavelet: “big-oil-funds-climate-denial” conspiracy
    Confirmed: Jeesh, don’t forget “clean coal” and the “chamber of commerce” conspirers


    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  367. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Spencer and Christy are true scientists...who truly fudged the UAH satellite data to show less warming.

    UAH lowballing

    “introducing a false cooling trend”

    If you want false cooling trends, Spencer and Christy are your go-to guys!

    • Replies: @Mike P
  368. Wavelet says:

    Many insults again, no substance …
    but you provide nice examples of your deceptive method:

    You complain about the use of the word “saturated” being supposetly used incorrectly, when I explicity state in the next sentence the logarithmic relationship between CO and temperature …

    Your graph is cut off at 2012, because since then the “disaster count” has been going down again!

    Further, this are “reported” disaster events. With an increased population, improved civil protection measures and attention towards this topic it is plausible the merely the number of events that effected people and get “reported” increased …
    Also, as the article above already mentioned, what is more important then the number of disasters, how well people learned to handle them – and the annual death rate from natural disasters went down significantly.

    • Replies: @anon
  369. @dc.sunsets

    Go back to my original comment.

    Please copy/paste where I said or alluded to the notion that Mises was NOT a libertarian. Your entire thread here is a construct in your head.

    My comment included a reference to Mises and a whole lot of what is definitely NOT Misesian economics. It was intended to be a basis for comment or criticism of the latter.

    That you focused on “Mises” and launched into what amounted to a trip down a blind alley is frankly pitiable, and a perfect encapsulation of your NPC action.

    I know it’s fun for people like you to waste people like me’s time. Kudos, you’ve succeeded (although I do have the time to spare at the moment.) But I do appreciate your reminding me that I waste my time casting pearls before swine. I think I’ll go and play some Beethoven on the piano. It’s very relaxing.

    • Replies: @anon
  370. @anon

    Comment 295 references paragraphs 4-8.

    You respond with a link to something that is utterly unrelated to them.

    My God, you’re a moron.

  371. Anonymous[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Ask Roy Spencer how much money he receives from Peabody Coal.

    Other prominent climate sceptics who provided testimony in the Minnesota hearing on behalf of Peabody included: Roy Spencer who told Unearthed he was paid \$4,000 by Peabody…

    Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding

    \$\$cha-ching!\$\$ No wonder he introduced a false cooling trend in his data that has had to be corrected 11 times. Hell, I’m a cheap(er) whore, I’d suck Peabody’s coal cock for \$3600! 10% discount, right here! Where’s my money!!! LOL! 🙂

  372. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

    The “disaster count” has been going down again? Wrong…

    Source: 2018’s Billion Dollar Disasters in Context

    Also see: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview

  373. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

    I concede. You win on the Mises-whatever distraction.

  374. @Wavelet

    That WAS a very good summary, Wavelet. I don’t expect most people to read through all the comments, but I may have answered your one question in a comment way, way, above. This is the question of why is what should be a scientific question now a political one that splits on close to a conservative/left-wing divide.

    As I wrote, I think it’s just a lucky break for the ctrl-left that they came upon this Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption(TM) thing as the Feral Beast of the US Gov’t had grown to be able to regulate and tax the American population pretty much at will, with no serious impediment from US Const., Amend X anymore. It works out great for them. For the big leaders, it’s purely about control. They may believe, easily or not, the doomsday talk, but that’s not really important to them. As Professor Glenn Reynolds, the original Instapundit, likes to say: “I’ll believe it’s crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like its a crisis.”

    The conservatives have been playing defense, many because they see the utter stupidity of making big controlled changes to the economy based on bullshit models, and others because, whatever the supposed reason, they rightfully don’t want ANY MORE government control. It’s defense because they have to keep dealing with the useful idiots that tell them they are anti-science.

    It shouldn’t have to be a political issue, but the ctrl-left made it one. What’s so sick about the whole thing is that now, to make small-talk and just be friendly, we can’t even discuss the weather anymore.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anon
  375. Mike P says:

    Just take a few minutes out of your busy day of shilling, and listen to what Christy actually has to say, will you? You will at least see how a real scientist behaves and thinks. It could not be more different from your own obnoxious, juvenile demeanour.

    I’ll make it easy for you – here are some key parts:

    From minute 10 onwards, Christy shows data on atmospheric temperatures, snow, ice, and extreme weather, which all show that those apocalyptic predictions aren’t working.

    From minute 25 onwards, he discusses the effect that enacting some tightened car emission regulations recently passed by Calfornia would have on global temperatures, based on the IPCC’s own climate models, which of course greatly exaggerate the effect of CO2. He presented his calculations as testimony in a court of law; the defendents’ expert witness, there present, was James Hansen himself. In his decision, the judge wrote (as you can see at 28 minutes):

    Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Christy estimated that implementing the regulations across the entire United States would reduce global temperatures by about 1/100th of a degree by 2100. Hansen did not contradict that testimony.

    If you think you can prove him wrong where James Hansen did not even try, then give us an actual argument right here, in your own words, in scientific language. Don’t just presume to “assign homework” for all of us by spamming the thread with links to your pseudoscience websites – you are not a teacher; you are at best a college dropout.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @anon
  376. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Listen folks, stop this climate disaster denialism. The proof that we’re all doomed unless we obey the dictates of the Greens and their noble Obamoid partners is available to everyone on the Internets at How do I know? Because someone call Anon keeps saying so. And if you disagree you’re a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, hater of all things true and just. cf. How Stupid People Win Debates.

    • Agree: Vojkan, utu
    • Replies: @anon
  377. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Shilling? LOL! I don’t take money. However, Dr. Christy admits taking money from Peabody Coal. He’s the shill.

    Regarding your shill’s data, I’ll make it easy for you. His low-balled data has already been proven wrong and had to be revised 11 times. Now that it has been corrected, And when data is corrected for errors, this is what you get:

    “troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models.”

    Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data

    • Replies: @Mike P
  378. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    Seems my charts rendered you apoplectic on actual data. Now you’re trying smear techniques like any Leftist Obomoid would use. I’ve already stated my political position on climate change, which I’ll summarize here, citing again, for the 4th time, Garrett’s 2009 paper that you can’t seem to comprehend in the slightest:

    1. I voted for Trump and still support him.
    2. Global Warming is unstoppable and “it’s not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way” because of Jevon’s Paradox. (Garrett, 2009)

    Would it help if I put it in all caps for you?


    Did it get through this time? How do you read me? I’ll try Morse Code for you next, if necessary, that always gets the signal through! 🙂

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @renfro
  379. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    For the big leaders, it’s purely about control? Whatever, it’s true, but that still doesn’t invalidate science facts. Did power politics to gain world domination invalidate E=MC2 because the science behind nuclear physics was used to make nuclear bombs?

    And I’ve stated my political position:

    1. I voted for Trump and still support him.
    2. Global Warming is unstoppable and “it’s not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way” because of Jevon’s Paradox. (Garrett, 2009)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  380. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Implementing the regulations? I’m not advocating that. I’ve already stated several times, and have been perfectly clear, and will repeat my position on what should be done for you once again:

    “It’s not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way” because of Jevon’s Paradox. (Garrett, 2009)

    Can you just read that sentence and try to understand it?

  381. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Hey, Anon, you’re a truly accomplished troll.

    • Replies: @anon
  382. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    “it’s not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way” because of Jevon’s Paradox. (Garrett, 2009)

    Of course it’s possible. You raise the price of (fossil fuel-based) energy with a carbon tax. That negates the effect on demand of energy conservation and and increased energy-use efficiency.

    So tell us, Anon, are you really as witless as the other Anons here, or or just shilling for the Coal Alliance?

    • Replies: @anon
  383. Mike P says:

    Or in other words, you are unable to make an actual argument.

    Regarding those “11 corrections:” Christy and Spencer pioneered the technique – and they have been improving it continually. Most of the corrections were done by themselves, but some were indeed made in response to criticisms by others.

    The overall effect of the corrections is still close to zero – and their current data set continues to diverge from your vaunted models. And, for the record, theirs is the best data set in existence. Anyone who has ever looked into the sausage making process that goes into GisTemp and the others knows this (of course, that lets you out).

    You have proven again that all you have is link spam and misdirection. You are unable to actually engage in discussion, because you don’t understand the first thing about science, and you don’t want to. You are a shill, paid to disrupt polite discourse by spewing propaganda and insults.

    • Replies: @anon
  384. cassandra says:

    Global warming was in part due to increased solar radiant flux? Wrong. Solar radiation is down, not up, for the last half century, and temps continue to climb. Graph:

    (I’m in the middle of a discussion on temperatures so I won’t address that here.)

    While it’s true that solar irradiance is practically constant, solar magnetism varies considerably.

    Henrik Svensmark proposed a theory that atmospheric cosmic ray intensity inversely follows solar magnetism: the more cosmic radiation, the more nucleation of water vapor into cloud droplets. Others are working on mechanisms causing solar magnetic and cosmic ray variation, from internal (Zahkharova), to planetary (Charvatova) to galactic (Shaviv).

    By this mechanism, solar magnetism can switch the large concentration of atmospheric water from a warming greenhouse vapor when clouds are sparse to a cooling radiation reflector when cloud cover is high.

    There appears to be little integration of this idea into conventional climate models, but it does explain the curious correlations between sunspot activity and weather, as well as others more technical.

    You can find the 7-year-old video The Cloud Mystery at

    (partially supported by the DanishMinistry of Science) In the spirit of scientific Pravda, his politically-incorrect suggestion that some mechanism other than CO2 concentration could be driving climate change was predictably condemned as “irresponsible” (see 13:43).

    • Replies: @anon
  385. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    Citing (Garrett, 2009) must have your panties in a bunch, and all your insult conveys is that you’re truly unaccomplished. I’m humored.

  386. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    With all your insults, all you do is psychologically project. That’s sad. And for all your bullshit about me shilling, the real shill is he who took thousands of dollars from Peabody Coal.

    Just type “Peabody Coal” one time. Can you? Or will you explode? Don’t do it if you’re going to explode, at least before we call a Shill Safety Officer to evaluate.

    • Troll: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Mike P
  387. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    Heard it all before. The cosmic rays notion has been debunked by 7 studies, listed here:

    We can examine the specific mechanisms by which Svensmark and others have claimed GCRs influence climate via cloud behavior and show that alleged correlations between GCRs and clouds were incorrectly calculated or insufficiently large, proposed mechanisms (e.g. Forbush decreases) are too short lived, too small in magnitude, or otherwise incapable of altering cloud behavior on a large enough scale to drive significant climatic change (Sloan 2008, Erlykin 2009, Erlykin 2009a, Pierce 2009, Calogovic 2010, Snow-Kropla 2011, Erlykin 2011).

    Climate Myth: CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming

  388. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    14,200 search results at Google Scholar on Jevon’s Paradox. But CanSpeccy thinks anybody mentioning the work of English economist William Stanley Jevons and his 1865 book The Coal Question is shilling for 1800’s British coal. I tell you what, if you go to a comedy club, I’d pay good money to hear more of the like! I think you found your calling.

  389. Mike P says:

    Just type “Peabody Coal” one time. Can you? Or will you explode?

    Scientists on all sides of all questions receive industrial money all the time. If you disqualified all scientists who ever took money from industry, there would be nobody left – neither on your side, nor on mine.

    I notice you STILL evade actually making any substantial point about science – because that is not part of your job description.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @anon
  390. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mike P

    The Anons is a silly bugger trolls, which makes look like a troll feeding operation.

    • Agree: Mike P
  391. cassandra says:

    It’s like you are utterly retarded. Can you even read? 1934 was the 6th hottest summer for the US, not the hottest.

    What do you mean, “like”? As for reading, sure I can, but sometimes I don’t.

    But in this case, perhaps I can help allay your frustration: your problem is that you expected me to have accepted the massaged data you offer as “debunking” criticisms of the massage itself. You do see the difficulty, don’t you?

    Now for my own reading omission, that of Tamino’s explanation that temperatures need to be adjusted because more stations have been installed at higher (cooler) latitudes, that you mentioned in #350. Actually, Heller claims to have filtered US data to show max temperatures only at stations that have been in operation since 1919, whose average latitude hasn’t changed. Here’s what happens:

    So the cohort of fixed-latitude stations, for which no adjustments of Tamino’s type would be justified, show no warming trend. If other stations at various latitudes were (correctly) added at later times, one would expect this plot to show roughly the same trend, not to acquire an uptick.

    I do cavil at Heller’s conclusion that temperatures have been cooling overall, but only because I think the data is too noisy. But the only place where Heller’s probity is relevant here is in whether this data is accurate, not whether he was ever in error elsewhere. If you claim that he’s making this data up, please feel free to show me where. I’ve spot-checked his results off and on before and have been bored by lack of discrepancies.

    If you want to discuss deception, you should revisit climategate. There was found pervasive corruption of reported data and the peer review process in plain sight. If you have trouble with Heller’s gaffs, you should think carefully before enthusiastically accepting opaque pronouncements from people, some of whose leaders at least have demonstrated their own enthusiasm for deception and defamation.

    That’s politics. Heller’s redeeming grace, should any be needed, is that his arguments are open to examination, and therefore confirmation or refutation as well. That used to be science, embarrassing or not.

    • Agree: utu, Mike P
    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @anon
  392. renfro says:

    I voted for Trump and still support him.

    Say no more……that explains your mental processes on all matters perfectly..

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
  393. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    You’ve gone from shill inquisitor to shill apologist now. Don’t get whiplash with that flip flop! And I didn’t figure you could even type out “Peabody Coal.” LOL!

    • Troll: CanSpeccy
  394. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    You got one of Hillary’s curly hairs in your teeth.

  395. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    Heller’s conclusion that temperatures have been cooling overall – because he’s lying. He’s been proven–by climate denialists embarrassed to be associated with him–to be lying after examination of his data manipulation. And so are you, touting Climategate like the Democrats spouting about Russia, Russia, Russia! And like the Democrats never quit, I doubt you’ll ever quit.

    • Replies: @cassandra
  396. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Nice summary of Spencer’s shilling for shekels here:

    Roy W. Spencer

  397. @anon

    Do you rally feel the need to spend your time on Do you check on it to validate its authority as you say or imply that you have in the case of SkepticalScience? I suppose their are enough primitives in the US to make it possible you feel that is necessary. For my part I am happy not to live in a country where creationism or even Intelligent Design is still distractingly alive.

    As to the issue of faith in SkepticalScience, as indicated I haven’t been paying attention to it for a long time. I noted it was run by an obscure young Queensland academic whereas the climate sceptics I knew included mathematical or experimental physicists who were or had been Rhodes Scholars and dons at Oxford colleges. If you want to give SkepticalScience a boost at least give us an account of your qualifications and the researches you have done to justify having and spreading faith in that site.

    • Replies: @anon
  398. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It’s an organized catalog of myths, countered by a summary and references to peer reviewed articles that refute the myths. Do peer reviewed journal articles not have authority to you?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  399. cassandra says:

    Sigh; judging from your reaction we could do with a little cooling here, but no matter. Here’s a (Saints preserve us!) Wikipedia definition that nicely identifies our difference:

    Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

    You seem to be asserting that there are irredeemable flaws in Heller’s character that are so egregious that they undercut his arguments. And indeed, to paraphrase Talleyrand, what Heller did was worse than a lie, it was a blunder, in that he refused to acknowledge an error to his own detriment. However, egos being what they are, that’s not especially rare. After all, Mann is acting out similarly in his suits with Tim Ball and Mark Steyn.

    But all that is irrelevant. The point I’ve been trying to make all along is that the conclusions we draw should depend on “the substance of the argument itself,” not on the “character (and) motive … of the person making the argument.”

    And like the Democrats never quit, I doubt you’ll ever quit.

    That sounds just like some of the criticisms I get at Heller’s site, along with socialist and liberal and leftist. You should check the site out; you might find more in common than you expect.

    Finally, while the embarrassments of ClimateGate are documented in emails, the basis of Russiagate hoax always suffered from evidence-free opining. Much like your 180 degree off-base conclusion about my attitude toward Russian-American relations, дорогой брат.

    • Replies: @anon
  400. @anarchyst

    Indeed it would be economically rational for the owners and users of expiring patents to support steps to prevent others using the same efficient CFC based technology when the patents expired but without much evidence that is just handwaving. Were the old patent owners and their licensees gearing up investment in different, CFC free, technologies? If so, why?

    I was quite prepared to learn that it had been discovered more recently than when I last paid attention that CFC weren’t the problem that they were supposed to be but I haven’t by searching come across anything like that, though obviously there are all sorts of complexities which don’t support UR threadsters love of “fraud”.

    What, for example, do you make of

  401. @renfro

    I made a mistake. I meant I agree with Anon.

  402. @anon

    Peer review is important but, unfortunately, it has become more and more subject to criticism in recent decades, some of it based on good general grounds relating to well known human fallibilities, some relating to tight little cliques which make a joke of any notion of impartiality even if there is relevant expertise, and yet others on issues associated with the devastating work of Ioannidis on the non replicability and other problems of medical research reported in even the most prestigious journals. So I take it you are an honest trusting soul, which is better than being employed to do PR for the Koch brothers but doesn’t take your readers much further when they want a good scientist to say he’s checked the models and the data etc.

    • Replies: @anon
  403. @dc.sunsets

    As I wrote to another who suggested to me that I was out of date on the CFC and ozone layer stuff…..

    Indeed it would be economically rational for the owners and users of expiring patents to support steps to prevent others using the same efficient CFC based technology when the patents expired but without much evidence that is just handwaving. Were the old patent owners and their licensees gearing up investment in different, CFC free, technologies? If so, why?

    I was quite prepared to learn that it had been discovered more recently than when I last paid attention that CFC weren’t the problem that they were supposed to be but I haven’t by searching come across anything like that, though obviously there are all sorts of complexities which don’t support UR threadsters love of “fraud”.

    What, for example, do you make of

  404. Service announcement

    Deer steeples, Sunday 10.00AM is the CO2 mass. The climate cult asks the worshipers to attend numerously. The mass is 100% green, the stadium runs on solar panels. Send a prayer for sunshine tomorrow.

    • LOL: Mike P
    • Replies: @anon
  405. NoGo says:

    You are objecting against the assertion that CO2 lags temperature by referring to a graph that clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature. And it’s even pointed out as such in the accompanying text to boot.

    Right, how intellectually honest is that?

    Your reply will probably be based on what is also claimed in the accompanying text, which says that CO2 was historically released from the oceans due to an initial warming effect. They claim that this CO2 then drove further warming.

    This smells a lot like a theory that cannot be falsified based on historical data. If you believe that CO2 drives global warming, then CO2 leading global warming would surely be taken as confirmation. And if it lags global warming, which is what the historical record shows, then you and your fellow alarmists invoke an ominous feedback theory to the same effect.

    A theory that cannot be falsified is not scientific at all, of course.

    More on the oh so scientific standards prevalent among climate alarmists can be gleaned from this article:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  406. NoGo says:

    Very well, you are just name calling while not really arguing against being called out on that entirely bogus 97% claim.

    The claim is bogus because it does not differentiate between alarmists, like you (although you are not a scientist), and non-alarmists who just go along with some, repeat some, human influence on the climate.

    • Replies: @anon
  407. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Non replicability and other problems of medical research….How does that apply to climate research? Which study did you discover non-replicable?

  408. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re a Tony Heller apologist pushing his garbage that that is so unscientific that it embarrasses even fellow climate change denialists. You should check that out. For instance, while Tony Heller bangs away continually about news articles from the 1934 heat wave in the US:

    he completely ignores this:

    The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against global climate change.
    Source: Climate Myth: 1934 is the hottest year on record

    • Replies: @cassandra
  409. There are many dishonest writers at this site.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @anon
  410. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    There are many dishonest writers at this site.

    Yes, by allowoing the anonymoronic bots unlimited freedom, is becoming essentially worthless as a place for useful discussion.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @anon
    , @cassandra
  411. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    The 97% isn’t bogus, and I’ve referenced seven (7) separate journal articles backing it up. Looks like I have to do it again for halfwits like you who can’t read.

    Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all.

    > it does not differentiate between

    You’re flat-out lying.

    • Replies: @NoGo
  412. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    Regurgitating the old “CO2 lags temperature” trope?

    This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.

    CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?

    • Replies: @NoGo
  413. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    Calling me a bot is a lie. Only a damned liar thinks his lies are “useful discussion.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  414. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    My favorite is “Mike P” who falsely accuses me of being a “shill.” Then I offer evidence that the denialist Dr. Spencer he’s pushing has admitted taking \$4000 from Peabody Coal. He excuses such shilling by lying and saying all scientists are shills take payola. A 3-year-old can make up lame excuses better than that liar.

  415. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s funny is that your mockery assumes religions in general are worthy of contempt. Do you go to various churches in your community and mock attendants because they belong to a religion?

    You’re forever the inconsiderate jackass who makes fun of people because you don’t like their religion.

  416. NoGo says:

    Regurgitating the old “everybody else is more stupid then I and my fellow alarmists” trope?

    It is a plain and visually totally apparent fact that the graph you refer to shows CO2 lagging temperature.

    Then you invoke a tautological feedback theory to explain the lagging. It’s tautological because you are already presupposing that CO2 drives warming to be able to invoke the feedback.

    That’s not science, that’s magic thinking or not even that. It’s just projecting one’s own stupidity on others.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  417. NoGo says:

    Consensus within the echo chamber of politicized, publicly funded science is worth exactly nothing. The more politicized it is, the more it’s group think and, contrary to what many outsiders are made to believe, the peer review system plays a large role in making the group think happen. For one, reviews written are not really anonymous, they are only delivered to authors without the name of the reviewer openly appearing on them, that’s all. Just for starters, reviewer’s names are open to program committees and journal editors and here the whole thing already starts to break down in a big way. These people belong to the same scientific establishment as the authors of articles and papers being reviewed. The more senior and powerful they are, the less they can be annoyed just as authors themselves cannot be annoyed. As soon as the reviewer himself wants to publish or get access to grant money, he depends on their good will. The authors themselves can often guess who has written a review from writing style and the way the reviewer reasons. It’s all a big circus and merry-go-round of one hand washing the other. Seniority is measured by the number of papers published and that’s usually just a measure of how good someone is at taking part in this scam.

    So we are back to the original 97% and this figure was clearly fraudulent.

    It’s you who is lying constantly, as you have no understanding of how the scientific community, or what passes itself as such, really works.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @anon
    , @anon
  418. Mike P says:

    I think he knows all that, though – he is simply working hard to disrupt the discussion here by inserting himself into absolutely every argument, offering nothing but spam and insults. Just absolutely bottom of the barrel, even as trolls go.

    • Replies: @anon
  419. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    If consensus within the echo chamber of politicized, publicly funded science is worth exactly nothing, then E must not equal MC^2, since the atomic theory and development of nuclear weapons was “politicized, publicly funded science.” I betcha think nuclear weapons are just a conspiracy, amirite?

    No understanding of how the scientific community, or what passes itself as such, really works? You’re projecting. I’ll again post this from the scientific community:

    Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

    Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate is Warming [NASA]

    • Replies: @NoGo
  420. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    “CO2 lagging temperature,”yes indeed, scientist already know that. Ask any climate scientist about it. They’ll tell you its by “600 to 1000” years in past interglacial warmings, as explained here:

    Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

    CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?

    • Replies: @NoGo
  421. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    You’re the one working hard to disrupt my presentation of scientific fact. Because you have none, and have been proven a liar, and a shill apologist for your denialist buddy taking \$4000 from Peabody Coal.

    I again challenge you just to simply type the term “Peabody Coal.” I think you’re afraid your poor brain will explode from cognitive dissonance. 🙂

    • Replies: @Mike P
  422. NoGo says:

    E = MC^2 by itself is irrelevant because it can be tested by experiment by contrast to anthropogenic global warming, which cannot. The discovery of E = MC^2, as opposed to the formula itself, is an example of politicized science because an Italian autodidact came so close to it that Einstein does not deserve 10% of the praise he got. Einstein could read Italian, he was aware of it. He was called out on his plagiarism but the whole thing got suppressed and forgotten. This scandal is one of the all time biggest one of science, together with the fairy tale of neo-Darwinian, Dawkins-style evolution and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    Then I pointed out to you the obvious, glaring failings of the vaunted peer review system. I pointed it out to you in a specific, understandable manner and you failed to offer any specific rebuttal. You act like a bot. Lofty statements made by the scientific community itself only serve to reinforce the degree to which it has discredited itself. If it were all so objective, then why do they have the need to make such introverted claims about their objectivity at all?

    The alarmists, and you probably, claim that predictions and models supplant experiments but we have had enough of predictions. As the article makes so abundantly clear, the predictive record of climate science is abysmal.

    • Replies: @anon
  423. NoGo says:

    Yet again, no appreciation of the actual argument and no rebuttal either, of course.

    The point is not that scientist do not already know about the lag.

    The point is that postulating a CO2-mediated feedback mechanism to explain the lag, when you already assume that CO2 causes global warming, is circular reasoning.

    The simplest explanation of the CO2 lag is not to assume that CO2 has a decisive effect on global warming. It’s released from the oceans once oceanic temperatures rise, that’s all.

    • Replies: @anon
  424. cassandra says:

    You seem unable to grasp the idea that ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Furthermore, just to avoid sweeping generalities, not all, but only some of what Heller says, is embarrassing.

    The problem with many of stopfake’s arguments, notably the one you just cited, is that they fallaciously try to resolve a dispute over data using the disputed data itself, as I already said above in 396.

    Stopfake fails to address methodology. Stopfake should be establishing that the data being plotted is accurate before forming any conclusions about what they mean. That’s a problem common to many counter-arguments about high 30’s temps, and those world maps in particular: the issue here is, are the maps themselves pushing garbage? That flashy display carried that point right by you.

    If global data is reported accurately, it must be reported accurately everywhere, and the easiest sites to check are US weather stations. But recorded data from the ’30’s is a bit higher than the present, and it’s unlikely a fluke since newspaper stories of the period report hotter circumstances than what they do now. How do we explain reports that current temperatures are higher?

    The single gif I included in post 346 clearly demonstrates that tampering with the historical temperature record is necessary to conclude that we’re warmer now. Fudging is needed to make the alarmist point, and this raises the question of how much other “modelled” data has been similarly modified, whether statewide, national or global.

    Anyway, the US data massaging deserves an explanation about why currently reported recent temperatures are higher than what had been reported.

    As for myself being a Heller apologist, I suppose I am, in the sense that I respect the effort he takes to delve into details to keep current climate reporting honest, though I’m not a disciple. But I won’t be cowed by defamatory polemic. Many of his analyses provide trustworthy data and often useful insight. Even when his conclusions over-reach presented data, they usually suffer from cherry picking no worse than the alarmist exaggerations that must be discounted in the MSM.

    • Replies: @anon
  425. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    On the fact “CO2 lags temp” in past warmings, we have no disagreement. It does. Get that through your thick skull.

    > It’s released from the oceans once oceanic temperatures rise, that’s all.

    CO2 is up past 400 ppm now, way, way, WAY over anything seen for the past 800,000 years in the Vostok ice core records. According to you, it’s because the oceans got warm. Ok then, what caused the oceans to get so warm to force CO2 so high? Hmm? Big electric heaters?

    Oh and CO2 was 406 last year, and over 410 this year, as the Keeling Curve (the modern record of CO2 rise in the atmosphere since 1958) shows. What in your theory made the oceans so even warmer in the last? Hmm? Magic?

    Up, up, up, UP it goes! So you explain what is causing the “oceanic temperatures rise,” as your hare-brained theory postulates.

    • Replies: @NoGo
  426. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    You seem unable to grasp that the earth was way cooler in 1934—in spite if the the US having a heat wave—than in 2016, as the charts I posted in comment #413 show.

    That’s no ad hominem attack, moron, it’s just scientific fact.

    > tampering with the historical temperature record

    You’re lying again. (Actually just parroting Tony Heller’s lies.) You seem to be unable to grasp that lying is fallacious. What Tony Heller is lying about is explained right here:

    GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)
    One of the improvements — introduced in 1998 — was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas.

    >As for myself being a Heller apologist, I suppose I am..

    On that, we can agree. Go ask climate denialist Anthony Watts why he fired Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) from writing for his website, basically for lying about the same crap you’re lying about.

    • Replies: @cassandra
  427. Mike P says:


    • Replies: @anon
  428. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    > it can be tested by experiment by contrast to anthropogenic global warming, which cannot.


    “Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
    Nature, volume 410, pages 355–357 (2001)


    > The predictive record of climate science is abysmal.

    I’d agree, if you refer to scientists underestimating the climate response, because scientists are so conservative that effects of global warming are happening faster than expected.

    Source: How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response

    • Replies: @anon
  429. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Did “Peabody Coal” change their name to “Impressive” or did you just not want to name the company that paid \$4000 to AGW denialist Dr. Roy “Shilling for Shekels” Spencer?

    Roy Spencer’s Junk Science

  430. cassandra says:

    Go ask climate denialist Anthony Watts why he fired Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) from writing for his website, basically for lying about the same crap you’re lying about.

    I mentioned before that I’m familiar with the Watts/Heller episode already. I’m pretty sure Tony and I are lying about different crap. Pls prove your point or retract this scurrilous accusation.

    OPPORTUNITY: Speaking of adjustments and Tony Heller’s lies, he’s just released a video discussing how satellite data has been recently fudged to turn the uneventful surface temperature hiatus since early 2000’s into an alarming warming trend instead:

    Here’s your big chance to expose Tony Heller’s egregious deceptions. Let’s get pencil and paper, we’ll write down all the lies you think Tony Heller makes in this video, I’ll do the same, and then we’ll compare. The ones I’ve found so far don’t materially affect the conclusion he reaches that the modification amounts to data corruption, but maybe you’ll more easily find ones that do better for your point of view.

    Regarding the heat island “adjustments”:

    GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment) One of the improvements — introduced in 1998 — was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming…

    Maybe you can help here. If uncorrected urbanization were causing heat island effects, you’d expect there to be an anomalous rise in temperature over time with expanding heat island urbanization. A legitimate correction, therefore, would lower past temperature records somewhat, but current records more so. Contrarywise, the actual corrections do just the opposite: the past is lowered more than the present. Please explain.

    As for the world maps, again, why are you still showing them as if their data were credible?

    That’s no ad hominem attack, moron, it’s just scientific fact.

    Your brilliantly argued explanations are a source of such delight!

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  431. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

    I forgot to include the reference to that helped me find the Nature article I cited that provides “direct experimental evidence” for AGW. I initially found it by the search function, doing a search for the term”experimental evidence,” but the page is also listed on the main index of climate myths:

    Climate Myth #43: “There’s no empirical evidence”

    Great website for the layman to find real climate science, with loads of references to real climate science journal articles. Yes, there is “direct experimental evidence” for AGW. And for heaven sake, will you deniers start checking before you post your bullshit? 🙂

    • Replies: @NoGo
  432. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Calling me a bot is a lie.

    Sorry. I should have said you’re a lying bot.

    • LOL: Mike P
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  433. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    > Speaking of adjustments and Tony Heller’s lies, he’s just released a video discussing how satellite data has been recently fudged…

    Satellite data already covered in this comment thread. Find it, read it. I’m not watching more of Tony Heller’s lies.

    > As for the world maps, again, why are you still showing them as if their data were credible?

    Because they are credible. Here’s your big chance to expose them as not credible, since Tony Heller’s Lies haven’t.

    Minor (and embarrassing) denialist minion Tony Heller mentions at

  434. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re psychologically projecting. So sad, but expected after you quit discussing any actual scientific evidence after I exposed your lies. Go ahead, try to bring up a point evidenced by facts if you can.

  435. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    So which data or source coding is wrong?

    The data and software used to produce these reconstructions are publicly available

    Source code and data to recreate GISTEMP and CRUTEM are available from NASA and CRU websites. (The data set provided by CRU excludes a fraction of the data that were obtained from third parties, but the results are not substantially affected by this).

    Are surface temperature records reliable?

    You’ve claimed surface temperature records are not credible. Explain yourself.

  436. Sowhat says:
    @G. Poulin

    I ponder this often (perhaps, too often). I’ll admit that I’m not the sharpest pencil in the drawer but, my intelligence is insulted on a regular basis by advertisers and the Ferrel Government mouth-pieces.

    Wait ’til Good ol’ Smilin’, Gaphin’ Joe from Altoona gets shredded by The Donald in the run up to ’20.

    And Trump says, ” The GDP is historic and there’s no inflation.” No inflation? I keep having to settle for less and less for more and more-out of pocket.

    Both of these guys act like they’ve been smokin’ weed for years and I can’t even buy a quarter (that usually lasts me six or eight months) because I don’t have connections at my age. LOL

    I love how the women narrators are almost in tears when they want your money to support the local “pound,” the endangered…fill-in-the-blank, or the poor, starving Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe (aimed at American Christians) Baahhaa!

  437. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    • NoGo: “publicly funded science is worth exactly nothing”
    • Dr. Roy Spencer: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer…” [source]


    Mike P, Mike P, why would you ever “agree” with NoGo? 🙂 All of the Dr. Spencer garbage you posted in this comment thread has been refuted — by you. (They call that “stepping on your own dick.” Hurtz, donnut.)

    • Replies: @Mike P
  438. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @G. Poulin

    What a worthless bunch of insane idiots it is who rule us? Would that apply to Roy Spencer, whose videos have been posted throughout this comment thread, and who both feeds from the public trough and thinks of himself as a tin-pot dictator? Nobody elected him “legislator,” right?

    “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer…” -Roy Spencer [source]

    Got your guillotine grease gaffed?

  439. Mike P says:

    I think you need a doctor.

    • Replies: @anon
  440. Thank you Mr. Baggins. By strange coincidence, just yesterday I was going through boxes of old books that had remained unopened after a move several years ago. To my delight I see that, in 1972, I had bought a copy of ‘The Limits to Growth.’ Although I also note that it is clear I never opened it!

    But the reason for this post is that on the front cover of this edition the publishers had, of course, placed the title at the top: “The Limits to Growth” with the word Growth twice as tall as the other words in the title. And underneath the title the following quotation from a review that had appeared in the New York Times. It said: “The headline-making report on the imminent global disaster facing humanity – and what we can do about it before time runs out. One of the most important documents of our age!”

    Oh dear.

    • Replies: @anon
  441. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    Your main sources, and recommended videos…all debunked.

    R. Lindzen?

    Lindzen’s analysis has several flaws, such as only looking at data in the tropics.

    Patrick Moore?

    Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change

    Roy Spencer?

    Spencer’s model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings.

    Will Happer?

    Debunking William Happer’s carbon cycle myth

    Nir Shaviv & Henrik Svensmark?

    Moreover, we can examine the claims made by Svensmark, Shaviv, and others who proclaim GCRs drive climate and see whether or not they hold up. They don’t.

    Murry Salby?

    You will note that every time the data disagrees with Salby’s ‘model’, he trusts his ‘model’ over the data. Which contravenes the ‘skeptic lore’ that models are worthless and must be bashed, and only data should be trusted.

    • Replies: @Wavelet
  442. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Are you just the Soviet Psychiatrist I need to see, comrade?

    Denialist shill Spencer (1) feeds at the public trough and (2) shills for Peabody Coal, and you’re mighty butthurt that everybody has found out what a complete ass you are, Mike P.

  443. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    You should read it instead of bragging about your know-nothing bona fides. After 40 years, the predictions “Limits to Growth” have proven accurate, as this graph demostrates:

    Source: Limits to Growth checks out with reality.

    And do tell how infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. Are you holding out for magic?

    • Replies: @NoGo
  444. Anonymous[921] • Disclaimer says:


    Your “science” isn’t science. All of these studies are started with the conclusion already written before any data is looked at retrospectively or gathered prospectively. Data points are excluded or given more weight if they agree with the pre-determined conclusion. Data is collected in ways which are specifically optimized to produce the desired results. I don’t fault these so-called scientists. They won’t get grant money or notoriety if their research doesn’t reveal desired conclusions, and they will not be published and/or ostracized if they claimed anything contradictory to the orthodoxy.

    I equate “climate science” to what I used to do for physics lab reports in high school where the most difficult (and most scrutinized) part was discussion of sources of systematic and random errors. The thing is, it was a whole lot easier to write up that section (and get a good grade for it), if I decided what the systemic and random errors I wanted to write about beforehand and introduced them myself in order to get the data that reflected my points.

    And I second the poster above who recommended Crichton’s novel “State of Fear”. Crichton was a smart guy, and he meticulously researched that novel, which was heavily footnoted. I don’t know if they are still on youtube, but Crichton gave several lectures (after the release of Gore’s movie) where he raised skepticism about the global warming hysteria.

    • Replies: @anon
  445. NoGo says:

    This sub-thread started by you denying the lag by pointing to a graph that clearly shows the lag.

    This fact still stands and you would do yourself and your thick skull a favor by admitting your total dishonesty.

    Your very predictable fallback position was to claim, like all alarmists do, that the lag is due to a CO2-mitigated feedback mechanism.

    But ever since being called out on your dishonesty you are changing the goal post, not responding to arguments, just like in any other sub-thread. You do not respond to the argument that explaining the lag on the basis of a preconceived notion of CO2-induced global warming amounts to circular reasoning. It’s a catch 22. If the historical lag did not exist, then alarmists would take that as confirmation. But the historical lag does exist, and now alarmists postulate a feedback mechanism to explain it. Either way they gain confirmation for their preconceived theories. So, the way their group think works it cannot be falsified. That’s not science. It’s religion with scientists as priests and people like you as followers.

    Now you are changing the goal post again by talking about the present.

    What makes you think that I have any specific theory about the cause of the present accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere? I was talking about the past.

    To begin with, putting together what you write in all these threads, glaring contradictions emerge. You pointed to Hansen’s scenario B, dismissing his totally discredited scenario A on the grounds that it assumed an exponential rise in CO2. Yet here you are putting up a graph that shows what looks like just such an exponential rise in CO2.

    How honest is that?

    Sure, you can hypothesize as much as you want that the current rise in CO2 is human-induced.

    The question is how much can be concluded from this hypothesis.

    The answer: not much, and certainly not by circular reasoning about the past.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  446. NoGo says:

    Totally ridiculous reference to climate scientists getting away with some empty rhetoric where they use the word “experimental”. Nobody can experiment with world climate, so nothing was experimental about their work.

    This snippet just provides further evidence for how corrupt the scientific process has become. Their was no need for these people using the work “experimental”. They could have communicated their results without using this terminology, instead they chose to scavenge parasitically on it. And it got through the reviewing process. It just shows how brazen and impervious their group think has become.

    Then it’s illuminating to cite the entire first two sentences of the abstract you refer to: “The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood.” The first sentence is very evasive but CO2 alarmists can read adherence to their religion into it. So it’s an initial kow tow before the climate alarmist priesthood. The second sentence contains the gist. The whole house of cards is based on assuming feedback mechanisms, and these feedback mechanisms are “poorly understood”. This is just parlance for that it’s all guess work.

    • Replies: @anon
  447. NoGo says:

    That’s some very fishy graph reading, especially since it does not differentiate between birth rates in different parts of the world. Birth rates in the more developed world have plummeted whereas the population explosion in large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa shows little signs of abating or is actually accelerating. Others have already mentioned that.

    If Africa and the rest the world were to be treated separately, then the picture for the rest of the world would look much more positive. It would show population growth abating and projected to become negative. It would also show an absolutely tremendous growth in output per capita accompanied by markedly lower increases in pollution and resource utilization. It would show that pollution and resource utilization are engineering problems that can be solved.

    • Replies: @anon
  448. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    Science bad, fictional novels good! Thanks for the tip! Let’s look into it:

    Only 12% of scientists who had read Michael Crichton’s contrarian novel State of Fear rated it as somewhat or very reliable.

    I wonder why scientists think this fictional novel isn’t so good. Hmm….

    Crichton opens with the fact that glaciers are advancing in Iceland and Norway, failing to mention that they are retreating just about everywhere

    Oops! The fictional novel author thinks glaciers are advancing? LOL! Since the fictional novel isn’t so sciency after all, maybe you should do what Kasra Hassani did:

    Kasra Hassani was a scientist working in microbiology and immunology who had a skeptical view of climate science. At first he thought there were more immediate problems facing humankind than climate change. For a time, he toyed with conspiracy theories about AGW (thanks to Michael Crichton’s State of Fear), but more and more evidence for climate change forced him to face reality:

    I created a list of every question and doubt I had about the physics, chemistry, biology, economics and politics of climate change, and I started reading. I took online courses. I listened to podcasts. Every myth in my head popped and floated away.

    How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

    Maybe it’s time you put on your thinking cap. If you can find it.

  449. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    You denying the lag? Wrong. Never happened, liar. All climate scientists know about the lag in past warmings, and the graphs clearly show it. What I did was point you to this webpage discussing how the lag does not overturn climate science:

    CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?

    So you lying on your very first sentence, how honest is that?

    • Replies: @NoGo
  450. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    Totally ridiculous reference? This?

    “Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
    Nature, volume 410, pages 355–357 (2001)

    Oh sure, Nature is like um a totally ridiculous reference. LOL!!!

    Now you need to be as honest as real scientists when they say admit are poorly understood. Instead, you go full retard, and think you can overturn science because scientists admit they don’t have some magically divine knowledge of how everything works. Maybe you should cultivate the same humility, you arrogant little shit.

    • Replies: @NoGo
  451. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    > It would show population growth abating and projected to become negative.

    It does show that, dumbfuck. It shows 2040 or so as the time when population growth stops and is projected to become negative. You simply cannot read a graph.

    > more developed world have plummeted whereas the population explosion

    Again–after you quit conflating birth rate and population–try reading a graph.

    Graph from

    Don’t get lost finding a seat on your short bus.

    • Replies: @NoGo
  452. NoGo says:

    Nature, like all mainstream science publications, has become subject to the totalitarian political correctness of climate alarmism.

    And yes, you can call non-followers of your religion what you want. The fact remains that experimenting with the climate is not possible. All that is possible is making observations in the field, developing theories and making predictions based on theories. But that’s not experimenting. Experimenting means being able to test theories in a controlled situation and that’s not possible with the climate. It could still be honest science but in the case of climate science it has long ceased to be that. Many fields of science suffer from this problem, evolutionary theory being one of them besides climate science. These fields often generate public interest and then fall into the politicization trap. We end up with a symbiotic relationship where scientists provide fuel to the fanatics who in their turn prime the public so that politicians churn out unlimited amounts of grant money. The scientist just have to sit back, wash their hands in innocence, collect the money, do some more research and the cycle starts over.

    And, predictably, you have not replied to my remarks on the real contents of the abstract you refer to. The gist of it is the feedback mechanisms these authors themselves put into doubt in their own words.

    • Agree: mark green
  453. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    • NoGo: April 27, 2019 It’s [CO2] released from the oceans once oceanic temperatures rise, that’s all.
    • NoGo, April 28, 2019 What makes you think that I have any specific theory about the cause of the present accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    Because you made a specific claim about why CO2 rises in the atmosphere. (And physics don’t magically change year to year, as much as you might imagine they do.) Now please do show the slightest shred of evidence of your claim. Kinda stuck now, aintcha? It’s time for you to actually study what makes CO2 rise. And it is rising, right now.

    As is methane, a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than CO2.

    • Replies: @cassandra
  454. NoGo says:

    No it does not show abating population growth worldwide, it primarily shows accelerating growth in Africa, which will trump abating growth everywhere else.

    It’s racist to assume that Africans will make their procreation patterns follow everybody else’s procreation patterns. It’s up to Africans themselves at which rate to procreate.

    • Replies: @anon
  455. NoGo says:

    It’s not an honest discussion. It’s just a reiteration of the same old circular reasoning with regard to the lag.

    • Replies: @anon
  456. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    In what region of the world is “population abating?” Please do tell!

    And don’t conflate population and birth rate like you did before. Sure, birth rates are going down, but population is still rising.

    • Replies: @NoGo
  457. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    • NoGo: April 27, 2019 It’s [CO2] released from the oceans once oceanic temperatures rise, that’s all.
    • NoGo, April 28, 2019 What makes you think that I have any specific theory about the cause of the present accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    The circular reasoning is all yours. You make claim, a false one, that CO2 rise is caused “once oceanic temperatures rise.”

    Then you claim that your claim doesn’t apply to the current rise in CO2, as if physics magically change from year to year.

    You’re basically retarded.

    • Replies: @NoGo
  458. Well, it sound a lot like what people here in church and temple. There is a looming fatal threat, preventable if people just get on board with a certain program. If not, if you question or doubt, you have no right to live.

    Read the Bible and that is how everything shapes up, so climate change is an easy sell, just like the rest of it.

  459. Anonymous [AKA "callous_optimist"] says:

    Increases in agricultural productivity since around the 1940s, together with gradual declines in birth rates, are the main reason why predictions of massive 3rd-world famines weren’t realised, in large part due to the work of Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution. Nothing to do with warmer temperatures fixing nitrogen or other such nonsense.

    As a corollary, ‘slow grinding crushing misery’ has been on a fairly steep decline in many developing nations over the past 30 years in particular. GDP per capita has roughly tripled over the past 30 years in sub-saharan africa, for example.

  460. cassandra says:

    CO2 levels this year far exceed what models expected them to be.

    Dang. I guess we’re needing better models.

    Karl Popper had some ideas about falsification in science, and what it means for a theory when it happens.

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Anonymous
  461. NoGo says:

    Statement no. 1 was about what can be hypothesized about the _past_ based on the lag, not using circular reasoning like what you and your fellow cultists engage in.

    And of course the claim that CO2 rises once ocean temperatures rise, all else being equal, is not only not false but universally accepted. The debate is about feedback mechanisms kicking in in the past once this was the case. Circular, tautological, politicized, alarmist reasoning says yes; cautious reasoning in the best tradition of science says we do not know.

    Then you thought you could assign to me an opinion about the causes of the _present_ rise in CO2. I rebutted that, that was all I expressed by asking you that question.

    You are wildly throwing together statements that have nothing to do with each other, trying to score cheap shots at people.

    For you it’s all about your ego. But one’s ego is always one’s biggest enemy. You have lost all your bearings.

    And you are evidently not a very sharp mind. The retardedness is all yours.

    • Replies: @anon
  462. Mike P says:

    What our phoney anon means, of course, is:


    It’s ever worser than they thought, year after year, and they never can think it quite worse enough. Of course, that does not mean we are to doubt their competence – cause even if not worse enough, they are still worser, and therefore better, than anyone else.

    • Replies: @anon
  463. NoGo says:

    I wrote “abating population growth”, not “abating population”.

    You surely know about the difference between a curve and its first derivation, don’t you?

    Whom are we dealing with here? A guy who tries to score points by making false citations in the most egregious way and then goes on to showing that he does not know basic calculus?

    • Replies: @anon
  464. anon[984] • Disclaimer says:

    CO2 rises when CO2 is pumped by humans into the atmosphere. It’s simple, and you’re retarded for not admitting it.

  465. anon[984] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Still can’t type “Peabody Coal,” can you? Or even “shill” anymore, since you were projecting and Spencer’s a shill.

  466. Anonymous[984] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re saying climate change is worse than the models predict. Well, jeeesh, ain’t that something!

    • Replies: @cassandra
  467. anon[984] • Disclaimer says:

    No, you wrote “If Africa and the rest the world were to be treated separately, then the picture for the rest of the world would look much more positive. It would show population growth abating.”

    Whom are we dealing with here? A guy who tries to score points by making false citations in the most egregious way and then goes on to showing that he does not know basic calculus?

    Limits to growth is discussing world population, a widely accepted metric. You can’t seem to accept that.

  468. cassandra says:

    You’re saying climate change is worse than the models predict.

    Let me help you: this means that there must be a factor that generates CO2 above and beyond those that the models have included, or else the fundamental calculations of the models contain errors.

    In science, when your models don’t fit the data, you get new models. In climate science, it’s the other way around. Like the Downing Street memo, conformist alarmists are sexing up the intelligence to fit the policy.

    • Replies: @anon
  469. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

    Don’t preach to me, you’re the one who stated it. Anyway, you’ve got the “worse than expected” thing down real good! (psst, don’t tell Tony Heller you switched over)

  470. cassandra says:

    Yes, by allowoing the anonymoronic bots unlimited freedom, is becoming essentially worthless as a place for useful discussion.

    Your comment gave me the idea to count contributions from 100 blogs, chosen from 360-460 for no particulr reason. What I found was
    51 Anonymous
    12 NoGo
    7 MikeP, cassandra (myself)
    6 WizardofOZ
    5 CanSpeccy
    2 d.c. sunsets, wavelet
    92 Total
    (The remaining were from 9 individuals)

    In addition to its large number, the Anonymous category distinguishes itself by its conformist position on climate panic, while all other multiple contributors, and most of the singles, show varying degrees of scepticism toward official policy and narrative.

    Anonymous also distinguishes itself in that its arguments against sceptics show stylistic consistency. They heavily rely on ad hominem arguments, appeals to authority, and circular reasoning; they exhibit an aversion to close consideration of data integrity. Indeed many of A’s “arguments” were merely assertions.

    This would be consistent with the theory that the Anon’s are a single, highly motivated and energetic individual, who tends to think more politically than critically (perhaps a professional propagandist).

    On the other hand, human energy being limited, there’s an alternative explanation, that prompts the question, I wonder if those 51 Anonymous comments were written by guys in the same office, or if they were allowed to work from home.

    As a final possibility, we are so far behind the curve when it comes to AI, and maybe these Anonymous writings originated in Google/Sunnyvale, or even Google/Beijing.

    Whatever the case, I do think we can safely conclude that whoever the real entity is, he’s not wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @CanSpeccy
  471. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

    Conformist? Panic? Is that how you want to deride scientific evidence? Keep proving you’re a denialist of facts like any fruitcake fundamentalist flat earther.

    Heavily rely on ad hominem arguments? You’re projecting. That’s how you started out. So I don’t mind trading barbs with a fuckwit like you.

    Appeals to authority? LOL! Yeah, like all people who think the earth is a globe instead of flat. It’s called science. You call it authority, because you have daddy issues, and facts are really stressful daddy issues for you.

    Consideration of data integrity? Ask Tony Heller’s denialist buddy Anthony Watts why he fired Tony Heller from writing for his website. Again, you’re projecting your own proclivity for lies.

    Allowed to work from home? See, you’re lying again. Just me here, not paid, just pissing you off because I have science and you’ve got nothing but ad hom bellyaching.

    BUT…I’m so interesting, all you do is think about me. I’m the center of your attention. You think about my living arrangements. You think about how I’m as smart as a vast array of AI computers. You think how many comments I write. You probably wonder what color of underwear I have, and if they’re briefs or boxers. I’m living rent free in your head. I’m like Trump, and you’re like Rachel Madcow. So rant on about moi if you must! 🙂

    • Replies: @cassandra
  472. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

    P.S. Just to get back to some modicum of discussing science, instead of letting you derail the comment thread with your obsession over my my personal strengths and abilities, here’s a good summary of your hero Tony Heller’s (aka Steve Goddard’s) grave errors:

    Goddard made two major errors in his analysis, which produced results showing a large bias due to infilling that doesn’t really exist. First, he is simply averaging absolute temperatures…His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed.

    Did NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000?

    Oh course, the answer is “no.”

  473. anon[143] • Disclaimer says:

    For some background on the economy of Bangladesh, the World Bank recently published BangladeshDevelopmentUpdate: Building on resilience (April 2018). Also, the IMF just published its regular overview report of the Bangladeshi economy (Bangladesh 2018 Article IV Consultation, IMF Country Report No. 18/158, June 2018). For example, the IMF writes:

    “The Bangladesh economy continues to perform well with robust and stable growth. GDP growth has averaged more than 6.0 percent over the last decade, significantly lifting GDP per capita. Thanks to the ready-made garment (RMG) sector, the economy has diversified away from an agrarian to a more manufacturing-based economy, supported by abundant low-cost labor. Poverty has declined steadily and other social indicators have improved. As a result, Bangladesh is now emerging from a low-income to lower-middle income country status. More recently, broadly sound macroeconomic policies have contributed to robust growth, stable inflation, moderate public debt, and greater resilience to external shocks.”

    It has surpassed Pakistan in GDP per capita.

  474. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    Lower-middle income country status? Well, halle-fucking-lujah.

    Bangladesh has the highest rate of underweight children in South Asia. One in two children below 5 years are chronically undernourished or stunted, and 14 percent suffer from acute undernutrition or wasting.

    SEPTEMBER 12, 2018

    Looks like you can’t eat status, and the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” was right. Clown Cassandra will deem these “conformist” facts as causing “panic.”

    • Replies: @anon
  475. Wavelet says:

    All those articles by “sceptical science” do not “debunk” anything, they merely state different opinions. Opinions from a judgement clouded by wishful thinking. That is: Wishing for a catastrophe. As illustrated by this comment from 2009 by Phil Jones, Head of CRU, 2009: “Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried”. He is not worried about the planet but that his climate alarm could be wrong. Yet this people have the asinine arrogance posing as the divine authority of “climate science”. And that you still try to whip out the hockey-stick discredits you and your shill-site.
    To repeat: modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

    Sea level rise is not accelerating. Claims to the contrary are based on cherry-picking and mixture of data sources. Extreme weather is not getting worse. Supposedly increased instances and costs of “catastrophes” are accounted for by increased population

    I would not care too much, because doomsday cults like the climate-alarmists are the historical norm and humanity has still made some improvements despite this hindrance. Unlike your ilk, I do not want a climate catastrophe to happen. But aside from the tax money wasted there is a bigger threat on the horizon, because of which I feel the need to take time out of my day, and point it out to others: radical warming-fanatics like you will keep pushing for geo-engineering, without understanding what they are doing. That is going to constitute the real climate threat.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @cassandra
    , @anon
    , @anon
  476. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    Fallacy of false equivalence. Climate science is well…science, not an irrational religion. Just like biological evolution is science…not a religion. However, deniers of science, usually quite religious, try to paint their opponents as religious. Which is kind of funny, because the premise of such an argument is that religion is inherently wrong, and you’re coming across with the same tone of the typical evangelical atheist: Religion Bad!

  477. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Sergey Krieger says: Global warming is real but Greens are scamsters.

    Precisely. And I’ll add scamsters to your list: the Denialists.

    The science of climate change is real. Nobody wants it to be real and end their happy motoring lifestyle, and there are two human responses to this:

    1. The Greens, proposing all sorts of ridiculous shit like electric cars, etc., to neutralize the scary science and keep their happy motoring lifestyle in motion.

    2. The Denialists, proposing all sorts of ridiculous shit like “models are unreliable,” etc., to neutralize the scary science and keep their happy motoring lifestyle in motion.

    Two sides of the same happy motoring lifestyle coin.

  478. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry, you’re trying to construe climate science as wishful thinking. How is climate science wishful thinking? That’s just your really, really strong psychological projection. You’re the one doing the wishful thinking, and it’s why you regurgitate all the wishful opinions that climate science isn’t real. And your regurgitating and repeating wishful thinking doesn’t make it more true.

    > Unlike your ilk, I do not want a climate catastrophe to happen.

    A lie. I don’t want it to happen either. But it is. I don’t want to die, but I am. No amount of your wishful thinking can change scientifically evidenced facts.

    > you will keep pushing for geo-engineering, without understanding what they are doing

    Good way of putting it! You do not understand what geo-engineering you are already doing. Humans continue to geo-engineer every time we fire up an internal-combustion engine. Or turn on the lights powered by a coal-fired power plant. Or put a plow into a cornfield. Do you push to continue such geo-engineering? Or do you wish us to quit humanity’s already extensive geo-engineering?

  479. cassandra says:

    Agree wholeheartedly, and thank you for bringing Gosselin’s site to my attention.

    Skepticalscience certainly does present, even hawks, only a single point of view, and rather than “debunk”, mostly asserts, often by innuendo and/or dismissal. Rather than confront differences directly, SS mostly asserts their points by bringing forth “authoritative” opinion or data without examination. You find an entirely different tone, more analytic and in wattsupwiththat, or judithcurry. The latter is especially interesting in that the debate gets quite technical and informative, if you can hang on during a wild ride, technically-speaking.

    To your other points, IMHO the “cherry-picking” behavior you describe is one of the most damning characteristics of the pro-panic crowd. US temperatures weren’t behaving properly, so they had to be adjusted; ocean temperature measured by ships, same story; surface temperatures measured by satelllites, a story is concocted to justify “pause-buster” corruption of the satellite data, along with the peer review process itself. (See for an initial sceptic response to the latter.)

    Roy Spencer predicted beforehand that satellite measurements would be corrupted imply because they weren’t telling the right story, and I’ll make a similar prediction for tide gauges: of a sudden, we’re going to find out that all around the world, coastal lands have been rising more than we realized, meaning that we’ll have to adjust tide-gauge readings upward to compensate, and that sea level rise is worse than we thought.

    As for wasted tax money, that’s only part of the story. The yellow vest riots in France reflect the impact of arbitrary increases in energy costs on the lives of ordinary people.

    radical warming-fanatics like you will keep pushing for geo-engineering, without understanding what they are doing

    That’s perhaps best exemplified by the futility of their recommended policy.

    I keep returning to the point that, at the end of the day, even if the US immediately and completely stopped burning fossil fuels, the models predict it would modify projected temperature rises by hundredths of a degree. So why exactly are alarmists pushing for carbon taxes in developed countries?

    • Replies: @anon
  480. If politicians didn’t have BS,scientifically unprobable subjects, they would be exposed as the ridiculous ignorant people they are.

    • Replies: @anon
  481. cassandra says:

    I’m so interesting, all you do is think about me. I’m the center of your attention. You think about my living arrangements. You think about how I’m as smart as a vast array of AI computers. You think how many comments I write. You probably wonder what color of underwear I have, and if they’re briefs or boxers. I’m living rent free in your head. … So rant on about moi if you must!

    Agree 100%, except for the underwear part, though I really can’t account for that point having eluded my imagination. I guess you’ve seen that I’ve now come to this realization myself.

    I’ve also realized that a more sensible approach for the rest of us is to ignore you and correspond with each other. Thank you for this informative experience; it’s been real.


    • Replies: @anon
  482. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    Debunking wishful thinking.

    > “no upward trend”

    You denialist obsessively bang away at that. Watch your “global warming hiatus” disappear here:

    > the hockey-stick

    Sorry, the hockey stick isn’t broke, as hard as you tried to break it. They’ve examined your kind of criticism. Hockey stick is “robust.”

    Source: Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

    > “modern temperatures are not unprecedented”

    If you consider the last 4 billion years of Earth’s existence, you’re correct. Do you really think industrial civilization can successfully adapt to a New Cretaceous “hothouse earth” climate, little man?

    > “Sea level rise is not accelerating.”

    NASA: February 13, 2018, New study finds sea level rise accelerating

    It is accelerating.

  483. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    > • cassandra one minute: I wonder if those 51 Anonymous comments were written by guys in the same office, or if they were allowed to work from home.
    > • cassandra the next minute: often by innuendo

    You’re psychologically projecting again.

    > IMHO the “cherry-picking” behavior

    And again. Which you did with fraudster Tony Heller’s banging away at the Climate Myth of the 1930’s being hotter than now.

    Choosing the year 1934 is an obvious example of “cherry-picking” a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. In fact they have to cherry pick both a location (the U.S.) and a year (1934) to find data that is far from the global trend. Globally, the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 are the hottest on record, so far.

    Climate Myth…1934 – hottest year on record

    > alarmists pushing for carbon taxes

    The carbon tax advocate in this thread would be CanSpeccy in comment #387. I argue against such, because, as I have repeated over and over and over and over again: “it’s not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way” because of Jevon’s Paradox. (Garrett, 2009)

  484. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    Baby come back, any kind of fool could see, there was something in everything about you.

    Regional is not global. Tony Heller’s (aka Steve Goddard) myth is wrong. The 1934 temperature myth continues because people simply are not looking at the relevant facts in context. US temperatures are not global temperatures. Global is global, not local, not regional.

    GLOBAL Temp record: (100% of Globe)

    USA Temp record: (2% of Globe)

    Pop over to his website and post that. He’ll ban you so fast you can’t say a four syllable word like denialist.

  485. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @Common sense Joe

    Is Trump ridiculously ignorant?

    In an environmental impact statement published in July, the NHTSA predicts nearly twice as much warming as the maximum allowed by the Paris Agreement: about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or nearly 4 degrees Celsius.

    What’s more, the NHTSA uses that extreme warming prediction as a reason to justify rolling back environmental regulations aimed at curbing emissions from cars and trucks. Essentially, the administration’s argument is that future warming will be so severe that there’s no point in doing anything to stop it.

    The Trump Administration Forecasts 7 Degrees Fahrenheit of Global Warming by 2100

    Red hot hats! Make America Jurassic Again!

  486. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Your comment gave me the idea to count contributions from 100 blogs

    That’s an admirably scientific approach, productive of interesting data and also some enjoyable alliteration, as in your assessment that Anon thinks “more politically than critically [and is] (perhaps a professional propagandist)”, Anon’s achieves only a less Shakespearian level of alliteration with his “fruitcake fundamentalist flat earther.”

    Your assessment of Anon’s approach to debate is surely correct, which is to say Anon is a psychological warfare agent, not a rational entity.

    What lies behind the Anons is harder to assess. We know that Obama appointed Cass Sunstein as his “Information Tsar” and that Sunstein had argued in a scholarly journal article for the establishment, by the US Government, of an operation for the cognitive infiltration of online discussion, with the objective of undermining “conspiracy theories,” i.e., theories that undermine the credibility of government propaganda. My own guess, therefore, is that the Anon’s are such agents of cognitive infiltration, but incompetent ones since they just piss every one off with their relentless bullying and bullshit.

    As to whether the Anon’s are bots, I am not competent to assess. It is the case, though, that one or another of the Anon’s (if they are not all aliases of a single person/AI system) has intelligent knowledge of the relevant literature. Such awareness might, I suppose, be built into an AI system, but to do so would likely require a major developmental effort that only a government agency or large corporation under contract to government would undertake. Much cheaper, I should think, would be to hire a few low-life science graduates to spew insults mixed with a few approved technical arguments, valid if possible, otherwise BS but difficult to dispose of in the minds of an audience with limited technical knowledge of the subject.

    But it would be interesting to know what others think.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @Mike P
    , @cassandra
  487. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    What lies behind the Anons is harder to assess, ya think? Especially since you ignore what I said about random IPs when I sign into the internet, and unz apparently changes anon numbers with different IPs. There is but one Anon, moi, whom you despise. But that doesn’t keep you from making up a heaping manure-load load of horseshit to fling into the comment section.

    Anyway, climate science is the subject, not me. I know that you think I’m way more interesting that climate science, and I would agree. I’m tall, handsome, smart as several AI computers combined, in league with all the powerful rulers of the world, stroking a sullen cat sitting on my lap in my swiveling control room chair…

    …but you forgot the climate science. And I think I know why you forgot the climate science. You lost on that. So quit being a damned sore loser who is trying to derail the conversation on climate science, asshole. You’re like the jerk kid who kicks over the chess board because you lost.

    Maybe if a break it down Barney-style for you, you’ll catch on better…

  488. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    P.S. I referenced you in comment #488, just so you can defend yourself, you carbon-tax-advocating climate-alarmist you. It’s readily apparent—by your own magical crystal ball methods for assessing personal traits of people you meet online in the worst possible light—that you’re a well paid shill for Big Oil.

  489. Mike P says:

    My own guess, therefore, is that the Anon’s are such agents of cognitive infiltration, but incompetent ones since they just piss every one off with their relentless bullying and bullshit.

    I think the “piss off” part is key. Our dear anon is under no illusions as to the quality of his “scientific” contributions – he just uses his links and graphs to carpet-bomb the entire thread. He inserts himself into absolutely every conversation to distract and disrupt. What comes across as “incompetence” is very much to the purpose.

    I agree with your taxonomic estimate – anon is someone with a superficial science education who does this for a living.

    In the end, of course, he succeeded with his disruption because the author of this blog post did not bother to moderate the comments. (And, dear anon, I know what you are going to say to this, so you might as well save it – go disrupt another thread – maybe prove that The Apollo Moon Landings Were Real.)

    • Replies: @cassandra
    , @anon
    , @anon
    , @anon
    , @anon
  490. cassandra says:

    My own guess, therefore, is that the Anon’s are such agents of cognitive infiltration, but incompetent ones since they just piss every one off with their relentless bullying and bullshit.

    I wouldn’t conclude he’s incompetent. You already observed that he was preventing the occurrence of meaningful conversation, and he correctly gloated to me, “I’m living rent free in your head.” He is certainly indiscreet, though.

    He’s also revealed a successful strategy: carry on conversations between ourselves and ignore him.

    The cool thing is, he’s reasonably likely to reveal more and more about himself to us, even without our replying to him, since I don’t think he has the temperament to easily withdraw even after his agenda is exposed. We’ll see. At any rate, I’ve already learned a lot about how to with situations like this in the future.

    In an attempt to continue this thread in a meaningful way, I’ll ask you, how dangerous do you think climate deception is as a “crying wolf” factor, preventing us from recognizing a problem in the event that something serious actually materializes?

    • Replies: @anon
  491. CanSpeccy says:

    how dangerous do you think climate deception is as a “crying wolf” factor, preventing us from recognizing a problem in the event that something serious actually materializes?

    I think it is a problem, certainly.

    Doomist predictions have been shown repeatedly to be in error, from the prediction of global starvation that should have occurred 20 years ago, to the promise of year round Arctic shipping, with the result that there is now a large Watts Up With constituency that won’t hear of any adverse consequences of changing the chemical composition of the air we breath: the massive increase global primary production, with its many consequences including an increased rate of species extinction and likely an increased global human population just when we don’t need more people; the impact on human cognition, and the possibility at least, of some unpleasant positive climate feed-backs.

    Which raises the question of what it is that the Anons actually aim to accomplish.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @cassandra
  492. cassandra says:
    @Mike P

    In the end, of course, he succeeded with his disruption because the author of this blog post did not bother to moderate the comments.

    Moderating at this level would cut too fine; it really should be up to us.

    Observing the long-term impact of political correctness and conformity has made me a free-speech radical. But I’ve realized only recently that free speech is more than a principle, but a skill that requires practice for developing competency.

    In this case, first CanSpeccy, then myself, identified the problem ourselves. Hopefully, we’re finding a way to keep free discourse open.

    The notion that advocates of free thought can identify and subvert sabotage of rational discourse is a hypothesis that we’re testing right now.

    • Replies: @anon
  493. @anon

    Fluctuations in warm ocean currents with no particular relation to warming or CO2. The early 1920’s were bad too.

    • Replies: @anon
  494. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    True, I’m under no illusions as to the quality of my scientific contributions. You’re being carpet bombed with either direct quotes from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, or a web page discussing their material at a layman’s level. Facts are giving you shell-shock? That’s what cognitive dissonance feels like. Big boys can deal with facts. Fragile SJW creatures like you, well, everything is violent to them.

  495. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen

    Did you just pull that out of your ass?

  496. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:

    Climate science predictions have been shown repeatedly to be in error? Sure, scientists, being conservative in error, do make errors on the conservative side.

    “…the IPCC as an institution has tended to be generally conservative and often underestimate key characteristics of climate (Brysse et al. 2013).”

    Awareness of Both Type 1 and 2 Errors in Climate Science and Assessment

    > the Anons

    You just keep obsessing about me, boy! I’m the center of your attention now. Just like Trump to Rachel Madcow, you have nothing else to think about.

  497. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Shut it down! LOL So funny, your denialist buddy Dr. Roy “Shillin’4Shekels” Spencer took \$4000 from Peabody Coal, and my exposing that here has you pissed of Seven Ways to Sunday! Shut him up!

    P.S. Can you type “Peabody Coal” or even “shill” anymore? Or do you freeze up?

  498. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:

    Preventing the occurrence of meaningful conversation? LOL! But you just typed that, without anybody preventing you from doing so. You are as fragile as an SJW snowflake. You can tolerate no opinions but your own. You feel other opinions are violence, just like SJWs now assert. What a hoot!

    > climate deception

    Yeah, you and Tony Heller are the climate deceivers, I’ve proven it, and now you are embarrassed—too embarrassed—to even approach telling more lies. That’s what you consider “preventing the occurrence” of your lies. But lies aren’t meaningful, they’re just lies.

  499. @SBaker

    Maize, like sugar cane, uses a different form of photosynthesis than most plants. It has adapted to the, historically low, carbon levels of modern times. Most plants use a different pathway and require about 4x as much carbon in the atmosphere as we now have to maximise their growth and match the productivity of corn. Demand for water will fall greatly too for he second group.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @cassandra
  500. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen

    It won’t be all happy fun and games when the bugs eat everything.

    “Our study suggests that increased insect herbivory is likely to be a net long-term effect of anthropogenic pCO2 increase and warming temperatures.”

    Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
    PNAS February 12, 2008 105 (6) 1960-1964; first published February 11, 2008

    And plants aren’t as nutritious in a higher CO2 atmosphere:

    Experiments show that plants grown in elevated CO2 tend to accumulate more carbon and have a higher carbon:nitrogen ratio; they are, therefore, nutritionally poorer…”

    You’re like Obama selling climate Hopium.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  501. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen

    More scientific reality that debunks your Climate Hopium.

    According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is….

    Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

    Your “CO2 is like totally awesome” shtick reminds me of the once touted Hopium for “nuclear bombs for peace.” The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

  502. anon[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Mike P: “prove that The Apollo Moon Landings Were Real.”


    • NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Sees Apollo 12, 14 and 17 Landing Sites
    • NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites

    Providing evidence of global warming is just as easy-peasy with NASA’s climate change data.

    At least take a gander at what NASA says instead of sticking your head in the sand.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  503. anon[293] • Disclaimer says:

    cassandra’s singular obsession remains moi. You are a satellite in orbit around a planet like presence. My gravitas is like the irresistible molten core of the earth. I am the most interesting man in the world.

    Stay thirsty, my friends. Yet please do thirst for climate science, the topic at hand, instead of cleaving to me like static cling. You might miss the last glacier. They’re disappearing fast. Of 150 original glaciers, only 26 remain, as the US Geological Service points out here:

    Arctic Sea ice is also disappearing, fast. One reason: warming melts ice.

  504. Mike P says:

    That’s great! Now please explain how two fake planes brought down 3 buildings, and prove that JFK committed suicide, and that Elon Musk’s IQ really is 350.

    • Replies: @anon
  505. anon[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Stop trying to derail the comment thread about global warming, sore loser.

    I just want to point out another chart comparing UAH temps (discussed above) and NASA’s GIStemp that proves your Dr. Roy “Shilling for Peabody Coal” Spencer is a damned liar. Look at the scale on the right and left on the first chart in the gif. He lies, trying to line up 0.8 degrees on the left and 0.5 on the right, as if they’re the same. Then the gif shows the proper alignment.

    Roy Spencer’s latest deceit and deception

    Dr. Roy “Shilling for Peabody Coal” Spencer’s climate change denial is described in one word: deliberate deceit.

    And since I won’t let you deceive here, you must attempt to derail.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  506. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:

    NPC, you didn’t come up with that on your own independent analysis. You’ve heard it, now you’re repeating it like a parrot.

    The core characteristic I noticed in debates was this: they will not engage with facts they don’t like….letting go of denial could have major implications: losing faith in conservatives who told you it’s a “scam”, letting go of your pride, and losing connections to grassroots movements built upon denial. This might explain why denial continues even after the evidence became overwhelming.

    Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    If you get outdoors a bit, you can tell global warming is not a scam. Anybody who gardens is talking about climate change.

    …the most recent 25 years was 2.2–12.7 days earlier than any other consecutive 25-year period since 1760. The index was closely correlated with February–April mean Central England Temperature, with flowering 5.0 days earlier for every 1°C increase in temperature.

    A 250-year index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature changes
    Proceedings of the Royal Society

  507. cassandra says:

    I’m having a little difficulty disentangling which issues you see as overblown, and which in your list you take seriously, so I hesitate commenting on this one. While awaiting clarification, I’ll pick up on something you introduced earlier:

    We know that Obama appointed Cass Sunstein as his “Information Tsar” and that Sunstein had argued in a scholarly journal article for the establishment, by the US Government, of an operation for the cognitive infiltration of online discussion, with the objective of undermining “conspiracy theories,” i.e., theories that undermine the credibility of government propaganda.

    I suppose you might have in mind the article that David Ray Griffin wrote back in 2011:

    There are 2 aspects to your comment. The first one has to do with a law passed in the middle of the Obama administration, following eerily shortly after Sunstein’s comments:

    Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government’s broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years.

    (From Innocuous-sounding “Modernization” Acts like this and the financial ones of the late ‘90’s creep me out.)

    The chronology suggests that Sunstein was laying the intellectual groundwork to justify the upcoming legalization of “modern” government propaganda implemented by the Smith-Mundt repeal. The government (specifically the CIA) had been running media propaganda programs during Operation Mockingbird, but now they’re ;egal, and if Sunstein is to be taken serioulsy, has to do with the rise of the internet.

    The second aspect goes to specifics and motive raised by your comment,

    Which raises the question of what it is that the Anons actually aim to accomplish.

    The easy answer is, to hinder public discussion of “undesirable” viepoints.

    For indoctrinated ideologs at the front-line keyboards, that’s enough, especially if a few bucks are thrown in. But the grand motivators likely have a correspondingly grander program. I can see a few rationales for creating a blindly accepted climate panic doctrine:

    a) It facilitates acceptance of transferrance, and loss, of national sovereignty to supranational technocrats “to save the earth”,well beyond a simple environmental slogan.
    b) Climate panic is good for getting the masses to willingly fork over extra levies in the form of morally-justified energy cost increaes.
    c) The most benign interpretation: energy costs will be going up for some unavoidable reasons, and the “save-the-planet” excuse can be used to support expensive transition programs that would be politically impossible otherwise.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @anon
  508. Mike P says:

    Aaaaargh! that really hurt – being called a loser by anon!

    Sure. If Sue Hotwhopper says so, then it must be true. Also, Roy Spencer took money from Peabody – that proves it.

    We are doomed.

    Now, how about those 2 fake air planes and the three buildings? Come on, you know everything, science and stuff – should be easy for you. And if not, just ask the cool kids over at snopes, they will help you out.

    • Replies: @anon
  509. cassandra says:
    @Philip Owen

    This general point was raised more geerally by Freeman Dyson in one of his videos (sorry, don’t remember which). IIRC, his point was that as CO2 went up, biomass, especially in the form of microbes, was likely to shift toward a higher CO2 consumption type. He brought up the idea to point out that there were identifiable but unincluded factors in the models, so there should be hesitation in blindly accepting their results.

    It’s a point. Wikipedia Biomass entry states:

    The total live biomass on Earth is about 550–560 billion tonnes C,[1][5] and the total annual primary production of biomass is just over 100 billion tonnes C/yr.[6] The total live biomass of bacteria may be as much as that of plants and animals[7] or may be much less

    “…may, or may not…” Good luck modelling that.

    There are even efforts to bioengineer CO2 fixing, fuel-generating bacteria. For example, This raises the prospect of using fossil-like fuels in a closed carbon cycle, though we’re still a long way from that.

    • Replies: @anon
  510. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:

    > Extreme weather is not getting worse.

    Apparently, it is. This is one measure at the EPA’s Climate Change Indicators website.

    Source: Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation

  511. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    It must be true, indeed, because anybody can verify on the charts the how your \$Shill4Peabody\$ dishonestly shifted the scale. Spencer’s UAH data is remarkably in line with everybody else’s data, once (1) Spencer finally quit fudging the data after 11 (eleven!) corrections, and (2) the chart is lined up to the same scale.

    Source: Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature

    • Replies: @Mike P
  512. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:

    > Freeman Dyson….sorry, don’t remember which…

    This interview?

    “[Models] are full of fudge factors…” (Freeman Dyson)

    How reliable are climate models?

    In spite of Dyson’s deprecation of models, no model explains the rise in global temperatures without rising CO2, as this figure shows:

  513. Mike P says:

    I already admitted we are doomed. Now, how about those airplanes, genius?

    • Replies: @anon
  514. @Achmed E. Newman

    Lower rolling resistance due to reduced friction is what made iron tramways and then steel railroads more energy efficient than road wagons, even those with iron tyres. Lower stiction too come to that.

  515. @anon

    Commercial crops are already heavily supplemented with nitrogen fertilizers. No problem with human food. The protein for the wild bugs might not keep pace though. Biologically available nitrogen might become the common limiting factor instead of CO2 or H2O. Nothing comes without tradeoffs.

    • Replies: @anon
  516. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I’m having a little difficulty disentangling which issues you see as overblown, and which in your list you take seriously …

    I think predicting with any certainty how the world will be transformed by technology, population growth, and changes in forms of government is impossible with any certainty over any length of time measured in human generations. Thus I have no definite opinion as to what represent the greatest challenges to future human welfare, neither do I have any confidence in the predictions of others, which means I think that the alarmists are vastly overstating the reliability of their doomist predictions, as is true of those confidently predicting an ever better world as human population and its impacts on the environment explode. I am, therefore, in favor of caution, a position despised and ridiculed both by climate alarmists and those who think that changing the chemical composition of the air we breath (and upon which the productivity of the biosphere depends), is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    As to US Government propaganda, the US has engaged in managing the minds of the masses since at least as early as the first World War, cf: The Committee on Public Information. We can be certain, therefore, that as the means to control the minds of the electorate have vastly improved in subtlety and effectiveness, they are being used much more broadly than a hundred years ago.

    But the grand motivators likely have a correspondingly grander program. I can see a few rationales for creating a blindly accepted climate panic doctrine

    All of your theories seem plausible. Speaking more generally, the trend must be to enable the Money Power, which owns the governments of the democratic states, to make “democracy” an instrument of total control over the mass of mankind. But this will not be the brutal form of tyranny deployed by the Communists of the 20th Century, but a psychological control operation which will guide at least the most gullible half of the population to vote for whatever serves the interests of the Money Power. An example of that currently, is the widespread demand from people like AOC for an increase in the income tax rate, a tax which is not paid in signficant amounts by the rich.

    Specifically, the elite must consider that the mass of mankind is no longer of any real value. A pair of hands (in most cases) is no longer worthy of its hire. Mass man is no longer required to operate the industrial machine or to lay down his life in a conflict that serves the interests of the ruling class. He is simply a waste of resources and a blot on the face of the planet. Therefore, global depopulation is surely the primary objective of current propaganda and legislative action. This means genocide of the European peoples as these are the nations most effectively controlled by the existing globalist propaganda machinery. As migrants from other parts of the world are sucked into the Western countries, they are in their turn more or less sterilized within a generation, through sex “education” and the pro-queer/trans/porn agenda, etc.

    What will happen in Africa and anywhere else where rising global primary production in the absence of effective mind control supports an ever larger and rapidly growing population remains to be seen. There must, though, be a plan for those parts of the world.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @cassandra
  517. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    See how nicely Spencer’s UAH satellite data fits extremely closely with RSS satellite data, once Spencer’s data was corrected correctly instead of fudged? Can you give him a big old sloppy kiss on the lips for helping prove that there is global warming, even though he’s pained to admit it? Is it his data that matches other data which closely matches the average of 37 different climate models that convinced you to start saying “we are doomed?”

    “When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models.”
    Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

  518. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course, you’re quick to label anybody an “alarmist” merely “for attributing the change solely, or even partly, to human activity.” (way early in the thread) What you label as “alarmist” is just basic science.

    Thing is, there are multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change. I’ll break it down Barney style for you, with a pretty picture:

    Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

    Do show any “alarmist” language in the science that simply states humans are the cause of global warming.

  519. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen

    Have you considered the Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiment in Wisconsin that shows 50% less plant respond to enhanced CO2 in the real world, as compared to experiments conducted in enclosed greenhouses or individual growth chambers? (Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth 2005, Morgan et al. 2005).

  520. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    > The easy answer is, to hinder public discussion of “undesirable” viepoints.

    Nope! I’m encouraging you denialists to make complete asses of yourselves, so much that I’m going to repeat your very own words, in the below graph of US Temps (not global temps), without any comment, debunking, or rebuttal. Just let your words be juxtaposed to reality. Keep talking, cassandra, you’re a goldmine!

  521. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Mike P: “the author of this blog post did not bother to moderate the comments.”

    I’d dare say apologies are due to the author, Mike P. Every single one of my comments have sat in moderation.

  522. cassandra says:

    I am, therefore, in favor of caution, a position despised and ridiculed both by climate alarmists and those who think that changing the chemical composition of the air we breath (and upon which the productivity of the biosphere depends), is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    Absolutely; I’d add humility to caution, and I doubt you’d object.

    One elephant in the herd in the climate room is the natural climate change that preceded anthro-CO2. From what little I understand, the models can fit that behavior but not predict it. In particular, I can’t see that serious disruption of our energy usage is wise in the face of our studiously-ignored level of ignorance and uncertainty.

    There’s way too much arrogance and intellectual complacency in our political technocracy. I still chuckle at an episode that occurred when I was meeting with some terribly certain but inexperienced engineers, who enthusiastically embraced every idea that popped into their heads as gold, and pooh-poohed any critical analysis. A newly-arrived friend who happened to sit in on a meeting with this group, turned to me afterwards and asked “Who are these arrogant dumbfucks?” The ADF’s seem now to be everywhere.

    Re your reference to the Creel Commission, if you haven’t already, you’d probably enjoy Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion. It’s a fairly easy read. Lippmann was a committee member who while horrified at the directions that public opinion could take, still believed in the goodness of manipulation of the Demos. He naively ignored the obvious problem, that a manipulated democracy is very suitable for oligarchy. You can persuade people to support whatever you wish, and you can suppress dissent by getting the people to put the blame for any mishaps on those folks in that other stupid party. All the while promoting a “Brave New World” outlook, as you say. (Climate change is a prime example.)

    Specifically, the elite must consider that the mass of mankind is no longer of any real value.

    I think this is much worse and more immediate than climate; we’re already entering the gig-economy stage. Jordan Peterson has been pointing out that a good part of humanity has too low an IQ to even do modern work, and Jack Ma (AliBaba exec) has been going further, warning that since AI is going to make all human work useless, we probably should start publicly discussing what we’re going to do about it while we still can.

    Knee-jerk thoughtless panic, whether in climate change and/or AOC’s policies, isn’t going to cut it. Back in the 60’s visionaries were touting how wonderful a robotic world would be, but they didn’t confront the issue of what kind of a society would be possible if mundane work activity were no longer useful. (Even George Jetson had to show up a couple of times a week to placate an overbearing boss.) You seem to be suggesting that the solution under consideration is some form of global genocide; I won’t argue. As you say, they’re already doing their best to weaken those most likely to catch on and resist.

    We really do need a better class of oligarchs. They need to shape up. Their leadership is a public embarrassment. (My best attempt at naive optimism.)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  523. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:

    You understand little about models, that much is true. So why make further statements that prove how little you understand about models? It’s because you’re attempting yet another variation of of the falsehood that “models are unreliable.” And that’s the last reference to climate science you make, followed by a Gish Gallop through several other off-topic rants trying to paint climate science with the same brush as you paint an anecdotal arrogant engineer you met. Of course, as you alluded in your first sentence, arrogance doesn’t affect you, because you are The Humble One. Do we start calling you some reverential term like Neo?

  524. @utu

    “4. Conclusions
    The GISTEMP data set, and the totally independent satellite-based AIRS surface skin temperature data set, are very consistent with each over the past 15 years. Both data sets demonstrate that the Earth’s surface has been warming globally over this time period, and that 2016, 2017, and 2015 have been the warmest years in the instrumental record, in that order. In addition to being an independent data set, AIRS products complement those of GISTEMP because they are at a higher spatial resolution than those of GISTEMP and have more complete spatial coverage, despite a shorter record. Differences in the products (and lower temporal correlations) mostly reflect areas without much directly observed station data (the Arctic, Southern Ocean, sub-Saharan Africa) suggesting that the fault lies in the station-based products rather than with the AIRS data. Notably, surface-based data sets may be underestimating the changes in the Arctic.”

  525. “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.

    If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. 

    So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”

  526. “Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions and Why People Believe Them.”

    Well, the half a century of apocalyptic global warming predictions has been well documented in this article, but the reasons why people believe them are missing. Also missing is the reason why the brainwashers of both branches of the Repucratic Party have been working hard for half a century brainwashing the American people into believing the Global Warming bovine manure (AKA bullshit).

    For full info on who is behind the global warming PsyOp and why they are pushing it, I suggest Unz readers to take a look at my book Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People, where I devote several pages to analyze the problem.

    By the way, the global warming PsyOp has nothing to do with science, it is just a tool for behavior modification.

    • Replies: @anon
  527. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Servando Gonzalez

    Nothing to do with science? Wrong.

    “Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
    Nature, volume 410, pages 355–357 (2001)

    Science deals in direct experimental evidence.

    You’re the disinformation PSYOP agent.

  528. On BS Science

    The cover of the March 2015 issue of the National Geographic magazine depicted in big letters the title “The War on Science,” as well as the subtitles, “Climate Change Does not Exist,” “Evolution Never Happened,” “The Moon Landing Was Fake,” “Vaccinations Can Lead to Autism,” and “Genetically Modified Food is Evil.”

    The cover is expanded in an article by Joel Achenbach, “The Age of Disbelief,” with the subtitle “Skepticism about science is on the rise, and polarization is the order of the day. What’s causing reasonable people to doubt reason?” The overall tone of the heavily-slanted article indicates that the author is not trying to provide strong arguments to prove his point, but that he is preaching to a choir of people who see themselves as intellectually superior to the cave men troglodytes who don’t believe in science.


    Nevertheless, an analysis of the article shows that, despite his claims of support for science, the author doesn’t seem to know much about it. A cardinal example of this is evidenced in the fact that, in a seven-page article about science, the author mentions the word “consensus” nine times. Even worse, the author shows his ignorance when, on page 40, he mentions Galileo as a hero of science. Apparently it escaped the author’s comprehension that in the early 17th Century, Galileo defied the consensus when he claimed that the Earth rotated on its axis and orbited around the sun.

    A cardinal feature of science is that it is not based on the opinion of the majority but on facts. Actually, most things that today we accept as scientific fact began as a negation of the consensus of the time.[1] It is highly revealing, though, that the very people who allegedly are for diversity in race, culture and sexual practices, do not accept diversity in scientific theories.

    On the same page, the author quotes geophysicist Marcia McNutt, current editor of Science magazine, as saying: “Science in not a body of facts. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has basis in the laws of nature or not.” [Emphasis mine] So, according to this lady, science is not knowledge based on facts, but just a way to give substance to our beliefs. A better definition of science as religion cannot be made.

    Is the National Geographic magazine part of a PsyOp against the American people? I don’t know, but the ties between the American Geographical Society and the globalist conspirators go deep. We should remember that The Inquiry, a proto-intelligence agency created by Colonel Edward Mandell House on behalf of the globalist bankers, was composed mostly of American socialist-oriented intellectuals who worked in secret out of the American Geographical Society, doing historical research and writing position papers with plans for the upcoming peace settlement in Paris. The Inquiry was the de facto first formally-sanctioned civilian U.S. central intelligence agency, created by the globalist conspirators.

    However, though The Inquiry’s alleged sole purpose was to research and report to Wilson to prepare the U.S. case for the coming peace settlement, the fact that it had a Latin American group indicates that its scope was much larger. Actually, the Inquiry was, among other things, the first step to systematically study Latin America’s natural resources for the future exploitation of Wall Street bankers and oil corporations —a job later assumed by the Council on Foreign Relations and their beloved CIA.

    The globalist conspirators soon realized that the American Geographic Society was a good cover to infiltrate agents disguised as scientists, photographers and writers into other countries in order to asses their natural resources and counteract their efforts of becoming economically independent from them.[2]

    According to National Geographic, some unscientific Cro-Magnons believe that “Climate Change Does Not Exist.” The claim has been maliciously postulated to show the ignorance of the unbelievers, because no rational person with a minimum of education can believe that climate change does not exist. It is obvious that climate change exists, and existed since time immemorial. The climate is always changing.

    What most people do not believe, however, is that climate change (the brainwashers’ new name for global warming) is caused by human activity. This planet has passed through periods of both global warming and global cooling way before people were driving SUVs.[3]

    Speaking from his ideological high ground, the author asks, “What’s causing reasonable people to doubt reason?” Actually, what reasonable people doubt is not reason but illogicality, irrationality, magic thinking and plain lies. Reasonable people are reaching the conclusion that most of what is currently passed as science is nothing but junk.

    The keystone of the scientific method is that a scientific claim can be proven false. Actually, to fully adhere to the scientific method, any scientific statement, hypothesis or theory must include the way it can be proven false. Falsifiability or refutability is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument that proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not “to commit fraud” but “to show to be false.”

    Philosopher of science Karl Popper brought attention to the subject of falsifiability by way of his scientific epistemology of “falsificationism.” Popper focused his attention on problem of demarcation — that is, distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and made falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

    In contrast, none of the “scientific” theories expressed in the National Geographic’s cover article provide for a way to prove their falsifiability. Actually, scientists who have tried to prove it have been systematically excommunicated from the academic community.

    Nevertheless, the religious Left is apparently incapable of seeing the difference between true science and junk science. They also still don’t realize that, thanks to the alternative media, they have lost the monopoly on information.

    Now, why have the New Agers of the religious Left joined forces with the globalist conspirators pushing their New World Order? A key to find an answer is that, if they manage to, based on junk science, pass laws to impose upon the rest of us their beliefs, both of them would accomplish their dreams (or nightmares?).

    The religious Left is convinced that we humans are a plague who is destroying Gaia, Mother Earth. This is why they have openly expressed their goal of destroying industrial civilization and killing most people on planet Earth. On their part, the globalist conspirators believe that the planet is overpopulated and that we, the 99 percent, is consuming the Earth’s natural resources that, by natural law, belong to them, the 1 percent. That’s why they have openly expressed their plans to kill no less that 85 percent of the population and reduce the survivors to pre-industrial levels of consumption, with only two social classes, the masters and the serfs. This is the society they euphemistically call the New World Order. It’s a real-life version of The Hunger Games.

    This explains why the most reactionary Right is secretly bankrolling the religious Left. Buzzards of a feather flock together.


    1. Proof of the lack of scientific consensus on global warming is the abundant scientific literature the debate has produced. See, i.e., Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax, Tim Ball – The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria, Dr William Happer Destroys Climate Change Hysteria in 7 minutes, Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses, Freeman Dyson: A Global Warming Heretic, NASA Scientists Invalidate the Global Warming Hypothesis, How the Global Warming Scare Began, Climate Scientist Murry Salby Demolishes the Global Warming Alarm, Climate Change – Biggest Scam in History.

    2. After more than 35 years with National Geographic, William L. (Bill) Allen, who spent the last 10 as editor in chief of the flagship publication, retired in November of 2004. During his tenure at the National Geographic magazine Allen was also a CFR member. See, “National Geographic Magazine Names Chris Johns New Editor-In-Chief,” National Geographic, November 2, 2004, . In January 2014, another CFR member, Gary E. Knell, joined the National Geographic Society as president and CEO . He has been a member of the Society’s board of trustees since April 2013 and has served on the board of governors of the National Geographic Education Foundation since November 2003.
3. See, “Global Warming is Very Old News,” Need to Know, Oct.31, 2015.

    3. See, “Global Warming is Very Old News,” Need to Know, Oct.31, 2015

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @anon
    , @cassandra
  529. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I’m pretty sure I’ve read Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion, but it must have been almost 50 years ago, and my recollection of it is sketchy. Time to read it again, perhaps.

    I think with the development of robots and AI humanity faces an existential crisis. A human is a survival and reproductive mechanism. Make a human dependent on robotic carers and what use is he? Having no use or purpose, he will surely go mad and either commit suicide or be put down by the ruling elite, mechanical or human.

    At best, a tiny human elite may achieve hegemony over a robot workforce. These last humans will live like aristocrats, devoting their time to hunting, drinking, fornicating, and engaging in fracticidal warfare for territorial agrandizement. But given the inevitable resort to ever more powerful AI to gain the upper hand, the viability of such a civilization seems low to negligible.

    But perhaps we’ll soon have the war that Einstein predicted, which would ensure that subsequent wars are fought with sticks and stones. That will give humanity a breather, albeit highly radioactive.

    • Replies: @anon