The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
The Children’s Climate Crusade
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Greta Thunberg at UN Climate Summit Speech

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

“How dare you?”

Eight centuries ago, during the Middle Ages, some European children were seized by visions. Jesus Christ appeared to them, urging them to redeem their people by marching to the Holy Land and peacefully converting the Muslims to Christianity. Their preaching inspired tens of thousands of idealistic European youth, who undertook the arduous journey to the Levant. The great majority died on the way – whether of starvation or disease – and most of the remaining gave up and chose to return home. A few managed to reach the Mediterranean sea, perhaps hoping to walk across, as did Moses and Jesus, but in the event were sold into slavery, ending up miserably in Tunisia. Meanwhile back in Germany, angry parents whose children had died following these boy-preachers arranged for one of their fathers to be arrested and hanged. Thus ended that most idealistic adventure known as the Children’s Crusade.

Today, we are expected to follow the preaching of another child-wonder: Greta Thunberg, a sixteen-year-old Swedish girl who has become a global sensation among the media/UN/NGO establishment through her apocalyptic warnings about climate change. A sample of her pronouncements:

“I want you to feel the fear that I feel.”

“I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. Yet, I am one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying.”

“You are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.”

“We will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. Change is coming whether you like it or not.”

But who is Greta Thunberg? Is she a modern-day Joan of Arc, that teenage maiden who by her visions inspired the French to rally against the English invaders and found the French nation? Or is she Nongqawuse, the fifteen-year-old African prophetess who warned that a divine disaster could only be averted by slaughtering all of her tribe’s cattle? (Spoiler: her Xhosa tribesmen slaughtered cattle and slaughtered yet more cattle when the prophecy failed to materialize, resulting in the deaths of 400,000 bovine and 40,000 Africans.)

Two third-worlders and an affluent white woman react to being lectured to at by a class-skipping high-school teenage girl.
Two third-worlders and an affluent white woman react to being lectured to at by a class-skipping high-school teenage girl.

“Greta,” as people like to refer to her, is popular precisely because she polarizes. To the educational-media-UN-climate complex, finally we have a young person saying the truth (regurgitating their own messages, to be precise) to elected officials and business leaders. She is a child. She is a girl. She claims to be autistic (she certainly has weird mannerisms, though she must have learned a great deal from her parents, who appear to be far-left Swedish actors). She is standing up to bullies. And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the ‘left’ in our increasingly feminized and infantilized culture. The triumph of the Left is women screeching “think of the children!” while their menfolk slink into submission their tail between their legs. Rational and self-interested considerations naturally cannot be broached an atmosphere of emotional hysteria and moral blackmail.

All of Greta’s traits naturally annoy right-wingers. Politics, in particular democratic politics in which each faction seeks a dedicated base among the population, rewards polarization and fragmentation. A political tribe thrives and has unity not by what they agree on, but by the people they hate. Thus, the animosity Greta stokes among the mainstream right is precisely what indignantly keeps her supporters behind her.

The same of course can be said of Donald Trump. The one thing that makes me sympathize with the American president is the absolute shamelessness, unfairness, and mendacity of his many enemies in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. Couldn’t they go after Trump citing a legitimate issue? Lord knows there are many to choose from. But no, they must resort to endless lies, hypocrisies, and irrelevancies.

Greta and Trump are mirror images.

Of course, a “child” does not pop out with a fully-fledged political ideology of destroying the economic system and replacing it with some form of Transnational Green Communism (“equity,” “climate justice”). The fact is that children tend to simply regurgitate and radicalize whatever their authority figures tell them. This was the case in the Third Reich, where the youth were urged to overcome the class prejudices and conformist conservatism of their parents’ generation. This resulted in the infamous book-burnings of mostly Marxist, pornographic, and/or Jewish works (which was an initiative of the youth movement and not of the Nazi leadership). It was also the case in Fascist Italy and Mao Zedong’s communist China, the latter resulting in the disastrous Cultural Revolution.

The globalists and mainline environmentalists however are comforted by Greta because, after all, she is right. To those revolted by the emotionally manipulative use of a child to promote their political agenda, I say: All’s fair in love and war. And to those who dislike Greta’s brand of Transnational Green Communism, I say, like Water Sobchack concerning National Socialism: At least it’s an ethos.

As a matter of fact, I would say that Greta and her movement are possessed by a great deal of insight. The very idea of “striking” in order to skip high school attendance is brilliant. The popularity of this measure shows that the youth understand intuitively that sitting on their butts in a classroom is an utterly pointless waste of time. Sure, she may say that she “ought to be in school,” but really the whole strike against school attendance shows that the youth possess a great understanding: that their high school classes are an utterly pointless waste of their time (as Yes Minister! already pointed out decades ago).

Greta herself has personally benefited from skipping school, becoming a global star.

“Education, education, education,” is supposed to be our social panacea – leading to valuable professional “skills” (and therefore, economic growth and universal upward social mobility), while the truth is that these institutions are glorified daycare centers dispensing, at best, what can only be described as a kind of intellectual circus training. This regimented submission to authority, without end, is supposed to foster “empowered individuals” and “critical thinking.” The youth are tired of this and are therefore no longer showing up. The youth also sense the worthlessness of their lives, of this frenetic daily activity, producing so much waste for nothing worthwhile.

The kind of lecturing dispensed by Greta is obviously targeted at Western whites. No other demographic is sensitive to this kind of emotional blackmail and moralistic appeal.

But the fact is that, as of today, Europe and North America account for less than a third of global emissions, and those emissions are declining. Asia alone contributes more than 50% more emissions than all the West combined, and this is rapidly increasing. Greta makes the facile left-wing argument that the planet is being destroyed only for the wealth of “a very small number of people.” But in fact, the economic growth she detests today principally concerns raising up billions of Asians to the middle-class standard of living Westerners take for granted.

The main environmental risk of the Climate Crusade is that it will spill over into a generalized Luddism, as occurred in Germany under Chancelor Angela Merkel, who shut down nuclear power and claimed to be instituting an Energiewende (“Energy Change”) in favor of renewable energy. The result: coal plants were fired up again and electricity imported from atomic-powered France to make up for it. The more economically successful Westerners are, the more creative they seem to be in idiotically wasting their excess wealth.

(Full disclosure: I was raised on a steady diet of French State propaganda extolling the wonders of our nuclear power industry and I have learned nothing in my adult life to give me cause to revise this judgment.)

My problem with the Climate Crusade is not so much in the ends than in the psychological and institutional means involved.

In my view, austerity and frugality are absolutely desirable if these are consciously willed, as means to achieving spiritual and material autarchy. That is to say, self-control, self-discipline, and independence, in other words, sovereignty, in the deepest, most general, and most genuine sense. As an Italian naval officer told the American journalist Lothrop Stoddard during the Second World War: “You’d be surprised to learn how self-sufficient we have become. Autarchy is a good idea. Puts a nation on its toes.”[1]T. Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness: An Uncensored Report from Inside the Third Reich at War (Burlingston, Iowa: Ostara, 2011 [1940]), p. 6. The Italian Traditionalist writer Julius Evola went further, expounding at length on the “spiritual meaning of autarchy.”[2]Julius Evola, “The Spiritual Meaning of Autarchy,” 1 March 1938, in Julius Evola (trans. E. Christian Kopff), A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism (London: Arktos, 2015).

The problem with the climate movement is that it does not, for the most part, make such demands on the individual. The metropolitan “climate-supporter” class itself tends to be affluent frequent fliers, whose lives revolve around the flurry of utterly superfluous activities of contemporary upper-middle-class existence. The climate movement is not, in the main, about personally reducing our material needs and curbing our appetites, in the name of both the planet and our individual and, why not, national sovereignty. Oh no.

The modern-day Children’s Crusade rather demands, as a moral imperative, the action of the State. This makes sense politically, but what does it mean? It means a demand that an already obese State constrict and suffocate our already hyper-regulated social-democratic societies even more. This would be according, not to the will of a people to maintain social standards for itself or to foster their collective independence, but to submit to a permanent straightjacket of regulations concocted by the United Nations. The end result is not personal and national empowerment and sovereignty but subjection of individuals and nations to an transnational committee of unelected bureaucrats.

I initially did not think much of the children’s “March for the Climate” and the buzz it caused in the European media. I thought it embodied metropolitan Europeans’ and international committees’ penchant for “fake and gay” symbolic action instead of real and accountable action. However, Greta’s warms welcome in the U.S. media and Congress shows that she may have wider appeal. The youth of America seem to converging with that of Europe, away from Christianity and individual liberty, and towards secular social democracy. The Mammy State is spreading.

I assume some form of climate change is happening. But I also remember being warned decades ago of “rising sea levels.” I’m still waiting for the Netherlands to sink beneath the waves – the memory of which will survive only as a legend among the colored masses that will replace us – or at least for coastal property prices to collapse. And yet, they don’t.

Still, I do not despair of something good coming from the current environmental panic: a return of ethics, of the idea of civic duty. Ezra Pound complained in the 1930s:

Liberty was “defined” in the Rights of Man as “the right to do anything that doesn’t hurt someone else.” The restricting and highly ethical limiting clause was, within a few decades, REMOVED. The idea of liberty degenerated into meaning mere irresponsibility and the right to be just as pifflingly idiotic as the laziest sub-human pleased, and to exercise almost “any and every” activity regardless of its effect on the commonweal.[3]Ezra Pound, “The Teacher’s Mission,” English Journal (1934), quoted in T. S. Eliot (ed.), The Literary Essays of Ezra Pound (New York: New Directions, 1968), pp. 59-60.

Ultimately, the Climate Crusade represents a salutary critique of capitalist democracy.

A few climate activists, like the décroissance (de-growth) advocate and astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau, also seem to pair their activity with a certain asceticism. Once these people’s personal lives tend to Gandhism, I will listen. I believe the Right, which in fact pioneered ecology in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, will thrive if it can return to its demanding ethical roots.

There is no telling what the Children’s Climate Crusade will lead to. In terms of intensity, Greta Thunberg’s attacks against industrial civilization, consumers, and business are rivaled only by the writings of the Unabomber or by Adolf Hitler’s denunciations of the November Criminals. Greta’s argumentation leads us to ask a number of questions: What rights should climate-deniers have? Should their children be confiscated from them? Should they be jailed as are holocaust-deniers? Should they be sent to summer camps where they will be free to appreciate the nature we must protect and undergo a thorough ecological education?

More substantively, can we expect these capitalist democracies – which prize belly-chasing and individual comfort above all – to be able to deliver “climate justice”? In the absence of a technological deus ex machina, I should think not. Ultimately, Greta’s agenda would have to be enshrined in our constitutions, protected by virtuous guardians, and placed above the vagaries of democratic electoral politics (as are in principle, by the way, the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution or many of the EU’s economic policies). I sometimes wonder whether Greta is planning for her March for the Climate to turn into a March on Rome. She has made her ambitions clear, and more than once: “Change is coming whether you like it or not. The real power belongs to the people.”


[1] T. Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness: An Uncensored Report from Inside the Third Reich at War (Burlingston, Iowa: Ostara, 2011 [1940]), p. 6.

[2] Julius Evola, “The Spiritual Meaning of Autarchy,” 1 March 1938, in Julius Evola (trans. E. Christian Kopff), A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism (London: Arktos, 2015).

[3] Ezra Pound, “The Teacher’s Mission,” English Journal (1934), quoted in T. S. Eliot (ed.), The Literary Essays of Ezra Pound (New York: New Directions, 1968), pp. 59-60.

Hide 531 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    These are the facts, apart from any crusade, as follows:

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

  2. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Stop denying science; instead, use it. I would suggest that the crusaders be confronted with the following two paradoxes, both evidenced by scientific studies, as follows:

    (1) Jevon’s Paradox: Conservation only makes a resource more economical for the next asshole to use. as this study shows “energy conservation does not help.”

    “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?

    In short, Global Warming is unstoppable. But the present circumstances in which we humans have put ourselves are even worse that global warming being unstoppable. Here’s the real stinker, another paradox that is even more disturbing to the climate movement:

    (2) McPherson’s Paradox: Damned if you don’t, damned if you do. The best explanation I’ve found is here:

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

    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.


    The scientific evidence behind McPherson’s Paradox is best described in an article entitled, “We need to rethink everything we know about global warming: New calculations show scientists have grossly underestimated the effects of air pollution.”

    I guarantee that these two paradoxes, evidenced by science, drives the crusaders mad to the point of wanting to kill you for stating them. The poor scientist Tim Garrett from paradox #1 has basically taken to denying his own work, just to keep from being hounded from his job.

  3. Anonyous says:

    The conservative response to unstoppable global warming, in my opinion, is not a childish crusade against the unstoppable consequences of the huge mistake we humans have made evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere, but rather a hospice care model for a terminal patient, just as if one found out you they stage-IV pancreatic cancer. When one has late cancer, they are as good as dead; however, they still have some living to do, and as comfortably as one can manage.

    And one comfort measure would be the prohibiting visitation and the taking-in of strangers into our nation. I suggest conservatives become familiar with the climate science, and then write journal articles like this (my own right-wing fantasy title of a real science article):

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

  4. Of course the climate is changing. That is why it is climate and not weather. The Sahara wasn’t as big 3000 years ago as it was 2000 years ago. The Tarim Basin wasn’t a desert but has been for more than 1500 years. Prehistoric palm trees have been found in the Arctic. Climate change (cooling) forced the Vikings to abandon their Greenland Settlements 600 years ago. None of these have been caused by “Western civilization”. While there is little doubt modern pollution has contributed to poisoning the environment, there is no known way of accurately measuring the effect modern civilization has on climate change, if any.

  5. Here is a great solution for all the Oligarch and Technocrat minions posting here along with their terrorist cohorts. “Climate-Change” alarmists, for the benefit of the environment, should first and foremost immediately stop their repetitive habits by holding their collective breath for extreme periods of time. In that brave move they will instantly reverse the “damage” they believe is caused by exhaling CO2. This act will allow the rest of humanity to breath much easier. This sacrifice would be noted and greatly appreciated. That is all.

    • LOL: Dannyboy
    • Replies: @Anonyous
  6. Anonyous says:

    You’re parroting the standard denialist litany, starting with the #1 most frequently used denialist bromide, and then moving onto repeat #40, #59, and #47. Unfortunately, science-denial no longer works for the higher-IQ half of conservatives, including myself:

    “Even more notable: A slim majority of Republicans—52 percent—understand that climate change is real.”

    The Unprecedented Surge in Fear About Climate Change

    • Replies: @Patricus
    , @The Alarmist
  7. Great exposé leaving me little to add …
    except we are now seeing the “school strike” stroke of genius coming back to bite the ANC in the derriére. I expect much the same …

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @georgia.e
    , @Wally
  8. Anonyous says:
    @Jon Baptist

    Oligarch and Technocrat minions? Thanks for identifying yourself! I guess you’ve got to make money some how, after your failed attempts at smearing the alleged “junk science” that showed tobacco caused cancer.

    “Fossil fuel companies have a long history of adopting public relations strategies straight from the tobacco industry‘s playbook. But a new analysis shows the two industries’ relationship goes much deeper — right down to funding the same organisations to do their dirty work.”

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

    What’s your percentage take on these Globalist Elites’ 33 pieces of sliver, hmm?


    Exhaling CO2, let’s see, that’s #138 in the Globalist Elite’s long litany of science denial. Do you get paid more to shill for Globalist Elites like Exxon, Koch Industries, and Peabody Coal if you hit ’em all in one day, kind of like playing Climate Denial Bingo?

  9. Patricus says:

    Why do climate warming hysterics always base their statement on polls or “97 %” of scientists? Can one actually believe 97% of scientists agree on anything? How about some facts proving or at least supporting your case.

    By the way, 100% of scientists, and all other occupations, believe the climate has been changing since the earth existed. “Climate change” is a stupid and meaningless label.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Fox
  10. Nodwink says:

    We are cooked. There’s no point. The best we can do is enjoy the last few years we have left.

    • Replies: @Anonyous
  11. Muggles says:

    Little Greta is just a very young propaganda stooge being misused by her parents and other left climate fascists. She may be more malleable due to her Aspergers Syndrome spectrum affect. So she is promoted by cynical propagandists as a mouthpiece. She might “believe” in what she says but only because she’s been carefully programmed into a one sided view of the subject.

    Using children as parrots is a crude fascist/communist tactic. They lack maturity and complex education to the point where modern societies protect them from sex, work and exposure to violence. Yet statists of all stripes eagerly applaud this self righteous little girl who at other times and places would be lauding der Fuehrer or Comrade Stalin in similar self righteous mode.

    Imagine the outrage by the left if a similar young woman was defending the Second Amendment or the right to speak unpopular thoughts without persecution. Their howls would still be ringing.

    Poor Greta will someday, perhaps, understand how she was exploited and used by others. If she has the mental/emotional self awareness of that, it will be harmful to her. Very sad.

  12. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You may well be obsessed by Negroes, but the true stroke of genius is what Two Centuries of Old White Mens’ science has taught us about climate.

    Graphic source:

    Or are you one who says that hard-won body of old white mens’ wisdom is trash?

    • Replies: @Patricus
    , @dickr
    , @Anonymous
  13. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Can one actually believe 97% of scientists agree on anything? Is earth spherical? Yes. But let’s ask NASA.

    Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate is Warming

    p.s. Be sure to read all the way to the bottom before you make a fool of yourself parroting the standard climate-denialist excuse there is no way science can have such a consensus.

    p.p.s. You just couldn’t help yourself parroting the #1 science-denial bromide. That’s two of you NPCs within a few minutes here repeating exactly the same thing. Do you both have some sort of weird receiving antenna on your head?

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @Wally
    , @Avery
    , @Kratoklastes
  14. @Anonyous

    You’re still breathing out Carbon Dioxide and contributing to the problem that you are proclaiming. If you start breathing in and out at a much reduced rate, it will help the rest of humanity that does not want to be under the boot of the tyranny that you proxy for.

    Interesting that you are commenting at This site explodes false narratives. Normal people don’t visit here. They only visit mainstream and porn sites. Since you’re not looking for lost historical narratives and also are not posting at Fox and CNN you must have been sent here. Good soldier. Carry on listening to your masters. You will receive your treat at the end of your day.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  15. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Being a mirror image of Hillary isn’t something to which one should strive by writing four irrelevant paragraphs. Did you not read the article? You’re behaving in the same trite way of Trump haters, as Durocher writes:

    Couldn’t they go after Trump citing a legitimate issue? Lord knows there are many to choose from. But no, they must resort to endless lies, hypocrisies, and irrelevancies. Greta and Trump are mirror images.

    Now I voted for Trump, and I hate seeing the ongoing attempts at a Coup. But I’m also one of the 52% of Republicans who accept the scientific evidence of climate change. To clarify, I’m no fan of Greta, nor her socialist prescriptions, but she he is correct in accepting the scientific evidence of climate change. Attacking her on these trivial issues makes you look much more immature than her, and less educated.

    Step up and act like a mature man. Then concentrate on what White Men do best: Science and Discovery! Take an hour or two and go through the collated list of science denial excuses debunked with real science and actually try actually learning something scientific for once since since you graduated from school.

  16. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Baptist

    You’re still parroting denialist bromide #138; understanding this will make you look less of a dolt:

    Climate Myth: Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

    Do you find it curious how all you denialist NPCs have exactly the same false narratives?

    And how many treats have you taken from the Globalist Elitist Billionaires like Koch Industries. Or rather are you being paid by the (((Mercer))) family? Confess!

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
    , @Wally
    , @Buddy
  17. A123 says:

    It has been proven, Global Warming = FRAUD

    Inventor Of Fraudulent Temperature ‘Hockey Stick’ Is Humiliated In Canadian Court (1):

    The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

    The whole Global Warming myth has been used as a ponzi scheme. Money flows from science deniers who believe in the non-scientific climate change myth into “green” energy companies. Those companies then generate personal profit for people who created the hysteria.

    Scientifically proven fact — Both wind and solar have on net *increased* pollution. However, you do not need deep science to understand the wind scam. This picture illustrates hydrocarbon consumption by a wind facility.

    PEACE 😇



  18. Patricus says:

    In 1850 there were a few places where temperatures were recorded, some in North America, some in Europe. There was a single weather station in the southern hemisphere, located in Indonesia. It is ludicrous to claim worldwide temperatures were known in 1850. Temperature data is pretty dubious until the late 20th century. Climate models postulating CO2 forcing, or “the enhanced greenhouse effect” have not tracked very well with the satellite temperature data. Since the 500 year Little Ice Age ended about 1850 there has been some warming, with ups and downs every 30 years or so. Not a big surprise so far. It is possible warming and cooling is caused by sun cycles with CO2 having little effect.

    I’m not necessarily a denier, just a skeptic when it comes to end of times narratives.

    • Replies: @Anonyous
    , @fatmanscoop
  19. Patricus says:

    Please stop with the “climate change”. It is climate warming you are selling. The climate has always changed. Static climate might be unfortunate if it happens to be snowing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  20. @A123

    Albert also noted that about the universe he wasn´t sure 😀
    I hope we are not on the way back to letting the courts decide what science is.

  21. Anonyous says:

    Unless, unless…(!!!)…we build one nuclear power plant per day.

    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.

    (Garrett, 2009) [also cited in comment #2]

    Indeed, it seems “we are cooked,” as you put it. Did you read this new study about a “Hothouse Earth?”

    “We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years…

    Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
    PNAS August 14, 2018 115 (33) 8252-8259; first published August 6, 2018

    As Columbia University scientist Wally Broecker—who coined the term “global warming” in 1975 while most Unz commenters were being mesmerized by iceageTV crapumentaries—famously put it, “If you’re living with any angry beast, you shouldn’t poke it with a stick.”

  22. 1- I just read an article in Der Spiegel about how hundreds of workers who have been building things for the soccer world cup and for the athletics in those Arab countries have been dying every year. The authorities say that it’s for natural causes or heart strokes. But the article says that the workers are chosen because they are young and healthy and the true reason why they are dying is because of the heat – even if they try to mitigate the effects of heat. People are already dying because of too much heat.

    2- Durocher clearly doesn’t know very much about climate change, or anything at all. Why doesn’t he simply read a book about it and try to get some information about what climate change is and what it means for us?

    3- As I explained in a post another time, the movement against global warming has very little to do with Greta. There have been people searching about the question for dozens of years, the basic science in known since the 19th century. There are people writing about it, there have been reportages and documentaries about it. There were even other children who initiated a movement linked with climate change like the movement Plant for the Planet which was initiated by a German boy more than 10 years ago.

    4- The Dutch take climate change seriously. Why doesn’t Durocher make a trip to Holland and try to see what they are doing about it? They have beein studing hard how they can build better and higher dikes.

    5- In case Durocher has a solution about nuclear waste he can come to Germany and I think Germans will pay him millions of dollars for this solution. If he doesn’t know the problems posed by nuclear waste, maybe he should try to get some information, also about nuclear energy in France. There is a reason why France apparently wants to reduce the part of nuclear energy in the production of electricity.

    6- The Energiewende in Germany has nothing to do with Merkel. It was decided by the previous government. Merkel has absolutely no interest in the Energiewende and never did anything about it. She doesn’t have children, that’s the reason why she never cared about it.

  23. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Who exactly was “Humiliated In Canadian Court?” You hero and pathological-liar and science-denier Tim Ball and his organization Frontier Centre. Here is the “Apology and Retraction” the court forced them to produce:

    Michael Mann also sued Tim Ball personally, and that court case wasn’t won or lost, it was dismissed. You can read the judges reason online, as I have, and it was partially because Tim Ball begged the courts to dismiss it as he complained of old age with a heart attack, partially because the case had dragged on so long, 3 witnesses were dead, and 1 too crippled to travel. At any rate, courts are not where science is decided. It’s funny how denialist crow about this court case as if courts can establish scientific fact, but out the other side of their mouth, they run down the court system as evil and corrupt. Well, which way is it?

    • Replies: @A123
  24. @Anonymous

    You’re still producing too much CO2. Continue working on breathing at a much reduced rate. Do your part and help with the problem that you think exists and that you are personally causing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  25. @Muggles

    Little Greta is just a very young propaganda stooge being misused by her parents and other left climate fascists.

    Why don’t you try yourself to learn something about climate change? Greta seems to know a lot while you seem to be completely ignorant of those questions. There are lots of good books in English written by scientists, by jornalists, and so on. Don’t you read books from time to time?

  26. Anonyous says:

    The recorded temperature record is indeed modern, starting c. 1880. Proxy temperatures from Greenland or Vostok ice cores go back 800,000 years. Other proxies further. Google, or rather, DuckDuckGo (no tracking) ’em.

    > Climate models postulating CO2 forcing, or “the enhanced greenhouse effect” have not tracked very well with the satellite temperature data.

    You’re repeating the falsehoods of the magical “infinite power” believer and serial-liar Roy Spencer. Here’s how the UAH satellite data actually tracks, compared to the lies Roy has been caught spreading time and time again:

    > there has been some warming

    Like this. Notice again how both the UAH and RSS satellite data confirms:


    > It is possible warming and cooling is caused by sun cycles.

    Solar irradiance has been declining for six decades now, while temperatures have been climbing the whole time. Your tax dollars going to NASA have furnished you this chart to dissuade you of mistaken notions you’ve heard and repeat. Get your money’s worth and take a gander:

    Source: NASA

    > with CO2 having little effect.

    Sorry, CO2’s effect has been established causally.

    • Replies: @utu

    Greta Thunberg doesn’t understand ‘complex and different’ modern world, says Putin

    Or, in other words….


    • LOL: TKK
  28. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You can stop using the well-worn and #1 most often used science-deniers’ myth, which is actually a lie-by-omission. Sure it has changed—and the climate change caused several mass extinctions. Better read up here:

    “Those rapid global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods.”

    Climate Myth: Climate’s changed before
    Science Says: Scientific analysis of past climates shows that….

    Also, a corollary to this #1 myth is the claim that humans couldn’t be causing climate change if it changed before. That argument is as silly as claiming, since forest fires can be started naturally by lightening, that there’s no way humans could ever be blamed for starting a forest fire.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  29. Dumbo says:

    “Consensus” is irrelevant in science. A scientist is either right or wrong. 99% of current theories could be wrong and just one scientist be right. Before the discovery of microorganisms, the “consensus” was that diseases were caused by miasma or “bad air”.

    I know nothing about climate science, yet I cannot take it very seriously as long as: a) massive immigration from third worlders to first world countries keeps being pushed by the same powers that warn us against climate change (what could be worse than to push even more people from low-consuming to high-consuming countries?), b) seaside property in tropical and mediterranean climate zones is still pretty expensive, despite the destruction that is supposed to happen in those areas in a few years or decades.

    Apocalyptic ideas have always been with humanity, climate change is just the latest fad.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  30. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Baptist

    Tripling down on stupid doesn’t make it so. Do you realize that you eat the carbon that you’re exhaling? Ever hear of carbohydrates? Do you know that plants take CO2 from the air? Did you get through 4th grade science class? Good grief!

    Does the collective exhalation of carbon dioxide from all those people contribute significantly to global warming? No. Human beings do exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we’re still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy.

    7 Billion Carbon Sinks
    How much does breathing contribute to climate change?

    Don’t be such a PRATT. (Points Refuted A Thousand Times)

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  31. A123 says:

    Denier 303,

    You can deny science as much as you want, but it isn’t helping your side.

    At any rate, courts are not where science is decided.

    You didn’t read the article…sigh… The courts did not decide.

    … adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.

    Mann refused to provide the underlying data he used to generated his bogus numbers. Part of the scientific process is sharing data so that results can be tested and replicated. Anti-scientist Mann exited science when he refused to share the data.

    We do know that his results are mythical. The second graph follows publicly available data:

    I am sorry that you are a science denier who believes in the Myth of Global Warming. Your faith in the beloved Prophet Mann and his Secret Data is sadly misplaced.

    — What other faith based secrets do you believe in?
    — How about the one about translating secret writing from gold plates?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Can’t break that hockey stick! Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” temperature record has been confirmed by many other scientific studies, as graphed here:

    Source: Climate Myth — Hockey stick is broken

    • Replies: @Willem
  33. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > “Consensus” is irrelevant in science.

    Can you even read? I begged you to read to the bottom of NASA’s Scientific Consensus webpage, where it states, “Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework…” You go read the rest, if you’re capable of standard English. And then come back and tell us why scientists cannot all agree on something, like earth is a sphere, and then have journalists describe it in a shorthand term “consensus.”

    > I know nothing about climate science


    > I cannot take it very seriously as long as: a) massive immigration

    And since you stubbornly refuse to understand reality, you cannot write a scientific paper that limits immigration based on climate change. Oops! Meanwhile, here’s my own fantasy title I created, with a link under to a real science article on limiting immigration because of environmental concerns:

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

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  34. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t read your lying science-denial websites that you’re too much a coward to even link to when quoting; I read the actual decision from the judge. You can too, it’s publicly available and published online.

    > The courts did not decide.

    That’s what I said, it was dismissed. I even bolded that. But you are making it like the courts decide science.

    Serial Liar Tim Ball’s chart version is fraudulent in three ways, by (1) shifting the time scale which did not originally go to 2000 as falsely labeled, and by (2) fraudulently misrepresenting the data as global when it was only a local temperature record, and by (3) not acknowledging the original scientist (Lamb, 1982) from whom the shape of graph was plagiarized.

    The following article dissects Tim Ball’s fraud, which is actually only an earlier fraud that Tim Ball colorized. Go down to the section entitled, “Pulling a Lamb out of the Hat.”

    Pulling a Lamb out of a Hat

    > faith based

    That describes you Creationist (intelligent design) science-deniers, who imagine that Jehovah has magical “infinite power” over the climate, as stated in the 2009 Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, as follows:

    “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providences — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

    Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

    • Replies: @A123
  35. @Anonymous

    Ice is melting somewhere. That means you and your entire gang of climate-change zombies are exhaling too frequently. As you are on a mission to follow the commands of your oppressors and make trillions of dollars for the oligarchs of the world, all of you must personally step up and bear responsibility for the CO2 you produce and drastically reduce your breathing rates.

    Greenpeace founder states:

    500 scientists co-signed the following letter to the UN stating, “There is no climate emergency.”

    “In every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that…Major ice ages in Earth’s past C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now” – William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University

    “The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector.” – James Hansen, NASA

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @A123
    , @Anonymous
  36. Dumbo says:

    Meh. Enjoy your climate apocalypse, Mr. Anonymous.

    The truth is that, even though they are obviously wrong, flat-earthers have made a better job of providing a concise and convincing explanation of their theories than “climate change” apologists, who don’t even know what they are trying to convince us of. A few years ago it was “global warming”, now it’s “climate change”, which could be basically anything. Covering all bases, I suppose. The temperature and effects they cite are all over the place, as well as the consequences and the solutions.

    Anyway, I’m not only not convinced, I really don’t give a damn. The whole world could go to Hell tomorrow for all I care.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Reg Cæsar
  37. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Baptist

    You admit, via your psychological projection, that you’re on mission to follow the commands of your oppressors and make trillions of dollars for the oligarchs of the world, like Koch Industries, ExxonMobile, (((Mercer Family))) and other secretive Globalist-Elitist Billionaires for whom you’re parroting their science-smearing PR campaign, copied from Big Tobacco’s science-smearing PR campaign from yesteryear.

    “Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
    A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder

    View post on

    > 500 scientists

    You’re flat-out lying; let’s examine the credentials of one of your so-called “scientists.”

    Monckton “has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications.”

    > the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises

    Wrong, serial-liar William “CO2 Demonizes Jews” Happer is lying, using the #12th most used climate lie. This chart disproves his lies:

    Chart Source: “Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).”

    Posting lie after lie after lie does one thing: makes you a serial liar, which puts you in good company with the science-deniers.

  38. Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Center. Conclusions at roughly the 35 minute mark.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  39. A123 says:

    Denier 303,

    You are both a science denier and a liar.

    I don’t read your lying science-denial websites that you’re too much a coward to even link to when quoting;

    The link is up in #17, which you already responded to. Short attention span much? However, as you are too busy lying and denying science I will provide it again for you.

    That’s what I said, it was dismissed. I even bolded that. But you are making it like the courts decide science.

    You are obviously illiterate — In addition to being lazy, a science denier, and a liar.

    I made it quite clear that Prophet Mann, your holy keeper of Secret Data, voluntarily exited science by failing to obey the scientific method. Not even a court could force anti-scientist Mann to obey scientific processes.

    So again, I am sorry that you believe in Prophet Mann and his most holy Secret Data. You are a faith based individual and a science denier. Your blind, anti-science faith is impressive in its absoluteness and obstinecy. Keep lying if you must, but we are all laughing at the faith based myths you are falsely describing as science.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  40. A123 says:
    @Jon Baptist

    Your link makes a very good point.

    Science Deniers in government and foundations want answers that agree with their preconceived notions. Thus, the easy way to get ‘research’ grants from Science Deniers is to conform ‘research’ results to the Global Warming Myth outcome they demand.

    Thus the vicious cycle begins. As Science Denier money produces more and more fake papers, the truth is buried. Science Deniers, like Anon303, might not even understand that they are denying science because they have a volume of papers funded by Science Denier ‘research’ grants.

    Given ample proof that wind and solar increase pollution over their entire lifecycle. As long as the hysterics about climate change are pushing these solutions, we know they are less than rational. Remember how Al Gore used to push the Global Cooling Myth before he reversed himself to push the Global Warming Myth?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @mark green
  41. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > a concise and convincing explanation

    Have you ever looked? or

    > A few years ago it was “global warming”, now it’s “climate change”

    That’s #89 of science-deniers lies! “Climate change” was a term used in a science journal article in 1956. “Global” warming was coined two decades later in 1975. And while both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena.

    > The temperature and effects they cite are all over the place

    Whut? Does this look comparison of several different records kept around the globe look like temperatures “all over the place?”


  42. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Baptist

    First, if you’re going to start touting Svenmark, a famous denialist because he’s actually a scientist who has been published, he states the following:

    “I believe there’s no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.” (March 2018)

    Do you agree now with Svenmark that there’s no doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or not? If you disagree, you don’t have the slightest clue about his hypothesis. After you answer that question, I’ll discuss his hypothesis about cosmic rays, and how he’s been proven wrong in scientific journal article after article.

  43. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > You are both a science denier and a liar. | LOL! You’re psychologically projecting.
    > The link | Read the Judges decision publicly available on the government web server.

    In spite of your comical attempts to “flip the script,” Mann’s study has been confirmed by multiple other scientific studies replicating his work, as depicted here:

    Source: “In the endless – and senseless – assault on Michael Mann and his famous hockey stick graph, it is generally overlooked that the graph has withstood all of the criticism and, still today, stands as a perfectly accurate picture of climate over the past millennia….”

    A Review of Michael Mann’s Exoneration

  44. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > want answers that agree with their preconceived notions. | Pure psychological projection.

    > conform ‘research’ results | You’re always, always, always smearing real science, just like a Big Tobacco PR shyster telling everybody that the science proving smoking causes cancer is somehow “junk,” this time with a blend of #32 and #95 on the long compiled list of denialist lies.

    Solar/wind power policy decisions overturn the two-century old body of climate science about like disagreements over boat design overturn the physics of displacement. You’re straining so hard, it’s comical. You’re quite the shyster.

    > Al Gore used to push the Global Cooling Myth | He’s not a scientist, but merely a political figure, so who cares? But do tell us where and when he did this! That would be funny if what you claim is actually true.

  45. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Baptist

    > exhaling too frequently | Four times now you have told that flat-out lie. You’ve revealed to the public here whooz yo daddy, the Father of Lies. Lying and stupidity are traits often found together, and it’s pretty obvious you’re way too stupid to know that carbohydrates from plants have carbon in them that they got from the air, so when you eat carbon-based plants (and even eating meat is eventually plant carbon-based) and then breath out the carbon you ate, it’s a carbon cycle of life that adds net zero carbon to the atmosphere.

    • Replies: @dimples
  46. A. K. says:

    The main environmental risk of the Climate Crusade is that it will spill over into a generalized Luddism, as occurred in Germany under Chancelor Angela Merkel, who shut down nuclear power and claimed to be instituting an Energiewende (“Energy Change”) in favor of renewable energy. The result: coal plants were fired up again and electricity imported from atomic-powered France to make up for it.


    ”Following its first ECT success, (Vattenfall sued Germany again in 2012, seeking €4.3 billion plus interest for lost profits related to two of its nuclear power plants. The legal action came after the German Parliament decided to speed up the phase-out of nuclear energy following the Fukushima disaster in 2011 and countrywide anti-nuclear protests. Amongst other things parliamentarians ordered the immediate and permanent shutdown of Germany’s oldest reactors, including Vattenfall’s Krümmel and Brunsbüttel plants. Due to several breakdowns, both had already been out of service for several years. The case is ongoing at the time of writing (June 2018).”

    ”By April 2018 the German Government had spent more than €15 million in legal and administrative costs to defend the case. Furthermore, Vattenfall has spent €26 million on its lawyers which it also claims from Germany.”

    Excerpt from the following (emphasis added):

  47. @Dumbo

    Meh. Enjoy your climate apocalypse, Mr. Anonymous.

    Mr Sock Puppet. One rude and obnoxious blowhole is posting on at least three accounts, and likely others as well. Someone report him to Ron.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @peterAUS
  48. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Welp … 10 hours and 45 total comments later, and not a single man has gathered courage enough to consider and reply thoughtfully, or otherwise, to comment no. 1. * crickets *

    I voted for Trump, actually think he did good for the US on withdrawing from Kyoto, as evidenced by what I wrote in comment no. 2, i.e., “global warming is unstoppable.” I’m not really wanting to get rid of my multiple gas/diesel-powered SUVs and trucks and fun toys, because Jevon’s Paradox. * crickets * there too. Is it because everybody here is a Never-Trumper or sumthin’? Not even a peep from the 👃 rep from Tel Aviv, A123.

  49. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Trying to pull an @Jack twatter deplatforming, are you, my dear butthurt friend? All because you’re trying to get revenge for having your hat handed to you in the last global warming thread! You’re worse behaving than a woman! I’m posting under a single email account, but did make a spelling error without the m on Anonymous, for which I cleared my cookies, to get rid of the autofill that kept putting it in. Any moderator can see I’m posting under a single email, in spite of the spelling error. Grow up, and even more, stop your malicious lies, ok?

    Another thing angering you is that I’ve smashed your childish world view. People get mad when their world view is threatened, as science shows. Anyway, don’t let the sun set on your anger. 🙂

  50. I built an oceanfront house.

    The sea has fallen, or land has risen, six feet since my father-in-law was a boy – swimming where we now have a house.

    The land was free, now it is ours. My father-in-law squatted on the land. If it went the other way, we’d make money fishing where the house is now. We do fish farming. So what. A lot more than climate changes.

    The thing I despise is the pretense humans, plant life, and animals cannot adapt to change. The stupidest people in the world are the alarmists.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  51. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Backwoods Bob

    Do you live in Finland or Sweden? Land is still rebounding upwards from loss of the Ice Age weight of ice.

    Where the harbours are drying out
    The sea level is rising everywhere in the world, except along the coasts of Finland and Sweden. But the sea is still rising here; it’s just that the land is rising faster.

    In spite of your rare case of (relatively) rapidly rising land, sea levels are rising around the world, and accelerating. But it’s about the least of worries with global warming, only a couple feet by the end of the century. Well, in really low areas, it’ll mean more storm flooding, that’s bad.

    And some deniers attempt to construe Obama buying a beach house as a negation of science, but here’s the math, based on NASA observations and predictions

    • Obama’s mansion is elevated 3 meters (10 feet) above sea level.
    • Sea level rise is predicted 65 centimeters (26 inches) by 2100.

    He’s fine for his lifetime! I’m just glad there ain’t a Negro in the White House!

    • LOL: Jim bob Lassiter
  52. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Backwoods Bob

    > plant life, and animals cannot adapt to change.

    Any scientist realizes life can adapt—when the rate of change is slow. If the rate of change is rapid, the ability to adapt is overwhelmed, and extinction results. See this study:

    Rates of projected climate change dramatically exceed past rates of climatic niche evolution among vertebrate species.

    Now, get this, the present rate of change in habitat caused by global warming is extremely rapid, comparable, in geological time, to an asteroid hitting the earth. See this chart:

    Chart source: Andrew Glikson, Earth and climate scientist, Australian National University

    Life on earth is hitting the proverbial a brick wall. We are already in the earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction.

  53. wayfarer says:

    “Climate Change,” on the planet Jupiter!

  54. Fox says:

    Good! A sensible comment on this absurd topic.

  55. Wally says:

    What Greta’s Communists don’t want told:

    Communist Climate ‘Experts’: 41 Predictions Which Didn’t Come True:
    Dozens of Failed Climate Predictions Stretch 80 Years Back:
    Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History:
    Recent Rise in CO2 Has Made Earth Greener:
    100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  56. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    There are now a couple of companies with machines that capture carbon dioxide out of the air, and turn the CO2 into a white-pellet-looking product that can be made back into gasoline for about 2 dollars more a gallon than what we presently pay. I would imagine carbon-fiber materials could also be produced from these pellets.
    I seen the company profiled from a NPR link of all places. I cannot remember the firms exact name, but I chilled out a great deal on the warming issue after seeing their invention.

  57. DH says:

    Antropogenic global warming is a scam

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. Wally says:

    The fake ‘97% climate consensus’ crumbles further with 485 new papers in 2017 that debunk it:

    Claim Of A 97% Climate Consensus Debunked:
    – See more at:
    Richard Tol: Claim Of A 97% Climate Consensus Does Not Stand Up
    The Guardian

  59. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    It has been said that “we have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe,” i.e., to keep earth rolling over the “planetary threshold” into “intrinsic feedbacks” positive feedback loops. This graph illustrates that “planetary threshold” (also called a “tipping point” by scientists) and “intrinsic feedbacks” (positive feedback loops).

    source: [same cite as in comment #21]

    Everybody knows what a positive feedback loop is, right? Do you also know why your nose evolved to detect hydrogen sulfide (that godawful rotten egg smell) in a few parts per billion? Global Warming Led To Atmospheric Hydrogen Sulfide And Permian Extinction

  60. Wally says:

    Plants love CO2, the more CO2 the better.

    CO2 claims by control freak Communists utterly demolished at:

    Just few of the many examples found there:

    – 25 Reasons CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming
    – Younger Dryas Analysis: No Evidence CO2 Drives Temperature
    – Study: No Correlation Between Atmospheric CO2 & ‘Fossil Fuel’ Emissions
    – Climate Fraudster Michael Mann Guilty, CO2 Innocent!
    – Another Experiment Proving CO2 is Innocent of Climate Change
    – CO2 Data Manipulation
    – Scientists: Rising CO2 Causing Antarctic Cooling
    – Study: Driving A Tesla Produces More CO2 Than Diesel Cars
    – Three-minute Video Exposes CO2 Climate Baloney:

    • Agree: Agent76
  61. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > The Dutch take climate change seriously.

    True. So are insurance and reinsurance companies, such as MunichRe. Very seriously. The arrogant science-deniers should put their money where their mouth is and offer discounted reinsurance to companies if they believe their own science-denial, and make a fortune if they’re right. But deniers are only talk, like a pack of feral Negroes in an urban classroom, too low IQ to understand science, and intending only to be disruptive to their betters.

    Man-made climate change is apparently making a significant contribution to the rising wildfire risk and major losses in California.

    Climate change increases wildfire risk in California
    Majority of largest and costliest wildfires have occurred in recent years

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  62. Anon[284] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s commercial-grade fiction, staged for a public that, as even comments to this piece bear witness to, amply deserves it.
    The élite, how it controls everything, how it deceives about everything — all of it is so deserved by the majority as to be, as it is, unavoidable.

    • Replies: @Anon
  63. Greta, snookums, I and my friends and family don’t come to you young people for hope. We know “Out of the mouths of babes” is but a silly aphorism. Now hie your arse and your undeveloped brain back to Sweden, and then get back to us in 10 years.

  64. Richard P says:

    First and foremost, Greta is a puppet to powerful Globalists who are using her to further their agenda. As a National Socialist, I believe in the preservation of our environment and that we’re polluting the Earth. As a Russian Orthodox Christian, I believe that God controls the climate and not man. Conclusively, we can do our part to decrease pollution, but ultimately the fate of the Earth is in the hands of God.

    Furthermore, I’m sick of picking up other people’s litter while out on mountaineering and hunting expeditions in the Rockey Mountains. I’m also sick of the hypocrites in the Front Range of Colorado — especially Boulder and Evergreen — who advocate for green living, but pull up to Natural Grocers in a late model, $100k Land Rover, reside in multi-million dollar mcmansions, and flaunt their frequent “humanitarian” excursions to SE Asia. Don’t these idiots realize how much jet fuel is used on such a trip — a trip with the sole purpose to take some self-serving selfies for Instagram and to appease their social circles full of limousine liberal, SJW friends?

    Meanwhile, it’s people like my peers and I who reside in the High Rockies region and live extremely minimalist, self-sufficient lifestyles and don’t seek the approval or praise from others for doing something that only comes naturally to us.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @peterAUS
  65. Willem says:

    That is not ‘many’, but ‘another’.

    Could they have faked the data?

    The incentive for doing that must be great: it makes some people very rich (the people Thunberg talks about), and the authors become an instant succes, like Michael Mann was

  66. Miro23 says:

    Yes and no. They shouldn’t be using this girl, but climate change is real.

    And, IMO, nature and the environment are non-political. Cultural Marxists or the Alt-right or anybody really, can plant a tree or a shrub to improve natural habitat and increase green cover.

    If planting trees and shrubs (suitable species in suitable places) actually became a state sponsored family activity, with government information and facilities, it could generate a tremendous improvement in the natural environment without the political flag waving (and also serving to promote national unity).

    I’ve done it on my own property, and what was previously sun baked and arid has turned into a green and shady place with new wildlife. Mostly just by naturally building green cover following the ideas in Peter Andrew’s book “Back from the Brink”.

  67. utu says:

    Nobody is contesting UAH Satellite Based Temperature record (program run by Roy Spencer at University of Alabama in Huntsville)

    It shows that the temperature increased by 0.5° C. in last 40 years. The rate of 0.125°/decade is not high! And 40 years of valid empirical science is not very long.

    Satteline measurement became possible only in late 1970s. They provide the only valid estimate of the true global temperature. All other records going back to preindustrial age are based on ground stations with low spatial coverage (particularly in Southern Hemisphere) that are subject to issues of calibration, sensor failures and sensor replacement and environmental. impact like heat island due to progressive industrialization and urban sprawl. Various dubious schemes of interpolation, extrapolation and homogenization were concocted to come up with proxies for the global temperatures for 19 century and for the pre satellite age in 20 century. Those proxies has been reified as “true global temperatures” by the charlatans of the global climate change political movement and they have been unquestionably adopted by the true believers and various propagandists.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. Willem says:

    “Greta makes the facile left-wing argument that the planet is being destroyed only for the wealth of “a very small number of people.”

    She is right. Plastic plants, fossil fuel, bioindustry, deforrestation, all destroy ecosystems, and that makes the owners of those industries (“a very small number of people”) very rich.

    But she is wrong in the solution.

    Greta literally wants to save the planet by somehow storing the smoke that comes out of a factory or an engine. What she does not propagandize is that factories that pollute should be closed. The latter would help, the former is fighting against an epiphenomenon, that only makes “a very small number of people” rich

  69. @Anonymous

    ‘You can stop using the well-worn and #1 most often used science-deniers’ myth, which is actually a lie-by-omission…’

    It also needs to be emphasized that a good deal of the harm that will occur from the global warming that we are causing will be a function of not just the change itself, or its extent, but the rate at which it happens. A change occurring over a thousand years might merely result in a smooth transition; pack it into a hundred years and the effects could be catastrophic.

    We’re seeing this now with global warming in the American West and the sudden ability of beetles to ravage species of pine lacking defenses against the beetles because they grow at altitudes where winter used to be too severe for the beetles. If, say, the beetles were only able to move up an average of one vertical foot a year, there would only be a very narrow belt of dead and dying trees. Increase that to ten vertical feet per year, and you’ve got quite a swathe of dead timber — and in consequence, the potential for some pretty impressive forest fires.

    …fires which we now seem to be getting. Even if we can’t or won’t halt global warming completely, merely slowing it would accomplish quite a bit. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with climate change per se — but letting it happen abruptly is a recipe for disasters of all kinds.

  70. utu says:

    The longest NOAA tide gauge data record is at the Battery, New York with a 162 year long measurement period. This location along with all other NOAA U.S. coastal locations show no sea level rise acceleration occurring over the past 30 years despite scientifically flawed assertions otherwise by climate alarmists.

  71. utu says:

    No Global Warming signal detected in extreme weather events:

    “In summary, the trend signal in hurricane activity has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes. Manmade climate change may have caused changes in hurricane activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations. But at this point, there is no convincing evidence that manmade global warming has caused a change in hurricane activity.” (Judith Curry)

    “Using the conventional perspective of avoiding Type I error, the strongest case for a detectable change in TC (Tropical Cyclone) activity is the observed poleward migration of the latitude of maximum intensity in the northwest Pacific basin, with eight of 11 authors rating the observed change as low-to-medium confidence for detection (with one other author having medium and two other authors having medium-to-high confidence). A slight majority of authors (six of 11) had only low confidence that anthropogenic forcing had contributed to the poleward shift. The majority of the author team also had only low confidence that any other observed TC changes represented either detectable changes or attributable anthropogenic changes.” (Thomas Knutson et al.

    Roger Pielke Jr. has been tireless in calling out scientists and others who make statements attributing hurricane impacts to climate change, citing the IPCC and other national/international assessments.

    For this, Roger Pielke Jr has been massively attacked and ostracized. See this recent article by Ross McKitrick that appeared in the Financial Post “This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked“:

    “Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.”

  72. There is no catastrophic climate change on the way. Generally speaking, warm weather and CO2 are good for humankind. Enjoy the warmth while it lasts.

    Indeed, looking back over the past one million years, paleoclimatologists have discovered that we humans are presently basking in a temperate (and somewhat rare) ‘interglacial period’. It’s been mild like this way for only about 12,000 years. So enjoy the anomalous, comfy weather while it endures.

    It needs to be known that the Northern Hemisphere has had eight, long ‘glacial periods’ over the past one million years alone. Does the term ‘Ice Age’ ring a bell? There have been eight.

    When we go into our next deep freeze (‘glacial period) most of humanity will surely perish. The alleged perils of slightly warmer, crop-friendly, temperatures are being hyped shamelessly. And dishonestly.

    Why is a teenage girl being trotted as the Poster Child for CATASTROPHIC Global Warming–(OOPS–make that ‘climate change’), when questions of science should be relegated to educated (adult) scientists? This latest stratagem is pure demagoguery.

    Who are the warmists trying to fool? Whose unsophisticated passions are the warmists trying to arouse?

    Here’s the answer: the average headline-reading, TV-watching. low-information dope.

    This is why the warmists are introducing an emotional (politicized) element (a traumatized child) to what should be a strictly science-based issue?

    The climate charade is all about politics and money and power. And deception.

    Please keep in mind that if the so-called ‘environmentalists’ have their way, most of today’s oil exporting countries (which includes Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela and Libya) will be economically (and militarily) ruined.

    Cui Bono?

    Here’s a brief, timely, and insightful look at the familiar sleight-of -hand that’s being used by climate alarmists to fool the public:

  73. Antares says:

    – A consensus is non-scientific whatever the definitions of NASA may be or may change into. Actually science starts when one dares to leave the consensus behind and starts questioning.

    – As made obvious by the ‘pro’ side the term is ‘climate change’ and NOT ‘climate warming.’ Without warming there is no CO2-related problem. Period. We were lied to. We don ‘t have to change our behaviour.

    – The fact that some oil companies are ‘against’ does not prove that ‘pro’ is right. It is funny how some people who shout out these accusations support their opinions with coloured graphs and other beautiful material that they could impossibly have made themselves.

    – Nuclear industry is dead in the water. No solutions for any of their extremely severe problems yet. Fukushima is still pouring every day into the ocean. No one knows what this will do to plankton, our main supplier of oxygen.

    – ‘Pro’ should be honest: they want others to save the planet for them. No ‘pro’ wants to sacrifice anything, none of them wants to make personal changes, except to wear a different hat. They demand to continue the same life style and really expect others to come up with ‘their’ solutions. It’s nothing but fashion. They don’t see the energy waste behind wind and solar energy and the pollution that it causes. They could buy a device to save energy. That best describes their mental state. They reallly don’t understand anything about industrial processes, waste nor energy.

    – Frugality sets us free but we hate it. Even the mentioning of it leads to stupid, silly reasoning as if we expect people to walk 30 miles while everyone around them uses a car, to freeze their bedrooms while everyone lives in luxury, or to do everything manually in a world where manual devices are almost extinct. Everyone would mock them, that’s of course the main point, because they definitely don’t want to live that way themselves.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  74. awry says:

    OT, but the story about the Children’s Crusade is a myth created by later “enlightened” intellectuals who used it to ridicule Christendom, similar to many other exaggerated or false claims about the “Dark Ages”, like “Jus Primae Noctis” or chastity belts or elaborate torture apparatuses, or the number of inquisition victims and burned witches etc.

  75. eugyppius says:

    Here one reads that McPherson’s claims are not credible:

    Now that article might not mean very much to you, except that it is by a major contributor to Skeptical Science, a collaborative website by various scientists which you (or someone very much like you) have linked elsewhere in this thread as an authority.

    The article author explains why Skeptical Science aims to debunk certain flavors of “climate change misinformation” (what the author would call denialism) but not others (what the author would call alarmism).

    Last year there was a kind of internal debate among scientists about how decisions like this among “debunkers”, about what to debunk, had skewed impressions of evidence among consumers of climate science. Another contributor to Skeptical Science ( wrote:

    The list […] only includes people whose misinformation aids arguments against climate action; it doesn’t include any who exaggerate in order to promote stronger climate action.

    You, anonymous, and perhaps also the very concerned Greta and a great part of the climate activist movement, are a product of this very intentional framing, wherein academic authorities police what they see as misinformation on the “denialist” side but not on the “alarmist” side. Whatever their motives might be or whether they are justified in doing so is beside the point: What matters is that this discussion is very carefully managed, as indeed all debates that proceed from the academic establishment and involve learned academic societies tend to be.

    The reason some of the Skeptical Science people have become nervous about letting the alarmists run wild while compiling wall-of-text rebuttals to every denialist claim they can find, is that they have realized that alarmism is effectively the same as denialism. Thus, to address comment #1, you can embrace alarmist predictions just as easily as you can embrace denialist positions to justify things like relaxed emissions standards. McPherson thinks (or as he changed his mind?) that we will all be extinct by 2030, and if you adopt his view all attempts to decrease emissions must look misguided at best and scammy at worst.

    Now accepting that AGW is likely real and that the mainstream science on this issue is more or less correct, how do we account for the behavior of the activists and our elites?

    1) Developed western countries have flat or declining emissions though relatively large per capita carbon footprints. This means we should reduce immigration to western countries first of all, but our elites and activists demand the opposite (climate refugees etc.)

    2) Next, the activists and elites have nothing to say about the very substantial and increasing emissions of ever more thoroughly industrialized China. Deindustrialization is perhaps impossible but stopping industrialization is another matter.

    3) The one viable to path towards less emissions, nuclear power, is disfavored by the activists and also many in charge. The elites and activists want only solar and wind, which do not scale, sometimes appear to be EROEI negative, do not meaningfully reduce emissions and might actually increase them.

    If our elites believe (as they claim) that we are locked in an existential crisis and that absent rapid deindustrialization we will all die, we would expect outright war, to destroy the industrial capacity first of developing nations and then of each other. Instead they hand out renewable energy subsidies to their associates, orchestrate totally meaningless debates and information campaigns about personal responsibility, and in general behave as if they don’t believe very much of what their own child prophets have to say. Now it could be argued that we simply have really terrible and stupid elites, which is highly plausible.

    • Replies: @A.R.
    , @Anonymous
  76. utu says:

    Nouvelle cuisine of Sweden:

    Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund reportedly said he believes eating human meat, derived from dead bodies, might be able to help save the human race if only a world society were to “awaken the idea.”

    Magnus Soderlund and Greta should volunteer. Magnus Soderlund roast with wild Swedish lingonberry sauce and Greta Thunberg scallopini with chanterelles from Swedish forrest.

  77. Zebigbos says:

    I am a medievalist. This crusade for children never happened. Some historians translated the word “pueri” in a bad way. Most crusades were for noblemen. But also people from the lower classes wanted to fight for the Holy Land . In (medieval) Latin “pueri” can also be used for servants and lower classes. So it was just a bunch of servants that went on a crusade. No-one (even) at that time wanted their children to leave their homes.

  78. In many photographs with Greta, guiding her, and shielding her from journalists who ask the ‘wrong’ questions, is her official ‘handler’, Luisa-Marie Neubauer, Hamburg-born age 23 youth ambassador of the ‘ONE Foundation’, a vehicle of George Soros & Melinda & Bill Gates.

    The €4 million yacht on which Greta sailed to the USA, was a yacht of the Rothschild family, who transferred it to German tycoon Gerhard Senft. Co-captaining the voyage was Pierre Casiraghi, grandson of Monaco’s late Prince Rainier III and actress Grace Kelly.

    Greta’s show at the United Nations, was a replay of a similar event 27 years ago. In 1992, Severn Cullis-Suzuki, then 12 years old, daughter of famous Canadian environmentalist and TV personality David Suzuki (born 1936), addressed the plenary session of the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where she “silenced the world for five minutes” … saying “We’re A Group Of 12-Year-Olds Trying To Make A Difference”; her ‘Listen to the Children’ UN speech on the environment on YouTube:

    In the 1960s-70s, it was not ‘global warming’ but ‘Ice age coming!’, that was the official scare of ‘scientists’ … A 1979 TV commercial with Leonard Nimoy, Mr Spock of Star Trek, warning us how hundreds of millions could freeze to death in the time of viewers’ grandchildren:

    John Coleman, the late Weather Channel founder, called global warming “the greatest scam in history” … AccuWeather founder Dr Joel Myers supports the ‘denialism’ too … So does Jeremy Corbyn’s scientist brother, Piers Corbyn

    One turning point for many, was the 2009 ‘ClimateGate’ scandal at the University of East Anglia, when a release of internal e-mails which showed scientists eager to deceive to get more ‘global warming money’, with “practices that range from bad professionalism to fraudulent science. Bias, data manipulation, dodging freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process were uncovered.”

    “Justin Murphy tweets that if Greta Thunberg guides global policy, then we ‘cannot object to Jeffrey Epstein paying 16-year-olds for sex’”:

    “Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule … global warming was merely a ‘hook’ to install the NWO new world order”
    – Maurice Newman, advisor to 2013-15 Australian PM Tony Abbott

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  79. And what does an unscripted Greta Thurnberg sound like?

  80. utu says:

    Do we have temperature problem in the US? Anything extraordinary?

    US daily temperature records past, present, and future, Gerald A. Meehl et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S Av.113(49); 2016 Dec

    (A) Time series from 1930 to 2015 of observed annual mean (solid line) and smoothed (green line) surface air temperatures over the continental United States, and the annual ratio of record highs to record lows (dots). (B) Same as A, except for daily maximum temperatures. (C) Same as A, except for daily minimum temperatures.

    • Replies: @Anonyous
  81. A.R. says:

    This is a very good comment. Thanks.

  82. @Zebigbos

    Really? Were Nicholas of Cologne and Stéphane of Cloye made up then?

  83. @Zebigbos

    Thanks for the comment. Do you have a source?

    • Replies: @Zebigbos
  84. Little Greta is not a scientist and is not trafficking in science. No, she is trafficking in emotion instead. Her hysterics are just a sales pitch for ‘cap and trade’, which has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with Wall Street. It’s just another finance-sector scam.

    If you’re up for a long read and want to really know what’s behind Little Greta, try this:

    The desperation of the ‘climate change’ set is not a function of any man-made natural catastrophe. They’re just freaking out over the fact that more and more people are catching on to their little scam and calling them–and their fake media–out on the subject. Trump’s rejection of the Paris Accord has them all rattled.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  85. Buddy says:

    This commenter is a paid troll. Note the clumsy and obtrusive way he uses the triple paragraphs and the (already stale) term NPC. He has clearly been assigned to use these tricks as camouflage. Another paid troll mentions IQ…he has been told that the people at UNZ believe in IQ and that a good way to get their goat is by calling them stupid. Also note the clumsy way he tries to turn things around, accusing climate skeptics of being the ones taking money from the globalist elite, when of course Climate Change is very clearly the narrative being rammed down our throats by them. The Koch Brothers, like the Netflix show The Family, like Dick Cheney, function as very effective damage control for people who sense that something fishy is going on but lack the courage, time, or intelligence to go all the way down the rabbit hole. These ultimately powerless evangelicals have been allowed to adopt and reveal clumsy versions of the techniques perfected by their Zionist masters. They are of inestimable benefit as they deflect attention from them. I am dismayed at how well these techniques work. The film VICE about Dick Cheney was particularly egregious in this regard. They could not stop themselves from tacking on a scene in which a staffer makes a totally gratuitous comment to Dick Cheney that “But Israel opposes this invasion of Iraq!” What a great job they did with that operation, setting up not just one goy fall guy (Bush) but a goy fall guy within the goy fall guy (Cheney) to catch the slightly more clever goyim. However, Just like with WTC 7 or with Larry Silverstein’s inability to stop himself from taking out the huge insurance policy, they always grab just a little too much and blow their cover this way. For someone with eyes to see, the chutzpah is shocking. The fact is, however, that these tricks will continue to work, because in the time it takes for one person to overcome his programming and see the mechanism, ten more have been programmed. I have noticed that the first few comments are often paid trolls, and they often work in a team, agreeing with and responding to each other. I suppose they get a notification every time a new article is published and hurry up to get that first comment in so it will be extra visible.

  86. Anon[228] • Disclaimer says:

    Further proving the promotional, staged nature of the whole Greta thing, she is crusing the USA on a Tesla — the car the USA propaganda machine is advertising strongly all over the West.

  87. anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    Union of Concerned Scientists
    The US Military and Oil

    The US military uses more oil than any other institution in the world—but it’s also a leader in clean vehicle technology.

    The US military is the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world. Every year, our armed forces consume more than 100 million barrels of oil to power ships, vehicles, aircraft, and ground operations—enough for over 4 million trips around the Earth, assuming 25 mpg.

    Using that much oil makes the military vulnerable to price spikes. ** In fact, a $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the military billions of dollars. That’s money we can’t use on protecting and training our troops.

    It’s also dangerous. Moving oil on the battlefield requires large convoys of oil tankers, a major target. At the height of operations in Afghanistan, one in 24 convoys ended in an American casualty.

    Cleaner vehicles and fuels can help—and they already are

    The military knows that using oil is a problem. That’s why they’re pioneering innovative new ways to use less oil, without losing effectiveness.


    The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world, responsible for
    93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007
    (Air Force: 52%;
    Navy: 33%;
    Army: 7%.
    Other DoD: 1%).[1]

    In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion.
    The DoD’s electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes. In electricity consumption, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 58th in the world, using slightly less than Denmark and slightly more than Syria (CIA World Factbook, 2006).
    The Department of Defense uses 4,600,000,000 US gallons (1.7×1010 L) of fuel annually, an average of 12,600,000 US gallons (48,000,000 L) of fuel per day.
    A large Army division may use about 6,000 US gallons (23,000 L) per day. According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use, coming in just behind Iraq and just ahead of Sweden.

    Both articles, above, hasten to add that US DoD is working hard to control energy consumption.

    Would that Greta led a campaign to say, Why the f*&k do we need to be so militarized? THAT is the Children’s Crusade I could endorse.

    ** Germany’s inability to control a sufficient flow of oil/energy rendered its Panzers useless.

  88. OhPlease says:

    Greta Thunberg is the she-bitch wolf of the communist party who is being presented as Jewish media’s latest version of a Talmudic Shirley Temple. Another on-the-make hustler whose destiny is clear at a glance: mandatory mental breakdown followed by suicide attempts and rehab, a book and movie deal, more endless years of tedium inflicted on humanity as she pontificates with stentorian authority about her special destiny through the world’s Jewish-controlled television sets.

    Greta, Mr. Rogers has left the neighborhood and no, you can’t and won’t be our friend. Ever.

    There is no climate emergency, and there is no evidence of climate warming caused by humans.

    • Replies: @Richard P
  89. Zumbuddi says:
    @der einzige

    Thank you for this essential contribution to the debate:

    Follow The Money

    The same set of social engineers who brought us Libido Dominandi and the Slaughter of Cities are funding climate change activism.

    Corollary note to the Whitney Webb essay on Epstein + Mossad:
    The Dark Secret Behind a British Billionaires “Parallel State” in Argentina’s Patagonia


    Thierry Meyssan reported on,
    What is Israel’s project in Patagonia?

    Jews are shepherding undesireable South Americans into USA preparing to take over.

    Carbine installed its locator system in Mexico . . .

  90. dimples says:

    A bit like the burning forests of trees in Drax power station. Another great idea from the brain dead eco-loons. We can take the Luddite climate change religion seriously when they pull down the windmills and start building 5th generation nukes. These by the way can also burn the current stockpiles of nuclear waste. Get with it eco-loons!

    • Replies: @dimples
  91. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    On the UAH data and “charlatans”:

    1. Roy Spencer is a magic believer Creationist, who has signed an evangelical statement on climate change that states a magical deity has “infinite power” over climate.

    2. Roy Spencer has been caught red handed shilling for shekels. He was on the payroll of Peabody Coal, and was paid to deny global warming in their court case. The court didn’t believe his shilling.

    3. Roy lied and lied about the early satellite data, got caught lying, tried to lie a little less, got caught again, and has been dragged kicking and screaming through 5 different revisions of the data, until now his satellite data shows global warming fairly accurately. It appears he’s on version 6 now as its labeled on your chart. Since he’s not trust-worthy, he’s even been called-out as a liar by a U.S. Navy Admiral at a hearing in Congress, which is preserved on youtube. Roy still lies and lies, shifts charts, denies shilling for Peabody in spite of it being well documented, and you can find his lies caught out in several places on the intertubes.

    • Troll: utu
  92. Nodwink says:

    build one nuclear power plant per day

    China could do that

  93. As summer began, this year, record winter snowfall in the northern Sierras near Lake Tahoe had still not melted, so skiing at the Squaw Alpine resort continued until Sunday, July 7 – the extended holiday weekend. In the central Alps there had been record snowfall earlier in the year too, so that special milling machines were required to rid a popular mountain pass road in Tyrol of tons of massive ice prior to re-opening, unprecedented.

    By now snow was supposed to have been a thing of the past, according to past predictions by climate hysterics under the guise of “science”. In light of repeated record snowfalls some cynics now refer to snow as “global warming powder”. Yet while the mountains still had millions of tons of snow, the top news on France-1 TV during the first summer weekend was global warming now, global warming tomorrow, and more global warming in the future, just because Paris was having a warm weekend.

    Implicitly, according to alarmists, carbon-dioxide has evolved in status, to be a declared toxic gas, even defying the laws of physics. Though heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, it is supposedly accumulating in the upper atmosphere to then function as a “greenhouse gas” rather than falling back to earth and interacting with the spreading ground vegetation, which converts it back to oxygen. However, the professional alarmists don’t mind ingesting carbon dioxide inside their sparkling wine, water, beer, or cola.

    The global warming hoax will surely be profitable for a few of the usual suspects, who expect to enrich themselves off emerging carbon trading schemes, with financial resources forcibly extracted from consumers through additional taxes, or through other revenue generating constructs, such as green policy consultancies or frivolous business scams. Many of these would-be profiteers flew to Sicily in private jets this past summer and met at an ocean resort at the southern coast, sponsored by Google billionaires. The gathering included Hollywood actors (“celebrities”) and Prince Harry, among others, who are to assist in promoting this grand hoax.

    Most political elite hypocrites do not take the hoax they propagate seriously either. Prior to meeting her public meeting with Greta Thunberg in New York last week, Angela Merkel flew on her big Airbus A340 (four engines) but did not have enough space left over to also accommodate her female defense minister, who therefore flew to the US East Coast on a separate government jet, as did the foreign minister, who purportedly flew on a third government jet to the US shortly thereafter. These German politicians would not dream of forfeiting their chauffeured Audi A8 limousines either.

    A recent article – Climate and the Money Trail, by F. William Engdahl, September 25, 2019 – pointed out the links between the billionaire oligarchs behind the curtain and Greta, apparently duped to serve as an unwitting mouthpiece for their ulterior interests, greed. One organization, Breakthrough Energy, established less than a year ago, has signed a memorandum of understanding with the European Union’s chief commissar Juncker to give its members preferential access to any funding, of which plenty will be forthcoming. Members of Breakthrough Energy include such notorious people as George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, among other billionaires.

    The hysterical scare mongering theatrics accompanying the media-induced Greta cult to promote the global warming hoax is similar to the the hysterical scare mongering theatrics accompanying the HIV hoax during the 1980’s, which was referred to by the term “AIDS Epidemic” and was very profitable for the medical and pharmaceutical establishment. Back then the protest group Act Up! staged media events and demanded that gay people should have access to the highly toxic drug, AZT, from the adverse effects of which many of them subsequently died, “of AIDS”, as the saying went.

    If the ultimate results between both hoaxes, then and now, are to be analogous, a targeted perception management (“mind control”) program would entail successfully coercing the millions of gullible Greta cult followers, especially the devotees, to commit mass suicide on a grand scale, to save the volatile planet from their exhaled carbon dioxide. To the extent Great-Greta, the teenage drama queen actress, truly believes her own hype, perhaps she could lead by example. Many would probably welcome, if not also relish, such a fateful outcome.

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  94. dickr says:

    1. Sat readings are consistently lower than instrument readings, which is why sat readings were fudged upwards to conceal that actual surface temperatures are lower
    2. 3/4 of (mostly rural) weather stations have shut down in the last 100 years, mostly due to urbanisation and lack of maintenance. Cities, due to paving and lack of foilage are several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. So the increase in recorded temperatures mostly reflect urbanisation
    3. Common thermometers have an accuracy of +/- (1-2) degrees, which lies within the range of predicted heating of most climate models
    4. Most climate models are uncoupled and mathematically primitive, since they would otherwise be insoluble

  95. dimples says:

    Its bizarre to see here all these eco-loon believers in ‘climate science’, who also simultaneously hold the unscientific belief that this problem will be cured by windmills, or the Holy Imaginary Battery.

  96. refl says:

    How dare you – read Spiegel bullshit and then mention it on the Unz Review?
    These are the opposing ends of human brain activity!

    the truth is that these institutions are glorified daycare centers dispensing, at best, what can only be described as a kind of intellectual circus training. This regimented submission to authority, without end, is supposed to foster “empowered individuals” and “critical thinking.” The youth are tired of this and are therefore no longer showing up.

    The great thing about the GJ – Greta Jugend is that in a few years from now we will in Germany and the West in general have brought about a youth that no longer believes anything their parent generation have told them. They will finally be real adults and shit on their teachers who forced this climate idiocy down their throats.

  97. @Curmudgeon

    Listen to this British ho and the answer she gets about the global warming crap

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  98. Avery says:

    { Is earth spherical? Yes. But let’s ask NASA.}

    Yeah, sure.

    NASA is a government agency, and has become politicized and corrupted, like pretty much every other scientific institution in U.S.

    How many of Al Gore’s or his scientists’ doomsday predictions made 10-15 years ago have come to pass?

    All the hysteria being ginned up by the doomsdayers in the West has one purpose: control of your life by commissar-bureaucrats and transfer of wealth from producers to parasites. China* and India, far larger polluters than US, don’t give a hoot about barinwashed kids bloviating about end-of-everything or screeching SJWs marching and demanding this or that.

    And about that ‘scientific consensus’: at one time, there was unanimous consensus amongst the greatest scientists of the time that the Sun revolves around the Earth, except one scientist.

    * China is building 100s of coal-fired power plants both in China and abroad.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  99. Greta without a script…

  100. awry says:

    5- In case Durocher has a solution about nuclear waste he can come to Germany and I think Germans will pay him millions of dollars for this solution. If he doesn’t know the problems posed by nuclear waste, maybe he should try to get some information, also about nuclear energy in France. There is a reason why France apparently wants to reduce the part of nuclear energy in the production of electricity.

    Rationally thinking, nuclear waste is no big deal, you can bury it, it’s just the hysteria against storage facilities etc. People are being irrational about radiation, because it’s an “invisible danger”. But if it is such a big concern, we could build thorium reactors. Or fast breeder reactors.
    Problem is that the amount of red tape necessary to build/operate nuclear power stations has increased drastically after Chernobyl and again after Fukushima because of the popular panic.

    6- The Energiewende in Germany has nothing to do with Merkel. It was decided by the previous government. Merkel has absolutely no interest in the Energiewende and never did anything about it. She doesn’t have children, that’s the reason why she never cared about it.

    Of course she did because that was what the voters wanted. She went along with the shutdown of nuclear power plants after Fukushima to keep voters. And it was decided legislatively during her government (in coalition with the SPD though).

  101. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Yours is an excellent comment; you’re actually reading and thinking. I’ve been tossing McPherson’s Paradox into comment sections on unz for nearly a year, and you are the very first to actually grasp what he says, my friend. You put a smile on my face. 🙂 I too think his prediction is overwrought, but the peer-reviewed scientific studies upon which he rests his prediction cannot be ignored.

    > academic authorities police what they see as misinformation on the “denialist” side but not on the “alarmist” side

    Exactly! An essential ingredient to climate movements is hope, and when one postulates that there is no hope, the climate activists are as enraged at the no-hope alarmists as they are against deniers.

    From rumors I’ve heard about, the leftist climate activist “police” have tried to get published scientist Timothy Garrett fired for proving “global warming is unstoppable,” and he is now often basically denying his own “alarmist” science articles just to keep his university job. (He’s in a unique position, because all the right-wing libertarian free-market fanatics hate him too for taking economics and making an actual science of economics based on heat-engine thermodynamics in several journal articles Garrett has got published.)

    A personal note: Not too long ago, I myself, being a conservative right-winger type, was a typical science denier spouting all the lame bullshit guys are still spouting here. But, with friends in farming, seeing them endure some of the effects of global warming from 2010 onward, I started scratching my head and actually studying the actual science. I’ve become convinced global warming is real, finding it is actually a two century body of well-established science.

    But I didn’t become a climate activist. I went from being a “denier” with lots of gas and diesel powered toys rolling coal on Prius drivers to an “alarmist” who says “global warming is unstoppable” (Garrett, 2009; McPherson) and I’m still rolling coal on Prius drivers. All based on I-fucking-love-science! 🙂

    p.s. to clarify, I’m not a complete asshole and don’t actually have my truck tuned to roll coal, but figuratively speaking, quoting Timothy Garret “global warming is unstoppable,” or even trolling them with McPherson, makes leftist activist choke on science worse than on diesel fumes.

  102. @Anonymous

    • ~6°C warming resulted in near-annihilation of planetary life in P–Tr extinction.

    That’s not a fact, that is a hypothesis … an assertion.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  103. @Anonyous

    Unfortunately, science-denial no longer works for the higher-IQ half of conservatives, including myself:

    Sorry, mate, but the only science denial I see is coming from people on your side of debate, who go to great lengths to shut down any research and discussion that proves contrary to any of the anti-scientific consensus of our impending doom.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  104. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon Tugmutton

    Yeah, facts. Since you aren’t emotionally capable to consider facts based on science from President Donald J. Trump, it’s obvious that you are a blue-haired, rug-munching, bathing-adverse Hillary voter. Still got your “I’m with her” bumper sticker?

    • Replies: @Simon Tugmutton
  105. Global warming is a scam and a UN agenda 21 and 2030 deal to promote a world government and to set up a carbon trading scam to rip off the people. NASA has reports , which can be googled that CO2 acts as a coolant in the atmosphere and totally debunks the global warming scam and besides that CO2 is one of the vital conditions of life on this planet as plants and trees take in CO2 and produce oxygen , which without this planet and everything on it would die!

    By the way it has been snowing off and on for 3 straight days here in Montana.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  106. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Couldn’t even address what was said, just posting your typical screed. You’re a rug-munching, blue-haired Hillary voter who hates Trump, but you will learn in the following decades that Trump’s predictions will prove correct. And since you’re a typical pinko, jew-lovin’, baby-aborting, fudge-packing, negro-loving, Hillary-voting putz, let’s examine an example of your non-responsive litany:

    > Recent Rise in CO2 Has Made Earth Greener

    LOL! Wrong. Not since 1998. That’s 20 year old stale hopium your selling, bullshitter.

    Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago
    Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming

    Does that look greener to you, Wally? Maybe you’re color-blind?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wally
  107. WJ says:

    Did you not read the article? Half of all emissions come from Asia. Those nations significantly reducing their emissions is the only rational path but that will never happen.

    The only rational course is to deal with the temperature rise. Water conservation, restricted building in areas impacted by sea level, etc. We will not be successful in lowering the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere in any meaningful way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  108. Zebigbos says:
    @Guillaume Durocher

    Certainly. You can read about it in
    P. Raedts, ‘The children’s Crusade of 1212’. In: Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977), p. 279-234.
    I have a digital copy of it so I could send it to you.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
  109. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > Actually science starts when one dares to leave the consensus behind and starts questioning.

    Oh, really now! What’s the 97% consensus here at unz? When does science begin for you? When do you dare question the consensus? When do you begin to leave it behind and start asking questions?

  110. Anonymous[102] • Disclaimer says:

    The FAA’s book, Aviation Weather, has a section showing how the isobars and other lines are plotted on a weather maps. What’ shocking is the paucity of actual readings used to construct the maps. Dr. Tim Ball’s site has an article explaining how the understanding of the most fundamental of atmospheric flows has recently had to be revised, which in itself relegates the climate apocalypse to a scary fairytale for children. He also has a good visual showing how isolated the actual weather readings are for making such outlandish claims.

    Weather prediction is based on math akin to the Black-Scholes option pricing formula in finance, the reliance on which almost brought down the world’s banking system in the late 90s and parallels the massive short term economic waste arising from inaccurate hurricane forecasting. Implementing “climate science” and the GND is guaranteed to produce catastrophic economic waste and human suffering as its chief effect.

    The Clay Mathematics Institute has an unclaimed prize of $1 million for progress understanding the solution to these poorly understood sorts of (Navier-Stokes) equations that nonetheless embolden political operatives working part time as climatologists to make guaranteed predictions, much as LTCM claimed certainty for theirs using basically the same math. Provable, outright fraud moreover is climate science’s chief trait until proven otherwise, not to mention politicizing it to the point we get live, end-of-the-world broadcasts from TV’s newest apocalyptic televangelist and high priestess of the new globalist pantheism, Saint Greta of Sweden.

  111. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > Half of all emissions come from Asia.

    True! That was implied when I wrote above, “I voted for Trump, actually think he did good for the US on withdrawing from Kyoto.”

    > We will not be successful in lowering the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere in any meaningful way.

    True again! As I stated, “Global warming is unstoppable.” We are in full agreement. Everything you wrote is correct. The conservative response to global warming should be as you say, dealing with the temperature rise.

    You, my friend, are right on. I wish Trump and conservatives would frame global warming just as you have. I’m going to make a little fantasy tweet here that hopes for that:

    What do you think of it? 🙂

    • Replies: @Wally
  112. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Due to the abuse of the diagnosis of Asperger illness , the DSM5 does not include such syndrome in its nosology . It would correspond to a schizoid/schizotipal Personality Disorder , which is what Hans Asperger described initially as ” autistic psychopathy “( or an excessive introversion in more common terms ) You know that many phisicians aspire to fame , aspire to ” discover ” an illness ad give it his name .


  113. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    You’re psychologically projecting on every single detail you wrote, and lamely trying to “flip the script.” Because you’re too low-IQ to actually understand science. Just like a feral Negro, you’re being disruptive because you don’t have the mental capabilities to understand.

    And to prove you do not understand science, do tell us your opinion of what happens when one put carbon dioxide between an infrared camera and a candle, such as in this experiment that proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    Title: Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2

    The experiment is easy enough to do in your own at home, if you weren’t as dimwitted as a feral Negro.

  114. @Anonymous

    I’ve been reading your comments, they are really great posts with lots of information. Maybe you could choose a name under which to post instead of “Anonymous”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @lavoisier
  115. I eat when I’m hungry
    I drink when I’m dry
    If climate cools I freeze, if it warms I fry
    But either way, why, then I’ll die!

    I’ve decided that climate-doings are out of my hands, so I just take the days as they’re dealt. I suspect in many ways it would be better for us all if everyone did the same. There are matters that remain outside human reach and I believe “climate” is one of them. Unfortunately, the manipulation of children is not, thus the sorry spectacle of the manipulated youngster who just wants to please the heartless manipulators who handle her. Equally unfortunate is that her handlers seem to be far more dangerous to this youngster than are the combined emissions of all the coal-burners in China.

  116. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    > NASA has reports , which can be googled that CO2 acts as a coolant

    I do know what NASA report you are misrepresenting. CO2 does not act as a coolant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. But as CO2 traps heat, it lets less heat back into space, and the extremely thin upper atmosphere near space cools down, since more of the heat is trapped in the lower 90% of the atmosphere. So yes, the thin upper reaches of the atmosphere are at a record cold since satellite data has been collected — because it’s hotter down here.

    Your statement goes to show that the lower-IQ half of the Stupid party is just as disruptive to a conversation on science as a pack of feral Negroes is in a classroom on English literature.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
    , @Desert Fox
  117. When Greta goes Gandhian, I would believe her sincerity. Until then, live it up girl while your 15 minutes of sunshine lasts!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  118. @Zebigbos

    That’s an interesting topic for me, so if possible, could that essay be posted?

    • Replies: @Tusk
  119. Instead of a Mongoloid Swiss Miss blathering about weather, how about a boy and girl of similar ages going on tour to decry the horrors of The Great Replacement?

  120. Che Guava says:

    I like many of the points, as always, in M. Durocher’s article.

    Will add three or four.

    Dear little Greta is not just autistic, she has had periods of refusing to speak, and starving herself, all before her hysterical concern for climate change.

    So, some years ago.

    Her supporters also claim that she has not yet experienced puberty at 16 (before she became this bizarre figure), I will believe it, that is why she looks so strange for a 16-y.o. Swede.

    One thing that is striking about the climate-panic types, they scream about ‘the science’ while generally being the type of people who never studied science, and, more to the point, despise those who have and do. Many (the vast majority of the ‘97%’) of ‘climate scientists’ are not sciemtists at all, just bureaucrats and follow-the-money opportunists with bullshit degrees.

    It is a joke. I, as others on this thread, am a sceptic, not a denier.

    Final point, to agreing with several OPs, but state it more concretely. Look at the earliest pictures of Africa from space, then recent ones. It is like the contrast between desert Haiti and the green Dominican Republic. That has nothing to do with European or lately Chinese and occasionally japanese extractive industries, but everythhng to do with the populations of those places behaving like human locusts.

    The same goes for the many intentionally set fires in parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, though less so, that were burning deep deposits of peat, massive releases of carbon dioxide, ash, and the portion of the methane that was not consumed in the fires. Also destroying major carbon sinks, in sparsely populated areas.

    However, the climate nuts can never consider such phenomena (I only list the two most striking to me, many other examples), das ist verboten.

    What a joke!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  121. @Anonymous

    • ~6°C warming resulted in near-annihilation of planetary life in P–Tr extinction.

    Correlation is not causation.

    By the way, in the moderate latitudes there’s a rather strong correlation between consumption of ice-cream and incidence of rape.

    (Both increase in summer.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  122. You couldn’t resist the lure of the Nazi analogy, M. Durocher, even if it meant contradicting yourself and regurgitating whatever the authority figures demand.

    Here’s the offending statement, bit by bit:

    [A] The fact is that children tend to simply regurgitate and radicalize whatever their authority figures tell them.

    The same quality of childhood learning that underlies
    Citizens for National Security [a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) Public Charity]
    in their efforts to censor discussion of Islam in textbooks in Florida public schools (and doubtless, coming soon to your children’s school)

    CFNS’s Executive Summary to a 2009 report begins:

    Students in K-12 schools lack the experience and skills to validate most of what they hear, easily absorb propaganda, tend to believe what their textbooks and teachers tell them, and form opinions that are difficult to change once established.

    [B] This was the case in the Third Reich, where the youth were urged to overcome the class prejudices and [B1] conformist conservatism of their parents’ generation. This resulted in the infamous [B2] book-burnings of mostly Marxist, pornographic, and/or Jewish works [B3](which was an initiative of the youth movement and not of the Nazi leadership).

    The book burning seems to indicate that the Nazis were woefully unsuccessful:
    — children burned books that offended “conformist conservativism of their parents’ generation;”
    — they did so on their own, and not under guidance of Nazis.

    [C] It was also the case in Fascist Italy

    Italian children that Allied media spotlighted seemed much younger — and scrawnier — than Germans of the same era.

    BUT since we’re talking about brainwashing children to simply regurgitate and radicalize whatever their authority figures tell them, intrigued by this screenshot of Chinese youngsters in China’s 70th National Day celebration

    and even worse, making a hand-gesture that ADL is sure to problematize forthwith:

  123. Wally says:

    LOL. Pure fakery. ‘Adjust the filter, comrades.’
    And notice that the inhabitants are not reporting this faked desertification.
    Truly desperate and you prove my points … which you avoided.

    Trump on laughable “global warming”:

    “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”

    “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”

    – Donald Trump

    NASA Data Proves Trump Right to Exit Paris Climate Accord:


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  124. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you kindly for the compliment.

    I choose to post anonymously, in spite if such disadvantages as you state, because I hobnob on occasion with some well-informed high brows who have scared the crap out of me regarding AI and surveillance. I won’t go into details, since there are good TED talks already on how AI is going to kill us all. So I switch servers often, post anonymously, because of that. Since I want to follow UNZ’s rules while I’m posting like mad about global warming, I haven’t switched servers (that 303 stays the same) the last couple days in this thread so that it doesn’t look like I’m trying to cheat around the 4x/hr rule. Otherwise, if I’m posting slower, I switch servers and such, and the anon # changes. Makes it harder for outside resources to crawl unz’s website for personal info.

    But I understand you might like to go back and look at what I’ve said. Most of what I’ve said can be found in the following resources, which will also be easier for you to reference:

    1. On debunking denialist myths about global warming, is the best place to at least start. You’ll find the right terms to put in DeSmogBlog also has good dossiers on the denialists.
    2. Guy McPherson seems just a little crazy to me, but he’s still a published scientist, and has a great compilation of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles here and here, in support of his wild hypothesis. In spite of his hypothesis, enjoy his references. You’ll be reading there for days!
    3. The most popular article ever at nymag, which caused climate activists to go into a mad rage denouncing the author, has been carefully annotated here. Like McPherson’s, you’ll be reading those annotated articles for days.
    4. A couple blogs I read at least monthly here and here.
    5 . And don’t forget Tim Garrett. Actually look up his journal articles on pdf and read them, really good. Poor fellow is forced to deny his own science lately to keep his job, because what he says is so disturbing to the climate activists. And, just to confirm how smart he is, lolbertarian “free market” guys hate him too for explaining the heat engine of civilization in economic terms! 🙂

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  125. “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
    ― Mark Twain

  126. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Haruto Rat

    First, your moronic “correlation is not causation” is a falsehood, specifically a lie-by-omission, often bandied about by science-deniers. I will correct you, by adding the relevant information that would make such a statement correct:

    The shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following: (a) “Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.” (b) “Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.”

    Got it? Don’t pull that stupid shit again, boy. Next, that CO2 causes warming has been established:

    Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA [global mean surface temperature anomalies]. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.

    On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
    NATURE Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 21691 (2016)

    Put that CAUSALITY in your pipe and smoke it.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  127. Wally says:

    Yes, the earth warms after ice ages. Yawn.

    Trump says nothing about any such historical warming due to CO2 emissions.

    Yes, there is the urban island heat effect caused by massive pavement, exhaust from concentrated buildings, etc. That is not CO2 caused warming, that is not what violent Communists are trying to force upon everyone.


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  128. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Che Guava

    > she has had periods of refusing to speak

    He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth.

    > and starving herself

    And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.

    > What a joke!

    The Pharisees said that too.

    • Troll: Che Guava
  129. AGW denial is just a peculiar mantra of American conservatism. A very useful one, though. Tropical Hyperborea FTW!

    • Replies: @A123
    , @Anonymous
  130. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Global warming has been happening since 1800 with the beginning of the industrial age. It’s not surprising that glaciers are melting because of such global warming. Look at this temperature record chart and tell us exactly how is it a surprise that glaciers were melting in 1920?

    Go ask Tony Heller that too. He’ll be confused.

    • Replies: @Wally
  131. M.Anthony says:

    Six months from now…

    “Greta who?”

  132. Agent76 says:

    “Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.” Albert Einstein

    Sep 24, 2019 Greta and AOC | 4 Critical Climate Numbers They Don’t Know

    Climate change will never be the same with solar particle forcing. The video are some key numbers in the climate discussion, and below, here are some more links I wish Greta and AOC would click.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  133. Kermit says:


    Sorry, but you are so full of BS that I know it is even fruitless to respond. You know nothing about what it is that implicates human caused CO2 to any current warming. Nothing!

    Yes, first, there has been warming. We don’t know how much, really, but the earth has been warming.
    Second, human caused CO2 does produce warming. We know how much. It has been known for over one hundred years. That warming is a fraction of what is needed to produce the reported warming we have seen. How to the climate scientists account for the majority of the warming? By using fudge factors in their climate models. Of course, they do not call them fudge factors, for obvious reasons, as no one would take them seriously. They call them sensitivity factors. How are they derived? By running the models and comparing to the (poor quality) historical data – and adjusting the sensitivity factors until the models work acceptably. It’s called curve-fitting. Can these models actually predict what will happen in the future? If they do, it would be accidental, and the odds are extremely unlikely. In fact, if you look at any unbiased study of climate models compared to predictions (going back to the 1980s) you see that these models have an abysmal record.

    In summary – the only thing climate scientists have is these computer simulations. Modeling a non-linear, coupled, chaotic system by curve-fitting computer models to the data is ludicrous. Anyone who has done any modeling of chaotic systems knows this.

    You have obviously never ever been involved in any computer modeling. There is NO good science that links human caused CO2 to any significant global warming.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  134. A123 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    AGW denial is just a peculiar mantra of American conservatism.

    The 1st Mosque of Globalism under Ayatollah George Soros and Prophet Mann exist to undermine U.S. One of the tenants of faith of Globalist theology is abolishing science. Blind and unquestioning acceptance of the AGW myth is mandatory.

    Believing in science and denying the faith-based AGW myth is neither peculiar nor conservative. It is what everyone with basic skills and average or better intelligence understands after looking at the facts. Those that lack both skills and intelligence vote for Democrats.

    PEACE 😇

  135. Meanwhile, for those of us who live in the real world, here’s what the global warming scam is all about:…

    “At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”


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

  136. @A123

    Thank you for reminding us of the real, recent and measurable phenomenon called ‘global cooling’. Even though this 30-year period has been memory-holed, ‘global cooling’ did occur from approx 1945 to 1975. I wrote about this ‘alarming’ temperature decline as a journalism student back in the 1970s.

    Oddly, this genuine reduction in average temperatures occurred while levels of CO2 were rapidly rising. That’s right: CO2 was rising but temperatures were falling. For three decades.

    So how come?

    The CO2-obsessed warmists have no explanation for this. But it’s clear that climate is far more complex and chaotic than the warmists are willing to concede.

    Here’s a fascinating, scientific explanation of the forces which shape macro-cycles of natural climate change. The modern-day fixation on one trace gas (CO2) is seriously out of whack.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  137. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    waste of time

    WTF is “IPCC”?

    WTF is particle forcing?

    woulda been helpful if you provided some basic definitions

    • Replies: @Agent76
  138. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Nice map! Shows well the Lomonosov Ridge upon which Russian subs planted a flag. 🙂 A novel needs to be written covering two surviving populations of humans, one in the Arctic, the other in the Antarctic, living on seal blubber like Sir Ernest Shackleton’s 28 men on Elephant Island. But with females go Eskimo!* The ending should be realistic—A Canticle for Leibowitz style—as the leader of one of the bands smells, what is that smell, omelettes cooking? Which he hasn’t tasted for years, and walks into camp only to find there is no fire at all. But he still smells that faint odor.**

    * Lawrence Hennigh. (Mar., 1970.) Functions and Limitations of Alaskan Eskimo Wife Trading. Arctic. Vol. 23, No. 1 , pp. 24-34

    ** Penn State. (2005, March 1). Global Warming Led To Atmospheric Hydrogen Sulfide And Permian Extinction. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 3, 2019 from

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  139. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    If you want to learn something, pop over to, which has collated and organized all of the several common science-smearing tactics you’ve just presented. Models are covered. Chaos theory is covered. All the articles there link to real, peer-reviewed, published scientific journal articles, which you should check, instead of parroting bullshit from amateur denialist websites paid for by BigTobacco/BigOil PR firms.

    In summary, you’re only being a PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times.)

    • Replies: @Kermit
  140. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > Even though this 30-year period has been memory-holed, ‘global cooling’ did occur from approx 1945 to 1975.

    If mid-century cooling has been memory holed, why is discussed openly in the scientific literature. Has your ability to understand English been memory-holed instead?

    The average global surface temperature decreased slightly from 1940 to 1975. The main reason behind this mid-century cooling was global dimming due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosol emissions.

    Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?

    And yet another little PRATT spanked. (Points Refuted A Thousand Times)

    • Replies: @mark green
  141. Paul says:

    Rather than Greta Thunberg, I am more interested in the warnings from the climatologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) about manmade climate change as evidenced by ice core samples over the years.

  142. @Avery

    Don’t feed the dock puppet. Especially one who drives an SUV or two, by his (or her) own admission.

    How many polar bears’ lives has Miss Manners cost the world through that alone?

    However, topping Miss Thunberg for sheer arrogance is an achievement that should be recognized.

  143. @Patrikios Stetsonis

    Antipodean women are scary. I can understand why that Somali cop in Minneapolis panicked, though pulling his gun was a step too far. They’re all bark and no bite.

  144. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re being a little PRATT again. (Points Refuted A Thousand Times)

    Climate Myth — It’s Urban Heat Island effect
    Science says — Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.

    > Trump says nothing

    Wrong. You need to listen to what Trump actually says. Here is what Trump says:

    “We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective to control climate change, and immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today.” /s/ Donald J. Trump


    Also from Trump…

    A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

    Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course

    • Replies: @A123
    , @Wally
  145. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

    The extinction model involves global warming by 6°C and huge input of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates, leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop, the ‘runaway greenhouse’.

    Benton, M. J. & Twitchett, R. J. How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 358–365 (2003).

    The science you have read is inducing anxiety, and the psychological defense mechanism to ameliorate your mortality salience is denial. I feel for ya, man.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  146. Pegasus says:

    She’s the aspergi, Climate Change Crisis equivalent of Alan Kurdi then. And 1000 times as obnoxious.

  147. @Anonymous

    Baloney. A handful of references to a significant and important (as it was alleged at the time) phenomena does not change the fact that ‘global cooling’ was hyped by the ‘experts’ (and elite media) at the time and that this same phenomena been largely forgotten today. This is telling.

    As a journalism student in 1975 at the Univ. of Colorado, I personally interviewed Stephen Schneider, the Director of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research). He was totally on board with ‘global cooling’, as were all the other experts of that day. Significantly, neither Schneider or others during this time were claiming that there had been a century long rise in temperatures before the downturn that began around 1945.

    Either ‘global cooling’ was a hyped hoax then or it is evidence that Schneider and other climatologists were and are unable to predict and fully comprehend the multitude of forces which shape our planet’s constantly-changing climate.

    Nevertheless, the global drop in average temperatures that were reported at the time ware alleged to be far more ominous than claimed now. Why do the ‘experts’ keep getting it wrong?

    Oddly, in many temperature graphs appearing today, there is often no significant cooling shown from 1945 to 1975. Yet this is quite contrary to what was being claimed during this era. This suggests to me that many climate ‘facts’ are being distorted and ‘revised’.

    It’s worth remembering that the media-lead campaign to hype ‘global cooling’ was partnered by scientists and media alike during this era. The same collusion is again underway.

    PS- just because someone makes the laughable claim that a three-decade decline in global average temperatures was due entirely to ‘aerosol emissions’ does not make the assertion true. It can not be proven nor disproven. It is a theory. But to attribute one anthropogenic factor in an immense, complex and chaotic system is a definite red flag. Having studied climate on and off for decades, I’ve come to realize that no single factor by itself determines temperature. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

    Your dogmatic beliefs indicate extraordinary naivete coupled with ideological commitment.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Anonymous
  148. ( Greta) “is popular precisely she polarizes”

    Dead wrong. Fact is Greta is popular precisely because the insane Germans, (who worship the ground BO/BC/HC walk on) , these lunatic Germans, Germany being the epicenter of human psychosis, these German crazies have elevated her to sainthood status, with of course the blessing of one GS.
    Germany the source of all evil : Communism (yeah we know Marx was Hebrew) heroin, pschology, anti-fa, green madness, the list of German abberation is huge and of course because they are such leftist fools the media will not ever touch this issue.

    Regarding Greta : She is looney beyond redemption.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Shadow
  149. wayfarer says:

    A History of Earth’s Climate.

    • Agree: Agent76
    • Replies: @Agent76
  150. Republic says:

    Using children as parrots is a crude fascist/communist tactic.

    Lots of people in Sierra Leone are lacking hands because of the fanatical child soldiers in that country who cut them off

  151. utu says:
    @mark green

    “Your dogmatic beliefs indicate extraordinary naivete coupled with ideological commitment.” – He is an obnoxious troll. With probability P>0.8 that he is a Jew.

  152. Agent76 says:

    “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts” Richard Feynman

    Oct 3, 2019 It’s official – GRETA is a project

    Greta, as a person, means well – but Greta, as a project of elite mafiosos, is too young to know how sinister the propaganda machine is.

  153. Could the global warming scam have been “created”?


    Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a “need” for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.

    Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.

    It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbably that a program of deliberate environ- mental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.


  154. eah says:

    • Replies: @anon
  155. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > the fact that ‘global cooling’ was hyped by the ‘experts’ (and elite media)

    Only 10% of the scientific literature from 1964 to 1979 predicted cooling. (Peterson, 2008) You’re making a mountain out of a little molehill.

    “The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.”

    Denier myth — Ice age predicted in the 70s
    Science says — The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

    I love spanking you little PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). I’m starting to wonder if you like it.

    • Replies: @mark green
  156. Agent76 says:

    Good post. This another informative video I also share.

    Nov 28, 2016 Weather is NOT Climate!

    No, weather is NOT climate…even when it’s warm outside. But in case there’s a climate cultist in your life that insists otherwise, here are some facts about global warming and vaguely-defined “extreme” weather that you can use to talk some sense into them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  157. A123 says:

    You need to listen to what Trump actually says.

    That is not quite right. You need to observe the results of what Trump says.

    There a two different strategies at work.

    #1 — Trump often says things to drive a specific reaction.

    Here is what Trump says:

    “We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective to control climate change, and immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today.” /s/ Donald J. Trump

    Do the fascist stormtroopers of Antifa want Trump on their side? This sort of statement must hit them like a bucket of ice water.

    Offering words that seem to provide agreement is a strategy to demoralize and drive wedges between the crazy left and the crazier left.

    #2 — It is easier to shape discussing from the inside vs. the outside. For example:

    Trump could openly state the fact that China is the fastest growing polluter. Thus, any plan to work on ‘Climate Change’ must contain enforceable CO2 emissions limits. This is of course exactly the opposite of what the AGW myth theologians want. The science deniers want restrictions on the U.S. not on China.

    If you want a more concrete example. By engaging with ‘gun control’ as a topic he has managed to stop every piece of anti-2nd Amendment legislation. The only change of note has been the ‘bump stock’ ban. And, that is a piece of equipment that is at best a novelty, and at worst a personal safety risk if it causes an overheating failure.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  158. peterAUS says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    ….Mr Sock Puppet. One rude and obnoxious blowhole…

    Looks like it.

    His style is interesting. Shows a certain personality type. Character too.
    Most “progressives” are of that type.


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  159. peterAUS says:
    @Richard P



    …. Greta is a puppet to powerful Globalists who are using her to further their agenda…

    …the hypocrites in the Front Range of Colorado — especially Boulder and Evergreen — who advocate for green living, but pull up to Natural Grocers in a late model, $100k Land Rover, reside in multi-million dollar mcmansions, and flaunt their frequent “humanitarian” excursions to SE Asia. Don’t these idiots realize…..



    Or, simply, “self-serving hypocrites”. Later in particular.

  160. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > Trump on laughable “global warming” Ouch! back at ya! 🙂

    • Replies: @Wally
  161. iffen says:

    Does that little girl not have the face of pure evil?

    • Replies: @utu
    , @bruce county
    , @Anonymous
  162. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > want restrictions on the U.S. not on China.

    Can you even read? I wrote in comment #48 “I voted for Trump, actually think he did good for the US on withdrawing from Kyoto.”

    And get this also through your thick little skullcap: “energy conservation does not help.” [what I wrote in comment #2]

    If you write in response to me, at least respond to what I have written. Sound fair?

    p.s. I’ve built AR-15s myself, and don’t need your explainer on guns. And I score higher at the target range competition than you. Go spin your your dreidel instead of trying to spin things here.

    • Replies: @A123
  163. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > Shows a certain personality type. | What’s up, doc? Did you major in Online Soviet Psychiatry Studies? Character ? Indeed, I can answer the question of what physical quantity melts ice on a global scale.

    I’ll ask you: What physical quantity melts ice on a global scale? Do you have sufficient character to answer honestly?

  164. @Anonymous

    This government has squandered the wealth of us “ deplorables” that you so obliquely resent.

    No one is going to voluntarily give ONE PENNY to you green grifters.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  165. bjondo says:


    Fresh air.

  166. Kermit says:

    I thought I would get this type of response. It is typical of true believers who cannot – or will not – discuss what the science actually consists of.

    That website is pure propaganda.

    One question. Please tell me, in your own words, what the science actually consists of that shows man made CO2 to be a significant cause of any current warming?

    No technical explanation needed. This is not a trick question. Anyone who, like you, feels the need to spout off about this, should be able to respond to this simple question.

    And, please, don’t point me at a bullshit website. I’ve been familiar with that website for some time. I’ve been working with computer models on non-linear, coupled, chaotic systems ever since the early 90s. Do you have any experience whatsoever in this area??

    Or, are you just blowing smoke??

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  167. utu says:

    Does that little girl not have the face of pure evil?

  168. @Anonymous

    Thanks a lot, I’ll keep the links you refer to and read as far as I can!

  169. @Reg Cæsar

    I guess there goes the theory out the window that he was also a homosexual!

  170. Global Swarming…… population increase is an element in future projected Warming scenario and a concern in its own right for a host of environmental/ Socio reasons.

    Aldo Leopoldo, Garrett Hardin were among the environmentalists leaders many aspired to decades ago, we knew then of unfolding harmful impacts to the landscape, human experience.

    Nothing has changed as we feast on a banquet of predicted consequences.
    Global warming activists might better consider their own lack of insight, less propensity to view population rather than admonish the world for lack of action on Climate Change.

  171. @Anonymous

    I am certain that there will have been similar levels of consensus in other areas of ‘research’ that are dominated by charlatans who pretend to be dispassionate; nutrition, psychology, theology…

    What proportion of nutritional ‘scientists’ supported Ancel Keys’ hypothesis about the link between dietary saturated fat and cardiovascular disease? Or the link between salt intake and atherosclerosis? Oe the link between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, and the necessity to reduce serum cholesterol by statins, in asymptomatic people?

    What proportion of psychologists supported the idea that homosexuality was a form of mental illness?

    What proportion of biblical ‘scholars’ accepted the historicity of Moses, Abraham, the Exodus, and so forth?

    What proportion of the medical establishment rejected Semmelweiss’ injunction to wash their hands after mortuary dissection before attending to a birth?

    What proportion of geologists etc rejected Wegener’s theory of tectonic plates?

    What proportion of political theorists rejected Mises’ criticism of socialism as internally inconsistent?

    History is full of examples where the dominant clique in some discipline used their authority, in an authoritarian manner. That’s primarily because positions of authority, attract people of an authoritarian bent. And when a core tenet of their discipline’s schtick risked exposure as false, they react as all authoritarians do: cast the heretic into the outer darkness, and continue to promulgate the existing orthodoxy until the current leadership ‘ages out’. As Max Planck quipped (in paraphrase): truth advances one funeral at a time. (That is not to say that stupid and wrong ideas only last one generation; they persist in the direct academic descendants of the prior authority figures, but their ubiquity is attenuated because the ideas seep back in from the outer darkness).


    Climate ‘science’ has yet to be fully exposed to strong independent review of the ‘Cochrane Collaboration’ variety; once it is identified as being of a piece with Psych and Nutrition ‘science’ , people like you should be identified and expropriated, and your possessions redistributed to those who are currently footing the bill for the millenarian masturbatory fantasies of innumerate retards whose primary motivations have nothing to do with truth-discovery, and everything to do with politics and self-interest.

    Climate cult research output is of a piece with Erlich’s “Population Bomb” drivel, and the type of Chicken Little nonsense that goes back at least as far as Malthus (whose hypothesis had been proved wrong three generations before he put pen to paper… food production was already outstripping population growth, and had been for a century).

    As I’ve pointed out before: ask who goes into ‘climate science’ as an undergraduate. They are the same type of person who goes into seminaries: True Believers. And they’re not the brightest kiddies coming out of high schools, by a long chalk.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  172. SteveK9 says:

    The problem here is anti-Science elements on both the left and the right. The right have many climate change deniers, and the left have anti-nukes, which blocks the only effective solution.

    Climate change is considered indisputable by the Science Academies of 34 developed nations. What is not as clear is the time-frame, and balance of good and bad effects. For those who think there are no good effects, they haven’t considered the two largest countries on Earth, Russia and Canada, which will both benefit greatly by global warming. Another likely good aspect is CO2 fertilization of crops (and all other plant life on the planet).

    If we are concerned about CO2 levels (and there is no need to panic, sorry Greta), then the solution is obvious and has been in front of us for decades … nuclear power. Nuclear power generates no CO2 and in fact, no uncontrolled waste at all. In the past there was a belief that nuclear would generate electricity ‘too cheap to meter’. This was based on basic Physics. A nuclear reactor uses a ‘fuel’ that contains a million times the energy density of fossil fuels. The price has been raised by endless ratcheting of ‘safety’ requirements, to the point of lunacy, but it makes sense even so.

    Nuclear is really the key to lifting living standards for everyone across the planet, not just comfortable Swedes living in their energy-rich lifestyles, but everyone. Without causing environmental damage. With unlimited energy, anything is possible.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  173. I think the author is misdirecting. The original children’s crusade was launched by mentally ill adults using sane children. The Children’s Climate Crusade was launched by very sane (though cynical) adults using mentally ill children.

  174. @utu

    She is mentally ill, that’s all. But those who put her there are not mental, so the puppet-masters must be executed as sane criminals.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  175. @Anonymous

    Cute graph. Nice colors. The all means nothing. And no one was “predicting” global cooling. Global cooling was being measured. It was real. It was a trend. Then the trend ended in the late 70s.

    As I mentioned, I wrote my term paper on ‘global cooling’ as a student in journalism at the Univ of Colorado. I studied the phenomena. There were ‘ominous’ indicators back then, scientifically measured. Yes, the term ‘Ice Age’ was being bandied about in elite media and among scientists. NCAR director, Stephen Schneider, who I interviewed at length, expressed concern about the long-term (potential) impact of ‘global cooling’.

    Global cooling was featured as Front Page news on the NY Times, the Washington Post, The LA Times, Newsweek Magazine, Boston Globe, and Time Magazine, among others. I saw and read these alarmist stories with my own eyes. These headlines (along with the media chatter by ‘experts’) are the reasons why I chose ‘global cooling’ as the subject of my senior year term paper.

    If the “vast majority” of scientific papers were predicting “warming” then these media headlines (which came from climate experts) would not have been so prevalent. But they were. The global cooling scare stimulated a lot of apocalyptic prognostications, just like the anthropogenic CO2 scare is doing now. But keep in mind that simple water vapor is a for more prevalent greenhouse gas than is CO2.

    As for global warming, it was called the ‘greenhouse effect’ back then. The term ‘global warming’ came later, after the decline in average temperatures in the late 70s came to an end. This is probably why the warmists tend to begin their measure of atmospheric temperatures starting at around 1980. This date approximates the low-point of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Clever. Deceptive.

    In the meantime, let’s hope that humankind finds a way to contain the vast amount of deforestation now underway worldwide, not to mention the irreversible megafauna extinction (caused by hunting and habitat destruction, not warmer weather) that is also happening.

    These problems are undeniably serious and real. And we know their cause.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @A123
    , @Miro23
  176. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > us “ deplorables” that you so obliquely resent | That’s weird! I voted for Trump; does that make me a self-hating Deplorable? LOL! Jeesh, I feel like Ron Unz now, being labeled a self-hating Jew by the crazies. Which makes you one of the crazies, when you go around labeling people as self-hating, just because you got your panties in a wad about what they say. > you green | What’s green, my John Deere? Read my comment #48, I’ve got multiple gas/diesel SUVs, truck, n’ toys. Anyway, if I can ask ya, what do you reckon melts ice on a global scale? Got enough courage to answer honestly?

    p.s. Don’t let the sun go down on your wrath, buddy.

    • Replies: @eah
  177. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    One-line summary: Denier NPC sqwawks “Science man bad!”

    So it’s your turn to do the science, since everybody else in the world has screwed it up, but you. Obi-wan Kratobi, You’re our only hope! Start at the basics by answering this question: What physical quantity melts ice on a global scale? Can’t wait to hear back from you!

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

    Melting Glaciers | Glacier National Park, Montana

  178. @utu

    That’s called fetal alcohol syndrome.

  179. muen says:

    Well, all I know is that as long as she’s not I Sweden she won’t become a victim of Sweden’s Muslim mobs of gang rapists.

  180. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > pure propaganda. | No, science is not propaganda. You’re just a Denier NPC squawking “Science man bad!” > One question. | You reject any factual answer to such a question, because you’re too much a coward to even answer a first grade science lesson question:

    What melts ice on a global scale?

    Source: monthly updated PIOMAS “arctic sea ice death spiral” chart by Jim Pettit

  181. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    Dishonest interpretation of what Putin said.

  182. peterAUS says:
    @Richard P

    O.T. guys. Those into “global..climate….whatever…” please skip/ignore.

    ….As a National Socialist…… As a Russian Orthodox Christian,

    Just curious.

    That combination, for obvious reasons, is REALLY, IMHO, extremely rare among Russians.
    Or any East European Orthodox people.

    Do you see that changing, somehow, in the future?

  183. @SteveK9

    ‘The problem here is anti-Science elements on both the left and the right. The right have many climate change deniers, and the left have anti-nukes, which blocks the only effective solution.’

    Indeed. And the neither set of partisans actually give a damn about what happens. Those on the Left are just interested in virtue signaling, while those on the Right just don’t want to yield another point to the Left.

    You mention nuclear power. There’s another significant omission; no one ever considers what we might do to offset global warming; vegetation we could plant, or chemicals we could dump into the sea, for example. It’s all about somehow preserving the planet, virginal and immaculate.

    Well, first off, it’s a bit late for that; this old girl lost her cherry millennia ago. Second, with seven billion people, none of whom are terribly interested in walking seven miles to market, it just ain’t gonna happen. It’s absurd to attempt to eliminate our impact on the planet. We’re gonna impact it; what we need to do think about how to manage that impact.

    But does that disturb the forces of Green — the sheer futility of their demand? Nope — all they care about is congratulating themselves on their virtue as the ship continues to sink anyway. As to the Right, they want to fantasize no impact is occurring.

    …and of course (yawn) as usual, we’ll get out of absolutely nothing. All that’ll happen is that the degradation will become manifest, and then we’ll have to take radical measures to have something — when we could act now, not have to do anything really all that taxing, and have a lot more.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  184. Vendetta says:

    Make yourself a proper handle so we can follow your comment history.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  185. A123 says:

    If you write in response to me, at least respond to what I have written. Sound fair?

    You wrote, and I even quoted:

    You need to listen to what Trump actually says.

    My response to what you wrote was :

    That is not quite right. You need to observe the results of what Trump says.

    How is it unfair to respond to exactly what you wrote?

    Go spin your your dreidel instead of trying to spin things here.

    Why do you think Christians spin dreidels? That is a rhetorical question.

    We understand. As a devout Muslim, telling one type of infidel from another is impossible for you. You try to accuse people of your own PRATT behaviour. Another telling indication of your religious beliefs. You are a practitioner of Taqiyya, the Muslim commandment to deceive infidels.

    Why don’t you return to your madrassa in Tehran and recite your satanic verses. All you are achieving here is embarrassing yourself and providing comic relief.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  186. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > simple water vapor | Yet another PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times)

    Climate Myth–Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

    Here’s the thing, I hope you do not accept the factual evidence of science. You just believe whatever disproven ice age coming! narrative you want to, since you’re a super-smart journalist. Science is never going to change your mind about how the world works anyway. And when the consequences of global warming become stronger as the years go on, your cognitive dissonance will go up, and I’ll think about you and have a little chuckle.

    • Agree: james charles
  187. Wally says:

    But the glaciers mentioned would be gone if your nonsense was factual.

  188. Wally says:

    The climate warms up after an ice age. So what?

    Trump does not mention of CO2. Oops!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  189. Wally says:

    Trump says nothing of CO2.

    And of course, the planet has always warmed after ice ages.

  190. bruce county says:

    She could be in the m0vie Children Of The Corn II

  191. Kermit says:

    No one is arguing that there has not been warming. The question is – what has caused most of it?

    I’m still waiting for your answer to my very elementary question about what the actual science consists of that shows man-made CO2 is a significant cause.

    Or, as I asked – are you just blowing smoke?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  192. Kermit says:

    Once again, you try to blow smoke at us.

    And, again, I know of no one who will argue that there has been no warming.

    Now, either show us you actually understand something about this warming, or quit blowing smoke.

  193. @Been_there_done_that

    Addendum to my previous comment (#96):

    A sensationalistic global warming prediction that failed to occur – it was and continues to be just a hoax.

    The Independent – March 20, 2000

    Snowfall are now just a thing of the past

    Full story:

    The newest global warming hoax, paraphrased: The world will end in twelve years.

    • Replies: @Richard P
  194. Anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:

    This is Unz network. She is too Aryan-looking to be the face of pure evil.

    • Replies: @iffen
  195. A123 says:
    @mark green

    The global cooling scare stimulated a lot of apocalyptic prognostications, just like the anthropogenic CO2 scare is doing now.

    You are, of course, correct. A substantial list of 1970’s Global Cooling articles can be found here:

    How much do you want to bet that Denier303, goes into full whiny, PRATT mode and will not even look at the link? He clearly lacks the maturity to realize that he has been defeated and debunked on every point.

    PEACE 😇

  196. eah says:

    Skimming this thread I see you are a believer in man-made (note: this adjective should always be included) climate change, doing battle with climate change deniers (the similarity with language used about the ‘Holocaust’ is probably not an accident) — fine — continue to spread the word: try to convince as many people as you like that man-made climate change is real and a concrete risk to the long-term future of mankind — try to get them to change their lifestyle in order to lessen their own personal contributions to this phenomenon.

    But here’s the thing: don’t try to use, or support the use of, the coercive power of government to tell me what I can and cannot do, to unreasonably limit my lifestyle choices, or to increase my tax burden.

    And stop posting as “Anonymous[303]” — use your big brain to come up with a moniker; you’ll be just as anonymous.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Anonymous
    , @eah
  197. wayfarer says:

    Project MKUltra: The CIA’s Mind Control Operation.

  198. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Taqiyya? What’s that, some sort of Chinese chicken dish for takee-outee? Is that the way it’s pronounced? You seem real familiar with weird foreign stuff, Schlomo. But I do know what physical quantity melts ice on a global scale! Do you?

  199. iffen says:

    Maybe not, maybe Aryans are the pure cosmic evil afterall.

  200. iffen says:

    Thanks, I really needed to see all of those.

  201. Shadow says:

    “Because there are no facts, there is no truth. Just data to be manipulated. I can get you any result you like. What’s it worth to you? Because there is no wrong, there is no right. And I sleep very well at night. No shame, no solution, no remorse, no retribution. Just people selling t-shirts. Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus.” “In the Garden of Allah”. Don Henley.

  202. marylou says:

    Reduce CO2 to pre industrial revolution levels.

    Hope in a changing climate

    The Sahara used to be smaller, and greener.

    Send Greta to plant trees.

    97% of PAID Scientists .
    Lots of retired experts do not agree with the 97%.

    • Replies: @acementhead
  203. @Anonymous

    How can you read the word ‘model’ and still go on to assert that the conjecture it supports is a fact? You are the poster-child of anti-science.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Anonymous
  204. @Anonymous

    Heat, like that imparted by the Sun to the Earth.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  205. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Your tax dollars paid for the answer you seek as to what causes the global warming that you admit to. May as well get your money’s worth:

    • The Causes of Climate Change

    If you’re a libertarian and don’t like learning from government sources, there’s always Ethan Siegel, a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges:

    • The Simplest Explanation Of Global Warming Ever

    Neither are long. Read both. Which one explains it better to you, oh ye eager seeker of knowledge?

    • Replies: @Kermit
  206. @eah

    And stop posting as “Anonymous[303]” — use your big brain to come up with a moniker; you’ll be just as anonymous.

    That requires actual thought and, perhaps, a bit of individual creativity; qualities he or she seems to be lacking.

  207. Kermit says:

    So, Anonymous(303), you actually know NOTHING about what you are talking about.

    You cannot answer one very simple question about what has been the major cause of any current warming.

    No wonder you are so obnoxious. You are hiding behind all the smoke and mirrors you’re putting out.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  208. A123 says:

    Taqiyya? What’s that

    Of course. As Muslim you also lie about your lying. … Your practice of Taqiyya is why you lie. (1)

    Having been caught lying, you really should give up.

    Of course your Muslim beliefs do explain why you like the hate site, Skeptical Science so much. Here is a picture of the site founder, everything a Muslim could want out of a man: (2)

    You really should head home to Tehran. Your mission here is a failure.

    PEACE 😇




    • Replies: @Anonymous
  209. pontius says:

    I read her words and think she is talking about Sweden’s immigration policy.

    She also looks like Alfred Rosenberg’s love child.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  210. @The Alarmist

    The words “consensus” in the context of science is unscientific.
    The forces behind such CO2 nonsense are social engineers, lunatics.
    Sience lives from questions, science is never “settled”.

  211. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Try to get them to change their lifestyle? I’ve stated several times in this thread that I own multiple gas and diesel powered vehicles and toys of all sorts. You obviously haven’t read more than the first comment I wrote. Let me refresh your memory: “Energy conservation does not help.” [comment #2]

    The only reason I’d want anybody to accept the science of global warming is to become more credible at creating nationalist policies, like prohibiting immigration, which I’ve stated or implied several times, starting with comment #3. Let me repeat that. I want you to accept climate change science to become MORE CREDIBLE at CREATING NATIONALIST POLICIES, e.g. PROHIBITING IMMIGRATION.

    Here’s the thing, most people imagine that, “Nationalism has no solution to climate change. If you want to be a nationalist in the 21st century, you have to deny the problem.” That’s a quote from here:
    I heartily disagree. I think climate change can be the impetus for nationalist policy, starting with prohibition of immigration.

    Please go read my comment #3. Nobody has made any comment on it. How can a comment on prohibiting immigration on Unz not get a single comment? It’s weird! Maybe everybody commenting here is actually a Soros-paid, immigrant-welcoming, negro-luvin’ liberal, I dunno.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Johnny Rico
  212. Kermit says:

    So, more smoke and mirrors. About what I thought. You know nothing about what the actual science consists of. All you can do is to continue to copy/paste.

    Doesn’t it bother you that you have such a strong belief in this, but absolutely no understanding of it?

    BTW, that is more of a religious type belief than anything based on any knowledge.

    I will give you credit, however. You do know how to cut & paste.

  213. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    So, you prove to everybody that you’re not actually seeking knowledge, even when it’s spoonfed to you, but simply playing juvenile “answer the question!” games. That’s sad.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  214. @Anonymous

    monthly updated PIOMAS “arctic sea ice death spiral” chart

    Oh, what a colorful graph. I was curious how they purport to actually have observed and measured total Arctic ice volume every month so exactly for the past 40 years and went to their web site. They couldn’t and didn’t and don’t; it’s just another “model“, prone to errors and incorrect assumptions.

    Remember those journalists that went to the Antarctic Ocean region a few years ago to do a documentary study intending to “prove” the global warming hypothesis was not a hoax but wound up having been enveloped by ice instead? How embarrassing. The ice mass in the Antarctic has been growing over the years, according to reports. Apparently the cute graph you highlighted doesn’t even bother to compare the north pole ice model with the south pole ice mass.

    In any case, the ocean levels have not risen, so the allegedly diminishing ice mass in the Arctic model has merely shifted to other locations, or there is more water vapor in the air or additional water on the ground, or a combination of all these possibilities, if the presumption in the model were even true.

    Yet the global warming hoax claims that any temperature changes are caused primarily by humans, through the mechanism of emitting carbon dioxide, even though solar energy and volcanic activity (including those underwater) play a significantly more important role in influencing the global climate, so what is the graph actually supposed to prove?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  215. peterAUS says:


    … I want you to accept climate change science to become MORE CREDIBLE at CREATING NATIONALIST POLICIES, e.g. PROHIBITING IMMIGRATION.


    • Replies: @A123
    , @Anonymous
  216. Shaman911 says:

    Angry Jew syndrome.
    A Mediterranean myth dating back to the stone age.

  217. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    Great job, melting ice on a global scale takes global heating, or as it’s called by scientists, global warming. You’re now on the path to greater scientific knowledge. A bonus: this website quantifies exactly how much:

    Global Warming at 4 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs Per Second

    If you’re still curious, I’d suggest asking yourself the question, Why is this extra heat being retained by our planet?

  218. Agent76 says:

    This will give you great insight from a very old science geek. Jun 12, 2017 20 More New Papers Link Solar Forcing To Climate Change

    Now 80 Sun-Climate Papers For 2017 Since 2014, 400 Scientific Papers Affirm A Strong Sun-Climate Link

    May 2, 2019 Solar Warning, Amazing Weather/Science News

    Daily Sun, Earth and Science News

  219. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    > How can you read the word ‘model’ and still go on to assert that the conjecture it supports is a fact? You are the poster-child of anti-science.

    As John von Neumann stated, “The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models.”

    I know, I know, John von Neumann is the “poster child” of these evil old white men oppressing you, so he must be rayciss or sumfin, as it conflicts with your Scientists of Color Studies that you’re working on so diligently in the evenings.

    Which again proves my point I’ve stated several times in this comment thread that the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party acts as disruptively in a conversation on science as feral Negroes in a nyc English Lit classroom , simply because they cannot grasp it.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  220. Kermit says:

    Doesn’t it embarrass you even just a little bit that you can’t find an answer to that extremely simple question?

    I can see that you know how to copy & paste. I have to assume that you know about Google search???

    I’m pointing out the dirty little secret that climate scientists have been hiding all this time. You obviously don’t know the answer to that very simple question. And, you can’t find it with Google search. Don’t you wonder why that is??

    No wonder you are so obnoxious. You desperately do not want to be have a rational discussion with anyone who actually knows something about the subject.

    Time to go crawl back under your rock.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  221. A123 says:


    There are plenty of good reasons to oppose mass immigration and support Christian Populism without lying to push science denial and faith-based AGW mythology.

    Denier[303]’s actual motivation is quite hard to fathom. On the other hand, since his orders come from Ayatollah Killmania, the pervasive incoherence is far from unprecedented.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Kermit
    , @Anonymous
  222. Kermit says:

    Which again proves my point I’ve stated several times in this comment thread that the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party acts as disruptively in a conversation on science as feral Negroes in a nyc English Lit classroom , simply because they cannot grasp it.

    Anaymous(303), it appears that you are looking in a mirror.

    It turns out that you are nothing but a religious zealot when it comes to your belief in CAGW.

    I’ll bet you thought this was going to be like shooting fish in a barrel – until it was pointed out that not only can you not explain what the basis is behind your belief in CAGW, but you can’t even find it with Google search!!

    Are you too dense to even be embarrassed by this??

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  223. Intractable problems. Are this talk is a distraction from the realization that we live on a rock and are very slowly running out of oil. Nobody reading this will see the effects of any climate change in their lifetime.

  224. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    No observations? LOL! You are outright lying. Go read the website again.

    “…global daily high-resolution Reynolds SST analyses using satellite and in situ observations…”

    PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis
    Polar Science Center

    Yes, the data is included with a model, because that is exactly what science does. As John von Neumann stated, “The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models.”

    You are yet another example of my observation that the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party is as disruptive in a science conversation as a pack of feral Negroes is in an English class, because they cannot grasp the subject like the higher-IQ half.

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  225. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    I think globalist elite policies regarding global warming like Kyoto are crazy. Are you upset the US withdrew from the Kyoto Convention?

  226. peterAUS says:

    Denier[303]’s actual motivation is quite hard to fathom.

    Wouldn’t know about that.

    Those types need to, constantly, reinforce their sense of self-worth. The best way to do that, for them, is to …ahm…lecture other people, preferably in “fad” topics. What’s the latest the most popular issue/topic/subject among “chattering classes”.

    And…they really despise what they see as “unwashed”. Everyone below their social status, that is.

    As long as they have access to a bullhorn only and simply blather they are harmless.

    Put them into the position of power and you have a serious problem.

    • Replies: @A123
  227. Shadow says:

    303 doth prostest much, methinks. Check out older and younger dryas. Vostok ice core data. Of course the Earth is warming. There was a 1-2 mile thick ice sheet at one time over North America. The sea levels have been 300′ lower and at least 200′ higher in the past. If you’re able to waddle to the top of a mountain, look for round rocks. That means it was under water at one time. The deserts in North America were once under water. That’s why it’s alkaline. As far as I know, no SUVs were in existence then, nor AC. Personally, if NYC, DC, SF, LA, London, Tel Aviv, half of China and India were inundated by water, I would consider it good. Wash all the stupid sh*t away. I’m sure I left something out.

  228. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You’ve really got the blue-hair SJW outrage mode down pat! But aren’t you ashamed you have no ability to read an article that takes about 4 minutes, after you’ve begged for such knowledge to be provided to you?

    • The Causes of Climate Change

    • The Simplest Explanation Of Global Warming Ever

    Nothing hidden, right there you go. Kick back into your SJW outrage mode though, because you can’t read! LOL

    • Replies: @Kermit
  229. There is no climate emergency. As link below shows, hundreds of scientists agree with that statement. But let the debates begin. I love unfettered Free Speech, don’t you?

    In any event, there is certainly no climate catastrophe now. I happen to live in a very hot, dry, and inhospitable desert area in So. California that has been made green and beautiful due to human innovation and planning. It’s wonderful!

    Modern humans can now live comfortably everywhere on the planet. This wasn’t true just a century ago.

    As for ‘climate change’, there may in fact be some slightly warmer temperatures in the coming decades (precise cause unknown), accompanied by a modest rise in atmospheric CO2. So what? This could be a boon to plants (definitely) most animals, as well as most human beings. CO2, remember, is plant food. This spells more food and more life. After all, no one knows what the perfect, ideal, average temperature for planet earth should be. Do you?

    Keep in mind also that more people are killed each year by cold-related weather than heat related-weather. So let’s save lives.

    If we could immediately halt and artificially stabilize the earth’s ongoing (and natural) climate change exactly where it is now, life would go on splendidly; except for the stubborn fact the human population is exploding (particularly in of the Third World), humans are hunting many large animals into extinction, and pristine natural habitats are being ravaged by human deforestation and human-caused fires. These are genuine and undeniable climate/environmental problems. But these actual environmental crises seem to be of little interest to the warmist community. How come?

    Might it have something to do with money and power? It’s certainly possible.

    It is a fact that most plants and animals adapt easily to modest changes in temperature and climate. The annual seasonal fluctuations in climate prove this.

    Also, on just a given day, outdoor temperatures routinely vary more than 50 degrees fahrenheit. Yet this doesn’t kill or even damage most plants and animals. It’s normal. Living organisms are very tough and adaptable.

    But feel free to cultivate and enjoy your nervous disorder involving catastrophic anthropogenic ”climate change’. Have fun with your unproven theory. Bear in mind that your fantasies have still NOT lived up the the countless hype and timeline that you and your ‘expert’ pals keep selling.

    Your ‘impending climate catastrophe’ keeps NOT HAPPENING.

    Doesn’t this embarrass you even slightly?

    What’s the latest deadline for eco-calamity now?

    Please tell us when the shit is going to hit the fan. I would like a date, please.

    In the meantime, don’t impose your neurotic disorder on the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  230. Kermit says:

    Denier[303]’s actual motivation is quite hard to fathom. On the other hand, since his orders come from Ayatollah Killmania, the pervasive incoherence is far from unprecedented.

    I don’t think it is hard to fathom at all. He is a religious zealot (about CAGW – and quite possibly other things) who accepts what the “high priests” tell him to believe. He is even too dense to understand the old saying that, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

    Normally, I would refrain from baiting a person in a forum like this. I would strive to have a calm, rational discussion about the subject. If someone is somewhat dense, I would go out of my way to avoid an argument. But then they are both dense – and – obnoxious, I can’t always help myself.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  231. I have a simple question, when will the climate be saved? At what conditions do you consider the climate “normal” again, and you trash your funny CO2 doomsday clock?

    In other words, at what point will you proclaim victory “hooray, we saved the climate”?

    And, why do you massively cut down trees for 5G? According to the kill grid planners, there will no no spot on earth uncovered.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  232. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    If you’re fishing for compliments, well, Beautiful teeth on your selfie! But why do you so strenuously avoid answering a simple question about what melts ice? It’s not that tough, on the level of a first grade science lesson. What melts ice on a global scale?

    Source: NASA Earth Observatory, Okjökull Remembered

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  233. @Anonymous

    “Please go read my comment #3.”

    Why? You had already established yourself as an unreadable nitwit.

    • Disagree: SafeNow
  234. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Old english malthusiansm plus old angloamerican apocalypticism .

  235. @Anonymous

    Your reply says all there is to know about you!

  236. A123 says:

    Those types need to, constantly, reinforce their sense of self-worth. The best way to do that, for them, is to …ahm…lecture other people, preferably in “fad” topics. What’s the latest the most popular issue/topic/subject among “chattering classes”.

    That is as credible an explanation as any. As Denier[303] remains both banal and trivial, it probably is not worth the effort to dig deeper as to motivation.

    I have to leave it up to you. Due to the number of graphics in this thread I have reached my technology limit to render it a bit earlier than usual. As such, this will likely be my last post under this heading. Good Luck…

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Anonymous
  237. @Anonymous

    What melts ice on a global scale?

    EM radiation, for example microwave radiation.
    The question would be, what causes it? The sun, and/or the spraying in the atmosphere to increase conductivity in combination with ionospheric heaters, eg HAARP like installations, which the Russians call Sura, also known as Eiscat?

  238. peterAUS says:

    He is a religious zealot ….. who accepts what the “high priests” tell him to believe…

    Would agree if the language was passionate but civil.

    But, just from a couple of posts:

    ….you make a fool of yourself parroting the standard climate-denialist excuse…
    ….Do you both have some sort of weird receiving antenna on your head?…
    …You’re still parroting denialist bromide #138; understanding this will make you look less of a dolt: …

    The true motives are bit more, how to put, darker.

    I do believe it’s important to recognize such types, especially in times to come.

    Or, on a practical level: they get you into a ….debate……and then report on you. Or publish it somewhere.
    Just a thought.

    • Replies: @Kermit
  239. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > I have a simple question, when will the climate be saved?

    It won’t. As I written in four different comments beginning in comment #2, “Global warming is unstoppable.”

    > at what point will you proclaim victory “hooray, we saved the climate”?

    Theoretically, if global warming was stoppable, stopping it before earth’s climate goes over the “planetary threshold” into “intrinsic feedbacks” i.e., positive feedback loops. Those quotes are cited from a journal article in comments #21 and 59. Both comments have great illustrations from the article, or you can just click and read it and look at the illustrations here:

    > why do you massively cut down trees for 5G?

    I don’t. When will you stop beating your wife?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  240. peterAUS says:

    ….it probably is not worth the effort to dig deeper as to motivation….


    My point was/is: people on alt-right should develop a quick “feel” for such types.
    A combination of topics and language should trigger “cut and move”. Especially in the workplace, some public gathering etc.

    Hehe…I remember, personally, getting into trouble in a workplace because I did voice an “unenlightened/uneducated” thought for the time/place. Admit, happened several years ago but I did learn my lesson. Was lucky too because HR Manager was a man of similar age/life experience. And, it was a more relaxed atmosphere then.
    Now…I am sure I’d be fired on the spot.

    Just a thought.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  241. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    44 ( false ) apocaliptic prophecies about the wether and the earth resources sinde 1966

  242. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > But these actual environmental crises seem to be of little interest to the warmist community. How come?

    How come? Because you’re a lying sack-of-shit journalist who specializes in creating false narratives. It took me all of 2.7 seconds on google to search and find this, which completely disproves your Fake Journalism.

    The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet…unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm…
    Center for Biological University

    I’m not endorsing this, haven’t really read it much, I gave it just a cursory glance to prove the blowhard journalist wrong. Try harder, buddy. You’re supposed to be a journalist, but you forgot that people do their own research in milliseconds online. Oops.

    • Replies: @mark green
  243. @Anonymous

    “Global warming is unstoppable.”

    Right, you can’t stop nature doing her cycles.
    The following gloabal cooling will be unstoppable as well.
    Cold is much more a problem than heat, cold can wipe out civilizations.

    So what is the fuzz about this CO2 lie and idiocy?

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  244. Kermit says:

    Nothing hidden, right there you go. Kick back into your SJW outrage mode though, because you can’t read! LOL

    So, I must not be able to read? I read those simplistic links. Yes, that’s what they are – simplistic. Anyone who knows anything at all about climate science will simply shake their head about those sites.

    I may have missed it, but I didn’t even see a mention of the name Svante Arrhenius. In case you didn’t know, he first calculated the impact on the earth’s temperature of increasing CO2 levels. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Unfortunately, it only contributes to a fraction of the claimed current warming.

    I’ll ask once more, even though I’m sure you will simply give another smart-ass answer that proves again that you don’t know anything about what you are talking about.

    Please explain, in your own words, what the science consists of that shows man-made CO2 to be a significant factor in any current global warming.

    Did it help that I put it in a blockquote??

    No technical explanation needed. If you are knowledgable at all, this will be extremely easy to answer.

    And please don’t send me any more simplistic bullshit links.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  245. Shadow says:

    I suppose we could go into the minutiae of co2 ppm, and other esoteric arguments. But, how do you explain that the rest of the planets in the solar system are heating? Possibly the sun? That’s crazy talk. At this point, to alleviate “global warming”, do we somehow alter the Earth’s orbit or revolution? Tell me, oh wise ones, how will you accomplish this? I know, give more money to dubious entities that promise Nirvana! I love listening to the acrobatics and scientific mumbo-jumbo. I reinforces my belief that humans are pretty much morons. If only we give up these rights and those comforts, Big Daddy or Mommy will make it all better, and we’ll live in perpetual bliss. All hail our New World Odor! PS, look up peer reviewed hoaxes, for those of you who have a computer. I’m out.

  246. Kermit says:

    Or, on a practical level: they get you into a ….debate……and then report on you. Or publish it somewhere.
    Just a thought.


    Yes, agree totally. The Left today scares the hell out of me. History is clear – and the use of Greta Thunberg is downright frightening.

    We all know that it is only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  247. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Greta , stupid swedish girl , how do you dare to sermon adults , you stupid 16 yo girl , ignorant
    , half wit , exploited by your own parents , by your school and by the monegivers behind them

    You don`t even attend classes , how do you dare to teach adults ??? , shut up and go back to school . Fed up with you .

  248. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Ya’ll are doing GREAT! It’s a pleasure to know how Trump feels getting all the attention, with people clinging to his every word, using their amateur online psychiatric skills to divine his personality traits, motivations, hand size, etc., etc. I love it! And I’m leaving a spot open on the panel for some other enterprising pundit to join it, so don’t be bashful!

  249. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > The following gloabal cooling will be unstoppable as well.

    Sorry, won’t happen. Even if the sun goes full “Grand Solar Minimum” (e.g. “Maunder Minimum,”) it will only put the slightest dent in human caused global warming, as this chart shows:

    Source: A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

    You’re a fool to assert that humans cannot affect nature. Claiming that humans cannot cause global warming, just because the climate has changed in the past, is akin to saying humans cannot cause forest fires, just because forest fires have started naturally in the past.

  250. Che Guava says:

    What we need, as ‘net nonsense, is a morphing sequence of Thnmbellina and David Hogg.

    Preferably, it should be in at least four phases, two furious faces nf each.

    I knnw how to do it, but don’t have the time.

    The result wouldn’t have much point, except to demonstrate the similarity of two teenaged freaks, both of whom (I am not sure hnw in the case of Hogg) managed to avoid puberty.

    Fun facts: Thumbellina’s boat was shipped back to Europe as air freight.

    The crew, likewise, chose to fly back. I don’t know for sure, but very much doubt that, as wealthy Swedes, they flew cattle class.

    Suppose Thumbellina will hob-nob .in Noo Yawk until the prevailing winds favour the same stunt in the opposite direction.

    …. or perhaps a first-class fliight, or a ride on somebody’s private jet.

    Quite a dilemna!

  251. peterAUS says:

    ….the use of Greta Thunberg is downright frightening.

    Well….it’s a good weapon. Or tool.

    They know what they want.
    They will stop at nothing to achieve that. Nothing.

    There is a pattern here. It’s called “initiative”. They have it; “we” don’t. They act; “we” react.

    I guess that’s what being a “conservative” is all about.

    In the military, it’s called “defense”. One of the first lessons for officer cadets, in tactics, is: defense loses most of the time. Offense wins, most of the time. Even when the defense wins it’s by a counterattack. Offense.

    We all know that it is only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back.

    Actually, we don’t.

    Even in that “defense” from the paragraph above a leader would know that “line” where either defense becomes “not one step back” or counterattack.The red line.
    “We” have no idea where that line of ours is.
    Or, on practical terms, a leftist from 30 years ago is a “bigoted racist” now. I mean…hahaha…what would Che Guevara think about trannies, gays, same-sex marriage and all that shit? How would these……ahm..”leftists” treat him? Probably lock him up. Or worse.

    Makes sense, actually. All what “boomers” want, really, is to enjoy, as much as possible, their remaining days on this planet.
    The “left” (which has nothing to do with the real left but let’s skip that….) know it.
    They have initiative, contantly push….and gain…while “conservatives” slowly retreat. Constantly.

    Buying time, for themselves. To enjoy their retirement. They earned it……………………..

    A good strategy if you are a boomer, actually.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Kermit
    , @Anonymous
  252. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > I didn’t even see a mention of the name Svante Arrhenius.

    Aw, shucks. You done missed ol’ Arrhenius up in my comment #12! How could you miss that? I’m sure you will simply give another smart-ass answer that proves again that you don’t know anything about what you are talking about.

  253. Shadow says:

    I’m crushed! No one has said I’m an idiot or refuted my comments! Maybe it’s just that I don’t have any pretty graphics to support my statements. Could it be that the vivisection of the venal values of the veritable vacuous verbage that’s venerably vocalized is vacant of veracity? Not sure. Could it be that the vicissitude of victory and vivaciosness of vulgarity has blinded ones eye? Possibly.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  254. Seraphim says:

    “Climate change” mania is a ‘secularized’ recrudescence of the anti-Church millenaristic/messianic/’spiritualist’ apocalyptic terrors which periodically shook the World and fed all the revolutionary (egalitarian, communistic, anarchistic, fascistic, feministic), anti-‘establishment’ movements. The ‘permanent revolution’ of Parvus/Trotsky/Cultural Revolution/Counterculture. Females played central roles in these movements.
    Yes, the “March for the Climate turning into a March on Rome” is a distinct possibility. See#247: “The Church of Sweden declared teen star climate activist Greta Thunberg to be an appointed successor to Jesus Christ in a 2018 tweet that resurfaced in the wake of her speech before the United Nations:
    “Announcement! Jesus of Nazareth has now appointed one of his successors, Greta Thunberg,” the tweet said on Dec. 1, 2018. The account, operated by the Limhamns Church, had previously tweeted several sentiments of climate activism”. The Primate of the Church of Sweden is the Archbishop of Uppsala — currently Antje Jackelén, Sweden’s first female archbishop! Don’t forget that Catholic priests are abominable ‘child-abusers’ (and ‘anti-gay’ at the same time) and (as grievously) ‘antiwomen’.

  255. @Anonymous

    You are a promoter of UN Agenda 21 and 2030 and a one world government!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  256. @Colin Wright

    There’s another significant omission; no one ever considers what we might do to offset global warming; vegetation we could plant, or chemicals we could dump into the sea, for example.

    Or staging a nuclear winter.

    Whatever happened to nuclear winter? It was as big once as climate change is now.

    Another Mount Tambora would help as well.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  257. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > Offense wins, most of the time. Even when the defense wins it’s by a counterattack. Offense.

    Exactly! And there is a path for the right to go on the offense and capture the climate science flag and start wielding the science to effect nationalist policy like prohibiting immigration.

    But no, you called going on the offense “crazy,” because the only thing you know is playing defense, loser.

  258. Tusk says:

    You can download a PDF copy of the article from the link attached to this comment!F2RmXY7C!W2poPdPNbLCu-Dj006otOOClLsv-gydfUUoy2cbHhbE

  259. Kermit says:

    Good thoughts, peter. I can’t find anything at all to disagree with.

    To anyone still reading, I can explain what the science actually involves. Since man-made CO2 only accounts for a fraction of the warming, it is assumed that the extra CO2 causes mainly water vapor to provide the majority. As the late Dr. Joanne Simpson of NOAA said, the science consists “almost entirely” of computer simulations. She commented (after retirement, of course) that everyone knew the fragility of those models. How do they make the models fit the poor quality historical data? They use what they call sensitivity factors. These are nothing but fudge factors, of course, and the parameters are determined by what the models need to fit the historical data. So, the physics is not understood. Actually, it is worse than that. Each model has its own fudge factor. So, in summary, climate modelers have no idea what causes the warming currently being seen. All they have are guesses.

    Now, if I walked into a hedge fund office and said that I had a computer model of the coupled, non-linear, chaotic system they were trading, and it was fabulously profitable on the historical data, and that I had curve-fit it to that data, I would be laughed out of the place. The difference is that, in a hedge fund office, there is accountability! In climate modeling, that accountability is missing. And, of course, the climate scientists are not about to explain this to anyone – even if asked about it.

    BTW, pointing this out on a site like ARS Technica will get you banned. Likewise on a site like Naked Capitalism. I would not even bother to try on any of the sites that dimwitted “journalist” linked to here.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  260. 97% of Soviet researchers once endorsed the science of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Trofim Lysenko, with the few deniers limited to marginal institutions in the country’s backwater east.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  261. @Anonymous

    You seem to believe everything you read online that confirms one of your pre-conclusions. I’m not even sure what your point exactly is.

    Does the article above (that you apparently haven’t read) definitively prove something dear to your heart?

    Then what, pray tell, is it?

    (More humans = hotter weather = less biodiversity?)

    Let’s agree that human population growth should be controlled for obvious reasons. Resources are finite. Ecological habitats are fragile.

    On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that rising human numbers by themselves will cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. That is your religious conviction, not mine.

    I’m not sure what nugget of certifiable truth it is that you just stumbled upon, but I can tell you that I am not interested in reading any more politicized predictions about future catastrophic ‘climate change’. You and you warmist buddies have lost all credibility on this subject due to your confident but wrongheaded prognostications.

    The warmist track record on climate change should be an embarrassment, yet you and your fellow travelers seem to feel no shame. Why is this?

    When a student does poorly repeatedly, that student generally receives an ‘F’. (Doesn’t that make sense?)

    Anyway, I urge you to take your meds and climb to higher ground before the rising oceans swallow you up!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  262. peterAUS says:
    @Reg Cæsar


    As (small sample):

    Zhores Medvedev
    … was dismissed from his position in 1969.
    … arrest and forced detention in the Kaluga psychiatric hospital in May 1970. … this experience was reflected in Zhores and Roy Medvedev’s book A Question of Madness

    Pavel Litvinov
    The KGB promptly arrested the protesters, brutally beat them, and their secret trial was held that October. Litvinov was sentenced to five years’ exile in Chita, Zabaykalsky Krai, Siberia.

    Yuri Orlov
    … On 10 February 1977, Orlov was arrested.[28][29][30] In March 1977, Orlov published the article about his arrest “The road to my arrest.”[31] In a closed trial, he was denied the right to examine evidence and to call witnesses.[32]
    The courtroom was filled with some 50 individuals selected by authorities, while supporters and friends of Orlov, including Andrei Sakharov, were barred from entering because there was no room.
    On 15 May 1978, Orlov was sentenced to seven years of a labour camp and five years internal exile

  263. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    No wonder you get banned from every comment site, you’re parroting the fraudster Tim Ball’s garbage. He lies when he claims he’s a climatologist too.

    Climate Myth — “Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas” (Tim Ball)

    And then you start banging away at another PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), teh models, what, for the fiftieth time in this comment thread. If the models are so bad, how come they’ve proven so good?

    Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?

    • Replies: @Kermit
  264. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    The track record of climate science is not embarrassing. You should actually consider the record. It’s analyzed here:

    While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account.

    Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?

  265. Everybody who says that we have only 10 years, or whatever the current lie is, forfeits their life and all their assets if they are wrong. In return, we will support them in luxury for the next decade.

    Any takers?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  266. Trupright says:

    Tobacco does not CAUSE cancer – it probably does increase the chance of having some cancers. But it does not cause it – like humans have not caused global warming, but might slightly, very slightly increase it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Richard P
  267. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Odd, I promoted “nationalist” policy in this comment section, including “prohibiting immigration.” Is your “find” function working on your computer. Or rather, do you need a primer on nationalism? Would that help alleviate your confusion?

    Now Catch-22, I promote, because it’s a funny novel.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  268. @Anonymous

    What physical quantity melts ice on a global scale?

    Your repetition of the “on a global scale” causes me to doubt that you know what the term “physical quantity” means.

    However, I’ll tell you what physical quantity is required to change water from solid to liquid phase on any scale: energy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  269. Paw says:

    That is why Einstein infinitely smart, squeeled ,that USA must produce the Atom bomb..

  270. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:


    Studies published since the 1986 IARC Monograph on “Tobacco smoking” provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal association between cigarette smoking and cancer of the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, stomach, liver, kidney…

    Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of recent epidemiological evidence
    AJ Sasco, MB Secretan, K Straif – Lung cancer, 2004 – Elsevier

    Just one of 178,000 hits on with a search smoking+cancer+causal. Took all of 5 seconds. Thanks for demonstrating what I’ve been saying all along, the Big Tobacco lies about “junk” science are just like the Climate Denier lies about “junk” science.

  271. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reactionary Utopian

    Energy, true. But a shady shyster like you will do anything to say what kind of energy it is, won’t you? LOL! Gee, is it electrical energy? Gravitational potential energy? Oh, wait, it’s HEAT! When can you be honest enough to tell us that heat, or another term, warming, is what melts ice? So we’ve got ice melting all over the world. That means it must be warming all over the world. So anyway, like pulling hen’s teeth, I finally got out of you that there is indeed global warming. Thanks buddy!

    Now where ya reckon that extra warming is coming from? Al Gore with a propane torch? The friction of the gears in your head jamming? Or something else?

  272. Richard P says:

    I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. Well said.

  273. Richard P says:

    This is comical. Nearly 60 inches of snow just fell hours from where I live. Last year, Colorado’s snowpack was greater than 900 percent compared to the previous year. The snowpack in 2017 was greater than 300 percent compared to the annual average. Parts of the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains have received record snowfall over the last two years — with Mammoth exceeding 900 inches. Tioga Pass in Yosemite didn’t open until around the 4th of July in 2017 due to the snow and melt off. Mount Whitney has been a winter climb in late June over the last couple of years — and deaths have been significantly up as a result of the dangerous, winter-like conditions that require technical mountaineering skills.

    It’s been beautiful over the last couple of winters and springs throughout the Mountain West as we’ve received significant snowfall. Thanks to the snowpack, our reservoirs are full and wild fires have been minimal.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Anonymous
  274. Richard P says:

    This is correct. Everyone has existing pre-cancerous cells in their body. Outsides forces — such as questionable lifestyle choices and or habits can exacerbate those cells from being healthy to becoming malignant.

  275. peterAUS says:
    @Richard P

    This is comical.

    Sort of. But can work.

    Those who’ve paid attention to this thing since inception, a question:

    I remember it started as “Global Warming”. I tried to follow it at the time but phased out soon when I recognized the agenda and related methods.
    I did notice, later, shift to “Climate Change”.

    Would somebody in the know chime in, for my types, as to when it happened, exactly, how it happened and, who really did the name change? Must be a
    A very brief explanation would be much appreciated.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  276. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard P

    Yeah, those numbers truly are “funny.” The highest 2017 snowpack figure, in any month and in of the several regions of Colorado, is 247%, which was June in the South Platte Basin, as evidenced here:

    Colorado Historical Snowpack Percentages by Watershed

    And why didn’t you mention those 2018 numbers? Is that because only a single region for only a couple months barely managed to get above 90%?

    Care to clarify?🕵️

    • Replies: @Richard P
  277. Miro23 says:
    @mark green

    In the meantime, let’s hope that humankind finds a way to contain the vast amount of deforestation now underway worldwide, not to mention the irreversible megafauna extinction (caused by hunting and habitat destruction, not warmer weather) that is also happening.

    These problems are undeniably serious and real. And we know their cause.

    There has been massive deforestation since the industrial revolution (and consequent explosion in the world’s population). Check out Europe, India and China pre-industrial revolution to the present. This is habitat loss for the world’s wildlife putting many species at risk.

  278. ‘How dare you’ should be How dare SHE!
    Greta is a fraud along with the ‘climate ‘ agenda 21 / 30.
    She has a handler!
    ‘There is a little secret. Kept hidden from the public…that Greta Thunberg has a handler. Someone who is with her constantly and who controls what she does and says.
    The handler is an ultra-radical German Green environmentalist named Luisa-Marie Neubauer [pictured]. Her salary is paid by organizations funded by (of course) George Soros.’

    Not only that, we know (real science) that CO2 doesnt have anything to do with a planets temperature, proved by astrophysical observation, here or anywhere else in the solar system. The GHG effect was disproved about 10 years ago, with theory and experiments. Humans DO NOT control the planet, period. If you believe it does, go live on Mars or Venus!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  279. Shadow says:

    OT. Hey iazzman. Just wanted to shout out. I’m a percussionist, played symphony, jazz, rock, country, country rock, reggae and more. Forgot more than most people learned. Right now, I’m liking Satchmo, Sunny side of the street, Peggy Lee, Why don’t you do right. Love Steely Dan, though that ain’t pure jazz. Cheers. Shadow knows the evil that lurks in the hearts (and minds) of men. Good day.

  280. Richard P says:

    I incorrectly worded my comment and meant to highlight several relevant sections of the state that received above average snowfall.

    Furthermore, the larger figures reflected the snowpack following some significant storms earlier in the season of this year. Several parts of the state got hit hard over the last two years — mostly the Central Rockies from Gunnison to the Divide at Loveland. Parts of Lake County received nearly seven feet in May 2017. Even further East towards Denver, peaks such as Gray’s, Torrey’s, and Bierdstat were blanked in fresh snow going into June.

    Earlier this year, the Central Rockies, San Juans, and the Snowy Range were decimated by an abundance of powerful blizzards — including ones in late spring.

    Here’s a couple of examples to debunk your claim that no single region exceeded 90 percent of the previous year’s snowpack:

    The San Juans boasted a snowpack nearly 200 percent more than normal.

    “Some 38 feet of snow fell in the San Juans this winter. Most of that snowpack, still nearly 200% more than normal, clings hard to the steep sides of the Continental Divide that forms the spine of the San Juans.”

    Here’s another from mid-May of this year via the Denver Post (there were a couple of more storms following this publication):

    “There’s little doubt it was a remarkable winter season, featuring an especially active back half of the season. As of Sunday, Colorado’s snowpack was 161 percent of the 1981-2010 median.”

    Moving North into Wyoming, several metros broke snowfall records over the last couple of years including Cheyenne and Jackson.

    Jackson snowfall in February 2019 broke a 40-year-old snowfall record for the month of February.

    “On Valentine’s Day 2019, the Town of Jackson Wyoming broke their February snowfall record with a total of 35.3 inches recorded for the month. The old snowfall record for February was 33 inches, for the entire month, in 1978.”

    Cheyenne snowfall in 2017 broke a 102-year-old record set in 1915. I believe that another storm earlier this year has shattered the aforementioned record.

    “The spring snow just kept falling in what became a record-breaking two-day event Thursday and Friday in Cheyenne”

    Perhaps weather patters are shifting to some capacity, similarly to how Leadville used to be the coldest region in Colorado and now it’s Gunnison. In my opinion, these changes illustrate a slight deviation in weather patters which would indicate that “Climate Change” is indeed, cyclical.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  281. @Anonymous

    …as disruptive in a science conversation as a pack of feral Negroes is in an English class...”

    Your ridiculous criticism is completely unwarranted because my assertion, to which you took offense, was correct, in that it suggested that given data points (492 months) were not based on continuous monitoring and measurement but just a model with extrapolations from sporadic data.

    Here is the quote from the link you cited, which states this:

    However, Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are all limited in space and time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continuous basis over several decades.

    So that pretty twelve-color polar graph is merely an attempted estimation, with an uncertainty they assume to be ±1350 cubic kilometers for October.

    However, that was not even the main thrust of my comments. Your response expanded on relative trivia but failed to answer what this graph, assuming it were valid, is supposed to prove, given that you presented it as some kind of deep revelation – which in any case did not contradict anything I had written previously on this thread.

    The graph most certainly does not prove that human generated carbon-dioxide causes global warming, which has remained an unproven and highly speculative supposition for so long that it has become a fantastic hoax and therefore deservedly contentious.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  282. @Reg Cæsar

    ‘Another Mount Tambora would help as well.’

    I can’t see any reason why such a response shouldn’t be at least seriously investigated. One could minimize the chances of fatal miscalculation by erring on the side of caution; i.e., try creating a relatively modest disturbance and see what effects are generated.

    Not to give fuel to the denialists, but a related thought is what about all that coal we used to burn? The pea-soup fogs and the blackened stone buildings all over Europe…perhaps we were generating a cooling shroud without knowing it and now that we’ve mended our ways, global warming is the result. Certainly the appearance of global warming has more or less coincided with the disappearance of the classic air pollution of the late nineteenth/early-to-mid twentieth century.

    On another tangent entirely, the failure to consider such active measures as artificial Tamboras is perhaps symptomatic of the flaw in the position of those who profess to wish to reverse global warming. They seem be interested not so much in halting global warming as in using it as a stick to force mankind in general to just stop consuming energy.

    Ain’t gonna happen. Possibly you could get affluent Americans to agree they can’t tool around in motor homes and Europeans to forgo long jet flights on their annual vacations. But all those billions of Third World peasants have been dreaming of the day they can afford a motor bike and no one’s going to tell them they have to keep walking seven miles a week to market after all.

    If we actually want to fight global warming, we have to quit talking about what people should do and think instead about what they will do. If you don’t want that Third world peasant generating more CO2 with a motorbike, etc, you’d best start figuring out how you’re going to get him an electric one.

  283. @Anonymous

    You are a funny guy.

    You post ridiculous childish diagrams and peddle your site as gospel.

    CO2 has nothing to do with warming whatsoever, only in your faked computer models and doctored diagrams.

    You are making a fuzz about a fraction of 3% human CO2 contribution, which you claim would dramatically change the climate. It doesn’t.
    Newsflash, the earth is not a green house, it is not a closed system, it can handle a fraction of 3% pretty well. CO2 is not a function of temperature, which you science illiterates claim it to be.
    The Oceans produce over 75% of the CO2, you should fight the evil oceans as per your cult.

    What you guys try, is the modern form of selling indulgences, and you act like a religious fanatic, totally irrational and fraudulent.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  284. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > I remember it started as “Global Warming”.

    You remember wrong, liar. As a matter of fact, the term “climate change” was used in a science journal article in 1956. Not until two decades later was “Global warming” coined in 1975. And I’ve already covered the same bullshit lies in comments #21 and #41 from others in your pack of low-IQ liars. Like I’ve said all along, the lower-IQ half of conservatives behave just as disruptively in a conversation on science as a pack of feral Negroes in a new york History classroom. And just like a pack of Negroes, you resent your betters like me for running rings around you intellectually.

  285. CCR says:

    Lord Monckton on the economics of windmills:

  286. CCR says:

    Patrick Moore, the Sensible Environmentalist

  287. CCR says:

    Dr. Willie Soon Demolishes the extreme weather panic and other hysterical arguments

  288. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you for your interest. In comment #127, I address a similar request from another gentleman, and provide a short list of climate change references that I use most often here at Unz. Enjoy perusing them.

  289. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course, that is what has happened in the past as CO2 in the atmosphere changes naturally. Now CO2 content in the atmosphere is being drastically changed by humans as we evaporate the earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into our thin layer of atmosphere.

    Here is a graph of solar variation, temperatures, co2 content, and methane content over the last half million years of cycles of glaciation. Please take note of the lines off the graph. CO2 is completely off the graph, methane even worse, and temperature is responding to that greenhouse gas CO2 “forcing.” Buckle up kiddos, that red line is going vertical; it’s going to be a wild ride into a new “hothouse earth” climate from millions of years back.


    p.s. Some people falsely claim humans can’t change the climate, just because the climate changed naturally in the past. That is as deceptive of a notion as claiming humans can’t cause forest fires, just because they happened naturally in the past.

  290. CCR says:

    Benny Peiser: ‘What I told Cambridge University’s spoiled green students’:

  291. CCR says:

    Greta Thunberg without a script to read from:

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
  292. @Anonymous

    Let’s flesh out ypur claim that things are happening on a “global scale’, in ways that are not consistent with how things have happened in the past.

    Problem… go back less than halfway to the ‘Little Ice Age’, and the proportion of the Earth that has reliable annual observations drops towards zero.

    And now, a very direct and specific challenge, which will expose you as an innumerate ‘follower’.

    Present us with your understanding of the confidence intervals for the following estimates:

    (a) dendroclimatological estimates of global annual mean temperatures; and
    (b) the bounds on a 100-year forecast, as calculated at year 1. I won’t even ask that you show (i.e., copypaste) your working.

    Your problem is, forecast bounds and the bounds on estimates obtained using proxies and instrumental variables, are both part of my stock in trade for the last 30 years. I’ve taught that shit to 3rd and 4th year classes at a university that was (and is) in the top few dozen in the world.

    But by all means, find out what your superiors tell you to think, and I will be more than happy to tear it to shreds. (For the moment, I won’t bother to ask you to show us the credentials that entitle you to judge others… that can wait, because I’ve always got ready access to my absolutely fucking awe-inspiring academic record).

    There is a very good reason why climate forecasts are shit (quite apart from the difficulty of forecasting complex systems)… beside being 2nd quintile talent, thise doing the forecasting have the same mindset as revivalist preachers – viz., they think that they have to pound the table and bullshit about the End being Nigh, because otherwise nobody is prepared to pay their bills.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  293. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    While you willfully ignore the scientific evidence of climate reality, you promote an oxymoron of Christian Populism/Nationalism. It will never work except as a tiny denomination out of the 30,000 or so Christian denominations around the world, because the vast majority of Christians themselves will not accept what goes against what is taught in the New Testament, that (1) the faith is globalist/internationalist (2) everyone is equal, and (3) “we all bleed red,” as these Christians note:

    As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another.

    I wish you all the luck in the world fighting against what’s taught in the New Testament and trying to adapt a Globalist/Internationalist religion to a Populism/Nationalism sect. If your schismatic denomination ever grows to be as politically significant as the Amish, I might even join. Are we going with button britches?

    But new wine must be poured into new wineskins. Greta is pouring her wine in the new wineskins of the majority of the world who accepts the reality of climate change, while you’re trying to patch old skins riddled with holes. Of course, you’ve been making the same mistake since the conservatives abdicated the Cathedral’s realm of science at the Scope Monkey Trial.

    The modern Cathedral is science. The doors are open, walk in and take leadership.

  294. At least part of poor Thunberg’s spiel is delusional. She has intoned that we all go to her (or the young, actually) for hope! Not only is that clearly untrue since I don’t go anywhere for hope. But if I were to suffer a rush of blood to the head and decide that I needed a comfort blanket, the last place I’d head off to would be that miserable, gurning prophet of doom.

  295. @Anonymous

    You have an agenda that fits with UN Agenda 21 and 2030 and you are an agent provocateur.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  296. “Even if we bomb Russia still we have too many people too much pollution.
    We have to eat the babies, the CO2 is too much we have to eat the babies.
    We have only two months.”

    • Replies: @Kalliopi S.
  297. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard P

    I knew you were trying to do climate science denial via the “haw, haw, look at it snowin’, we need more global warmin’!” Thing is, extreme weather, including extreme winter weather like the “polar vortex cold snaps,” is caused by global warming. Here’s how:

    1. As average temperature warms, the Arctic warms more. It’s called “Arctic Amplification.” That amplification reduces the temperature gradient between the equator and the North Pole.

    2. The lowered temperature gradient weakens the “polar vortex” or “jetstream,” so that instead of a tight circle, it becomes wavy. Scientists have observed an increase in this “waviness.”

    3. The “waviness” allows relatively cold air to “escape” is usual region, like leaving a refrigerator open, and brings the cold snaps south to the continental US.

    4. Meanwhile, while we’re freezing our ass off for a 3 day polar vortex blizzard, the Arctic is freaking hot. Scientists call this phenomenon “Warm Arctic – Cold Continents” and I’ll illustrate one example here, one on which Trump tweeted about, missing the fact the Arctic region had a heat wave:

    I could post more graphics from NASA explaining the increased “waviness” of the polar vortex, but I’ll let you google that. It isn’t hard to find.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  298. Kermit says:

    You are a typical know-nothing journalist. You swallow the revised “history” and are good at one thing – convincing others to swallow it too.

    The models running in real time have had a dismal record in matching reality.

    Anyone who has followed this for the last couple of decades knows this. I suspect that you know it too.

    As for the science being “settled” – and as for the climate models being “so good” – the arguments might be a whole lot more convincing if they did not have to use fudge factors to curve-fit the data.

    The data the alarmists use is not only poor quality, but it is “massaged” so much that it is nearly useless. The physics is understood so poorly that they have to use fudge factors to make the models even appear to work. And, even then, the projections of the models have consistently overestimated the increases in temperature.

    What makes me disgusted is that science has been prostituted to politics.

    And, people like you – and the people who put up those websites – actively work to deceive others.

    So, one more time – can you tell us, in your own words, what the actual science consists of that shows man-made CO2 to be a significant factor in any current warming?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  299. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    > assuming it were valid

    LOL! You really are dumb as a feral sub-Saharan Negro. Do you really think that the sky above the Arctic Sea is like the song Home on the Range, ♫ where the skies are not cloudy all day? ♪ Good grief, it’s cloudy sometimes in the Arctic, which means the satellites simply can’t see the ice every 90 minutes as the satellite passes over.

    If you think interpolating data between clear days somehow “invalidates” the PIOMAS data, then you would also be stupid enough to assert that the measured height of your nephew whom you get to see only once a year is invalid, because you didn’t have your eye on his height every second. The stupid is so strong with you, it burns. Hell, you’re retarded. You never got through high school math, did you?

    I know you’re too fucking stupid to get it, but I’ll try anyway. Here’s a primer on interpolation:

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  300. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re obtusely being yet another “teh moduhls!” PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Here goes:

    > why climate forecasts are shit

    LOL! If so, why have they proven so good? An early example, here’s that famous guy Hansen’s 1981 model:

    And they keep getting better all the time! Which means the only thing full of shit is you. You can find the above graph, and more here:

    Source: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?

  301. @Anonymous

    Take a look at, chemtrails and HAARP are deep state operations to try and manipulate the weather, chemtrails have been sprayed over the skies since at least the 1980s by my personal observation and are ionizing the atmosphere to allow HAARP to function, see with Nick Begich.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Anonymous
  302. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re still being a der modhuls have a dismal record! PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times.) This extremely early model, from the 1975 scientific article in which the term “global warming” was originally coined by Columbia University scientist Prof Wally Broecker, doesn’t look too shabby! Of course, he overestimated growth of industry in his model. In 2016 he estimated that CO2 would be 424ppm, whereas only 404 pm has been observed, but it didn’t do too bad for 30 years of forecasting! You try forecasting something 30 years ahead, nitwit.

    Chart Source – Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?

    Not too shabby!

    • Replies: @Kermit
  303. @Desert Fox

    Air war college
    Air command and Staff college

    Weather as force multiplier

    Owning the weather 2025

    published 1996

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  304. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Such habitual falsehoods indicates that your agenda fits with the 👿Father of Lies👿. But at least you know whooz yo daddy.

    And yet the planet still warms. Here’s the latest monthly update from NASA’s GISTEMP:

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  305. Anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:

    Oh, don’t say that, some people on this site will worship her for being related to an alleged victim of Jewish ritual killing 🙂

  306. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Chemtrails, HAARP, bah! It’s UFOs!

    “My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming…”

    Aliens Cause Global Warming
    Michael Crichton
    Caltech Michelin Lecture | January 17, 2003

    If you read the the whole thing—which consists mostly of the standard “junk science” PR campaign from Big Tobacco—you’ll also be reassured by the good doc that second-hand smoke is just dandy for your lungs. Your T-zone will tell you!

  307. @CCR

    Greta is no more, really, than David Hogg with breasts. (Tiny ones)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  308. Kermit says:

    I need to thank you for posting those links. Now I can point to just how corrupt climate science and journalism have become. Anyone who wishes to look at actual results might want to check out what someone like Judith Curry writes. She and Nic Lewis took a look at climate models and concluded that models have exaggerated the warming from CO2 by as much as 45%. They found that the planet is much less sensitive to changes in CO2 than the models indicate. Dr. Curry also stated that the models do not include key elements of climate variability, and they are not useful in predicting how this century will turn out.

    And, for being an honest scientist, she is vilified.

    But, again, 303, I should thank you for once again showing me why I should never get into a discussion with dishonest people on the internet. The mere fact that the climate models require fudge factors to curve-fit the models to historical data tell me all I need to know about the integrity if the people doing the modeling. Anyone who knows anything about modeling chaotic systems knows this to be true.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  309. @Anonymous

    You have outed yourself as a promoter of global warming and an agent of promoting UN Agenda 21 and 2030 and an agent of the new world order.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  310. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You hit only a small percentage of PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) that science-deniers like you devote to CO2. Why did you skip over so many? Try harder!

    Screensave from search item “CO2”

    • LOL: Germanicus
  311. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    I wondered how long it would take to trot out Curry’s PRATTS.

    Fudge factors to curve-fit the models? OK, which “fudge factor” did Wally Broecker use in his 1975 model, which has proven useful, as analyzed in comment #315. You say models use fudge factors, I would like you to identify whatever fudge factor Broecker used in his extremely primitive model. Here’s his original:

    • Troll: Germanicus
    • Replies: @Kermit
  312. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Repeat your lies for the 15th time, if you wish. I suggest you get a squeaky little prayer wheel from Tibet, and let it accomplish your repetitive nonsense for you. Automation is great!

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  313. @Shadow

    Hey Shadow, you and I are on the same sheet of music, ha ha ha, as far as our druthers go.
    This afternoon I had a rehersal session with my guitar man (he plays an original Kalamazoo Gibson), myself winds sax/flute. We did amongst others, “I can’t give you anthing but love”, “Autumn Leaves”, “Have you met Miss Jones” , ” C’est si bon”,”After you’ve gone” , old standard warhorses, but they are still great melodies, and good changes to solo over.
    Best wishes and keep swinging.


    • Replies: @Shadow
  314. Kermit says:

    Ha! Actually, I’m glad you posted that, 303. That has to be one of the dumbest replies I’ve ever seen.

    Just more smoke and mirrors.

    I picture you as Adam Schiff. Then everything here makes sense.

    At least you got me laughing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  315. Wavelet says:

    Anonymous-troll believes “sceptical-science” debunks or disproves something, but that is nowhere happening. In reality they just state a different and usually wrong opinion. The alleged nr 1 myth is no myth at all, but they need to attack this the most because with that goes all the rest of their deceptions. However, it should be formulated in a striker way: “There is not a single modern climate property or phenomenon that is outside of the range of natural variability”

    As there is none, it needed to be invented, most famous example is the “Hockey-Stick”. Michael Mann and his copycat fraudsters cherry-pick data from different sources to get Hockey-Stick shapes.
    Modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped:
    Temperature data continuously needs to be manipulated because it is not warming enough, for hundreds of examples see.

    The anonymous-troll illustrates the main methods of the climate bullies quite well. Shaming language and using deceptive or outright invented graphs. Examples:
    comment 26: the models are running hot, that is usually not even disputed by Warmists, here it can be seen that Roy Spencer did not just shift the temperature curve:

    comment 109: the Satellite picture of Desert-Ireland is a complete joke, the greening from co2 real. example study:, more info here:
    comment 182: looks scary, but the the animation has no other purpose than to deceive. Less than 0,01% of the total ice sheet of Greenland is melting every year.

    It would be interesting to known what the “CO2 sensitivity” actually is, but it does not really matter much. Important is that there is no increase in extreme weather. Not drought, heat, flooding, hurricane, etc. None. The best proof to see that there is no climate crisis is the lack of sea level rise acceleration: Take a look at any long-term tide gauge – they are flat. (The different constant rates are because the land/continents can sink and rise differently.) If there is no acceleration in some of them, there is none anywhere else, as the oceans are connected vessels. End of Story. Well, almost. There are several papers that claim to have found the elusive, dangerous sea level rise acceleration. But instead of proofing anything about sea level rise this rather is further proof that some “climate scientists” are corrupt crooks.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  316. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    You’d make a good shyster attorney for an arsonist with your line, “Judge, we have established that forest fires have been caused by natural ignition sources for millennia. Thus, if nature can do it, that unequivocally proves that my client cannot be guilty. We solemnly present to the court a study how natural lightning causes forest fires. ”

  317. @Anonymous

    “Here’s a primer on interpolation…”

    It’s not about interpolation but about your failed attempts at misdirection. Once again you dodged the main question and failed to explain what that polar graph of modeled Arctic region temperatures are supposed to prove, within the overall context. I suggest you consider participating in the Greta Cult’s upcoming mass suicide initiative.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  318. Richard P says:

    It’s ironic how the climate debate has become as controversial as the JQ.

    Let me divert this conversation to another similar topic and one that “child crusaders” such as Greta herself should be addressing in the West.

    The obesity crisis in the USA and UK. The obesity rate for the USA is nearly 35 percent nationwide and several of states are pushing 40 percent. West Virginia and Mississippi have rates that exceed 39 percent. Colorado, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia are the healthiest. Colorado is the only state with an obesity rate below 25 percent — and it’s still dismissal as it’s roughly 22 percent.

    “Adult obesity rates now exceed 35% in nine states, 30% in 31 states and 25% in 48 states. Mississippi and West Virginia have the highest adult obesity rate at 39.5% and Colorado has the lowest at 23%. Between 2017 and 2018, the adult obesity rate increased in Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, and Utah, decreased in Alaska, and remained stable in the rest of states and D.C.”

    Now let’s examine substance abuse — especially smoking as several have commented on earlier in this thread.

    While cigarette smoking is down in the USA, vaping is skyrocketing. “Freedom” has created an extremely degenerative and unhealthy populace in the USA. And then there’s the out of control meth and heroin epidemics across the nation — especially in states such as Missouri where Independence is the known meth capitol of the country.

    When it comes to health and ridding one’s nation of degeneracy, I suggest looking East to Russia and one would quickly notice the positive contributions of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).

    Over the last five years, alcohol consumption is down by between 43 and 80 percent — depending on who’s figures you look at. According to the Orthodox Church and Russian Minister of Health, 80 percent. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 43 percent.

    As for smoking, Moscow further enhanced their smoking ban to include balconies.

    GMOs, preservatives, and artificial ingredients are banned throughout most of Europe and Russia. Finding an obese native Central European, Eastern European, or Russian citizen is like finding a needle in a haystack.

    But that’s not the case here in the West, is it? Yet we have a spoiled and naive “child crusader” scolding us with her demands on how destructive “climate change” is to our environment.

    No Greta, what’s destructive to our environment are the degenerative cancers that Western society has succumbed to. Cancers such as capitalism, consumerism, materialism, modernism, globalism, nihilism, universalism, egalitarianism, cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, individualism, secularism, Zionism, and many more.

    Oswald Spengler had it right in his masterpiece, The Decline of the West.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  319. @Anonymous

    Your arrogant replies reveal you as a charlatan for the global warming scam.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  320. @Patrikios Stetsonis

    Oh Patrikiouli mou.
    Lots of nuts in Jew York.

  321. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    First, who said that? I’ve already addressed and quoted in comment #59 that something fairly similar to that has been said, but that you are twisting words and misrepresenting the original statement, just as badly as Liddle Adam Schiff twisted Trump’s words to the Ukranian president. All you’re doing is proving that you have the moral integrity of Nancy Pelosi.

  322. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    • You, one minute: Various dubious schemes of interpolation
    • You, the next minute: It’s not about interpolation

    You’re a two-faced man, unstable in all his ways.

  323. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kolya Krassotkin

    Who knows, she might get saved tomorrow, and then you’re on the shit list.

    • LOL: Kolya Krassotkin
  324. peterAUS says:

    If you don’t have time to read a 2000 word blog post, here are the basics of talking to a Climate Change Zealot (don’t continue the conversation if the CCZ can’t complete a step):

    1. Agree that the climate changes
    2. Ask for one specific policy proposal
    3. Ask how much that specific policy proposal will cost
    4. Ask how much doing nothing will cost
    5. Ask for peer-reviewed journal articles supporting the hypothesis that this specific policy proposal will have the desired outcome
    6. Contact me if you meet a CCZ who completes step 5!

    ….people who can be characterized by five basic behaviors:

    They do not differentiate between climate change (i.e. Earth’s climate has always been and will always be changing, regardless of human activity) and Climate Change (i.e. the amount that humans are adding – which may or may not be negligible – on top of the lower case climate change that was already happening).

    Anything bad that happens, from a hurricane to a plane crash to a bad date, can and will be tied to Climate Change.

    Environmentalism is their religion and not believing in Climate Change is a heresy. Since they don’t differentiate between climate change and Climate Change (see number 1 above), your heresy of daring to question Climate Change will be ridiculed in a manner that would make both Torquemada and Alinsky proud.

    Last and most important, WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! By “we,” they mean government, and by “do something about it,” they mean spend money on it. So properly translated from Climate Change Zealot into English, GOVERNMENT MUST SPEND MONEY ON IT!

    My bold.

    • Replies: @Richard P
    , @Anonymous
  325. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    No more mention of those “fudge factors” from you! Why is that? Can’t find any in the original model in which the term “global warming” was coined? (Broecker, 1975) Can you look harder? I’m very keen to sniff out these “fudge factors” that you loudly proclaim “massage” the data.

  326. Shadow says:

    Nice! Haven’t played in a couple of years but still have my kit. Slingerland 1988, with the 16″&18″ floor toms. Ludwig 10 lug snare, picolo and pre Ludwig wood snare. And all my PA gear, guitars, etc. Cleaning up my property to sell and escape the People’s Republic of California. We had the worst snowstorm in 50 years last Feb. Trees down everywhere. In 1968, was the last time in snowed like that. Of course, I was a kid then and loved being out of school. Which, by the way, we didn’t have AC and sometimes had to wear coats to class. Old age ain’t for sissys.

  327. Climate alarmists are minions of the Antichrist and Supremacists. Their culture of death involves the culling/depopulation of humanity. They want to “save the world” by implementing wars and the Globohomo initiative. Their first targets for extermination are the weakest and the most vulnerable. It wasn’t enough, however, to promote and implement state-sanctioned abortion, sodomy and usury throughout the entire world. They are now promoting the eating of human flesh and babies. Ask yourselves who has what to gain by hijacking a comments section and making it more difficult to find articles and videos like the ones linked below?

    ‘Swedish Behavioral Scientist Introduces Eating Human Flesh At Food Conference As Emergency Measure For Climate Change’ –

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  328. eah says:

    “carbon tax”

    • Replies: @eah
  329. Shadow says:

    I’d like to comment on tobacco use. There were studies done in the 60s&70s. They tried to give rats cancer from tobacco. The equivalent of 200 cigarettes/day. It failed to give them cancer. The studies did find that something in the tobacco gave rats a certain immunity to radiation. Before ww2, close to half the population of the US smoked, with a very low incidence of cancer. Not until the rise of atomic weapons and the petrochemical industries do we find cancer on the rise. I’ve been down many rabbit holes doing research. Not everything is as it seems. I’m not going to cite these studies or other research. That’s your job. If you decide to accept it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  330. Richard P says:

    Yes, precisely. Environmentalism is in fact their religion. I once dated a woman who fell into this camp. While great in many of ways, there was absolutely no doubt that she was heavily indoctrinated by this cult-like movement. She was a raw vegan and while I respected her choices for heath reasons, I despised her choices for animal “rights”. She was a world-class mountaineer and her looks garnered a significant amount of attention from men, but behind closed doors, her fellow activists were plotting — and executing — operations to poison meat in grocery stores throughout Boulder, Colorado. I don’t believe that my ex ever took part in one of these operations, but she fully supported such action and was a fervent environmental activist. These same groups were also responsible for disrupting and forcing the Neighborhood Market Walmart to pull out of Boulder after only being open for about a year.

    Moreover, her vision for Boulder was to have all motor vehicles banned from not only ownership, but also entry into the metro.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  331. peterAUS says:
    @Richard P


    Wait. Re-read.

    ….behind closed doors, her fellow activists were plotting — and executing — operations to poison meat in grocery stores throughout Boulder, Colorado. I don’t believe that my ex ever took part in one of these operations,….



    Ahm……good luck.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Richard P
  332. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    Did you know people can do a search on and find out the truth of the studies? I found this in about 4 seconds, that covers several those old experiments you mention.

    IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2004. (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No. 83.) 3, Carcinogenicity Studies in Experimental Animals. Available from:

    Go read it. Some excerpts, compared to your idiotic statement above, likely parroting Big Tobacco PR horseshit:

    Shadow: “The equivalent of 200 cigarettes/day.
    Study: “…rodents were exposed to the smoke of seven to 10 cigarettes per day on 5–7 days per week (Dalbey et al., 1980; Wehner et al., 1981)”

    Shadow: “It failed to give them cancer.”
    Study: “Laryngeal cancer occurred nearly five times more frequently in strain BIO® 15.16, however, and two animals of this strain developed nasopharyngeal tumours. The incidences of tumours at locations other than the respiratory tract were similar in the two strains (Bernfeld et al., 1974).”


    • Replies: @Shadow
  333. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Am I acting too white for your ghetto tastes?

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  334. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:

    > Earth’s climate has always been and will always be changing, regardless of human activity

    That’s the #1 PRATT. Which is just as stupid as a lawyer saying in court, “Judge, we have established that forest fires have been caused by natural ignition sources for millennia. Thus, if nature can do it, that unequivocally proves that my client cannot be guilty.”

    So you didn’t get very far, did you, shyster? Want to start over with something more believable for the jury?

  335. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:

    I trust you judge all religions with the same standard, i.e., taking the worst behavior of one of the adherents, and making that representative of the whole religion. Mostly, I see that sort of game played by Douchey Neckbeard Atheists judging Christianity. Since nobody but Douchey Neckbeard Atheist fulminate against religions like that, it pretty much proves you’re a Douchey Neckbeard Atheist. How many fedoras are in your closet?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  336. @Anonymous

    This is interesting, how did anonymous 303 become 339, thought this was not allowed on UNZ ie using 2 handles for the same person, or are you an imposter, either way what a childish reponse.

  337. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Baptist

    “Take eat, this is my body,” and, “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” And get this, it’s not just eating corpses in an emergency, it’s human sacrifice! “Christ our passover lamb has been sacrificed.” Ask yourself, whose crazier, Swedish meatball climate alarmists, or the cultists of ancient Jewish storytellers. Anyway, it makes me glad I’m packin’ heat, just in case these flesh-eating weirdos start loosing their cool, which is a likely result of of global warming.

  338. peterAUS says:

    ….t pretty much proves you’re a Douchey Neckbeard Atheist….

    It does? O.K.

    How many fedoras are in your closet?

    None. Is that good or bad? In your BOOK.

    Now…..what if I were a “Gray Goatee Agnostic”? Not sure about “douchey” but your call/either way.
    Just for the sake of…ahm…conversation… here.

    Here we go………………………………………

  339. Richard P says:

    Indeed. You can learn more about these “operations” by conducting some simple research. Several of the perps were caught and arrested a couple of years ago. I believe that it was either Lucky’s Market or Sprout’s that were victimized. The Boulder Daily Camera covered the story.

    Furthermore, a couple of years ago I was patronizing a well-known coffee shop off of Baseline. While working, I overheard a conversation among a large group of middle aged adults who were discussing how evil Wal Mart is and how they were going to stage protests directly outside of the store in order to distrupt their business. Their reasons for labeling Wal Mart as “evil” appeared to be soley based on the fact that much of the produce wasn’t GMO free and came from commercialized farms who practiced “unethical” farming methods — and that this particular store had absolutely no business being in Boulder.

    This was around the time that Walmart Neighborhood Market moved into Boulder in order to provide the lower income populace [Hispanic groundskeepers and such] a place to purchase groceries. None of these Hispanics lived in Boulder and despite all of the calls for “diversity” by the limousine liberals who make up a significant portion of the town’s populace, Boulderites sure did whatever they could to keep the diversity out in typical leftist fashion.

    • Replies: @Anon
  340. georgia.e says:

    Whenever, where-ever, youth protest for whatever reason, all I can hear them shout, all I can read on their banners is “I want to live!”

  341. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:

    > comment 109: the Satellite picture of Desert-Ireland is a complete joke,

    No, it’s not a joke, it is representative of the changes in plants that satellites observe from space. The picture on the right is Ireland in a drought the next year, which shows much less green, and more brown.

    > the greening from co2 real.

    Not any more. Up to 1998, additional CO2 did green the Earth. Now, because CO2 is heating the earth, plants are becoming water stressed, and the earth is most definitely not getting more green. The earth’s plants are getting more brown. Here’s the NDVI satellite data, analyzing two different date ranges, pre-1998, and post-1999:

    Basically, your juvenile “everything-is-awesome” shtick has run out of steam. It’s hilarious that you acknowledge humans are changing the whole globe with CO2, but are willing to cherrypick only positive consequences of our evaporating earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere, while you childishly ignore any negative consequences.

  342. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:

    > Trump does not mention of CO2.

    Wrong. Do you really think he didn’t mean CO2-caused global warming when he signed this, Mr. Word-Weasel?

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

    /s/ Donald J. Trump (2009)

    An Ad Trump Signed Supporting Action on Climate Change

    Trump obviously believes in human caused (by CO2) global warming, because he says so, made such a statement, and signed his name to that unequivocal statement.

    • Replies: @Wally
  343. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:

    Anthony Watts, among other professional deniers running same science-smearing campaign Big Tobacco did, are scammers. Here’s the dossier on the charlatan Anthony Watts. Notice his credentials; he couldn’t even manage to graduate college:

    Anthony Watts

    One of the more clever denier websites is “notrickszone” which has a list of ~400 or so real scientific papers on the solar cycle influence on climate, which several deniers here on UNZ have breathlessly referenced to. It’s so stupid to posit them as denying climate science, because no climate scientist denies the effects of solar cycles on the climate.

    In perspective, this is how influential solar cycles are. See that squiggly orange -colored line labeled solar irradiance? See it? It’s kind of small, isn’t it? The notrickzone morons try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    Forcings in GISS Climate Models

    • Agree: james charles
  344. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    More and more people are catching on to…global warming science being valid. FIFY! 🙂

    The only people denying global warming are the lower-IQ half the the Stupid Party. These doltards behave as disruptively in conversations on science as a pack of feral Negroes behave in an English language classroom, for much the same reason, they lack the mental faculties to grasp more difficult subjects like science. And like feral Negroes, they resent their intellectual betters.

    The higher-IQ half (52% to be exact, myself included) of the Stupid party is on board with the scientific evidence.

    More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
    New polls suggest Republicans’ views on global warming may be at a tipping point.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  345. @Anonymous

    So now anonymous 303 is 339 and 116, interesting.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  346. Anonymous[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    It’s actually super boring, just my being on different servers while at a waterpark resort this weekend with my wife and children. The moderators know I am posting under the same email identifier, and can observe that I’m not trying to cheat the 4x/h rule. But the mundane doesn’t keep the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party from trying to effect an @Jack style deplatfoming coup attempt, since you’re so inept at higher subjects like science.

    Why can’t you stay on topic? Hey, got an easy question for you….What melts ice? Even the Trump Administration publicly admits the Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral. Do you disagree with Trump?

    You won’t admit what melts ice, because that leads to a scientific inquiry into why exactly all this extra heat is now being retained on our beautiful Earth. You consider such scientific facts as HATE FACTS, just like @Jack.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  347. So now you are 110, however do you know what you really are, you are a charlatan for the scam of global warming, and your attempts to make it seem like more people are for this scam are failing, you are an imposter!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  348. utu says:

    Voice of reason and common sense: Nobel Prize winner and physicist Ivar Giaever

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  349. Anonymous[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    It’s most certainly not a scam, but a reality as evidenced by scientific observation. However, the Stupid Party, which abdicated its birthright to the Cathedral’s realm of science at the Scope Monkey Trial, no longer has a seat at the table of policy making based on scientific facts.

    That is why I advocate accepting scientific evidence, so that Conservatives can sit at the table and have a credible voice in making policy. I would love to watch Trump capture the global warming flag with a tweet proclaiming, “America must preserve her resources to mitigate extreme weather events from global warming; no more immigration!”

    You evidently do not love your own nation, because you wish to keep losing to the Leftist, and prefer to suck on a pacifier of magical thinking based on bronze-age fables about creation* told by Jewish storytellers. That’s SAD!

    * 2009 Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, a Creationist (“intelligent design”) denial of science, claiming that the consortium of gods, Elohim, have make-believe “infinite power” (like juvenile power-rangers!!!) over the climate these deities spoke into being with their word-magic in Genesis. Even the serial liar Roy Spencer, in charge of UAH satellite data, signed it, and comically rejects rational deductions from his own data.

  350. @Anonymous

    By the way 110, 116, 303, 339, you have destroyed any credibility for your posts by being a charlatan and an imposter.

  351. Anonymous[110] • Disclaimer says:

    The risibility of your juvenile name-calling is exceeded only by your cowardice in considering what melts ice.

    Sadly, you got your science-man-bad playbook from the orange-man-bad team.

  352. peterAUS says:

    Hehe…so….guys, have you, finally, started to realize there is, really, just one way to deal with a type you are presented here?

    True, it takes a bit of experience to recognize it, but, once you’ve done it that’s pretty much it.
    One of the nice things about this online pub is the ability to practice that skill. This example is rather good for the purpose.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  353. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    My critics need more than vague insinuations to stop me. Same with Trump’s.

    Trump’s critics need more than vague insinuations to stop him

    What’s melting ice around the globe, buddy? The only way you can stop moi is to provide a better model that explains why all this extra heat is being retained to cause, e.g., the death spiral of Arctic sea ice.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  354. LP says:

    To various Anonymous XXX posts:

    1) Arctic death spiral:
    Yeah, sure there will be no ice 2008, err 2012, err 2018 err whatever…

    There is no ‘death spiral’ in the data:

    2) Solar forcing:
    “In perspective, this is how influential solar cycles are. See that…”
    GISS models climate forcing… When was GISS able to model the past?
    No GISS is ‘modellin’ past temperatures :D, GISS values change over time cooling the past:

    3) Greening the Earth: Wavelet gave a 400 words post where he rationally explained several points why there is no reason to panic, the data is within normal variations parameters, you just answered one sentence from it with a post about 1999-2015 when we know the global temperature did not rise.
    “because CO2 is heating the earth, plants are becoming water stressed”
    It is the other way around, CO2 increases plants resistance to droughts.
    Change in leaf area 1982-2015:

    The world is greener 2000-2017:

    4) Temperatures are not abnormal high. Greenland was warmer during the medieval warm period, vikings grew barley in Greenland:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  355. Greta would fare poorly in 17th Century Salem Massachusetts

  356. Shadow says:

    Forgive me hijacking the thread, but I must respond to 339. The studies you cited ate flawed. First, they use rats/hamsters that are bred with a susceptibility to the same cancers they’re looking for. That seems dishonest and disingenuous. How about using wild rats/hamsters? Then, through repeatable controlled experiments, we arrive at an honest conclusion. Given enough money and a laboratory, I could raise dogs with recessive genes and prove that meat is bad for them. Or that the sun rises in the west. Also second hand smoke can not be proven for the alarming rise in non smoking cancers, even if you tried. So, your studies are bullshit too. Thank you for your time and interest.

  357. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:

    1. Your data from JAXA isn’t sea ice volume, it’s sea ice extent. But even September minimum sea ice extent, as show in your JAXA graph, is half of what it was in the 80’s. That’s a death spiral.

    2. That is serial liar Tony Heller’s graphic. How Tony is flat-0ut lying with that graph is explained here. Yes, GISS has adjusted their data to be more accurate, and the following graph shows the differences in the versions. Of course, if you don’t believe me, you can check the publicly available data here:

    3. We’re on the downside of peak-green. Everybody knows the extra CO2 made the earth greener, at least for a while. It’s now getting perceptibly browner, according to the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index ( NDVI ) satellite. Of course, you can still say that earth is greener than 1985. But it’s less green than 2000. Here’s the graph:

    4. They grow barley in Greenland right now, as well as potatoes, turnips. Also raise sheep.

    “It was cold when [the Vikings] got there and it was cold when they left.” -Nicolas Young of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

    Did the Medieval Warm Period welcome Vikings to Greenland?
    Earth Magazine | American Geosciences Institute

  358. LP says:

    @ Anonymous[116]
    “1. Your data from JAXA isn’t sea ice volume, it’s sea ice extent.”

    Yes, volume is not direct measured but extend. It is almost funny to see how PIOMAS (modelling sea ice volume) has to redraw their graphs to accommodate for the no longer shrinking sea ice and still keep the illusion of downwards trend.

    “But even September minimum sea ice extent, as show in your JAXA graph, is half of what it was in the 80’s. That’s a death spiral.”
    It matters when one starts measuring. ’79 was a cold period. There are satellite measurement before that which show an increase ’73-’79

    Since about one decade and a half the extend is stationary. That is not a death spiral.

    2. Oh well, the orwellian named skeptical science site.
    Their arguments?
    a) first personal attack – is not a climate scientist. As if only a climate scientist could draw a graph from data.
    “His qualifications are a Bachelors degree in Geology, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering. ”
    b) “Heller’s giff does not demonstrate any significant change in values. Rather, it exhibits a change in the range of the y-axis from -0.6 to 0.8 for “NASA 2001” to approximately -0.85 to 1 for “NASA 2015″. ”
    Nice to see confirmed that Toni is using NASA’s own data and NASA’s own graphs and let everybody judge if this is significant or not when such changes happen to historical data.
    “apparent change in trend” – lol
    ” even though the available history of adjustments results in a net reduction in the trend of the last two decades of the 20th century, not an increase.”
    He is not arguing that the trend was increased. That is a strawman argument.
    What the graph is showing is the elimination of natural variation that will accommodate the narrative of a continuous rising in temperature more suitable with a CO2 influencing the climate story which is not what the real data is, but the adjusted data shows.

    3) “Of course, you can still say that earth is greener than 1985. But it’s less green than 2000.”
    Not true. I posted you the NASA graph from 2000-2017 which shows clear greening in perfect alignment with what science says:

    4) from your own article:
    “The timing coincides with the Medieval Warm Period, a time of mild temperatures well documented in Europe between 950 and 1250”

    The article argues that:
    “Young says. “The Medieval Warm Period is very well documented in Europe, but it wasn’t global. In fact, warming in Europe often coincides with cooler conditions in Greenland as more cold air gets pulled out of the Arctic and funnels through Baffin Bay.” ”
    That is a working hypothesis of this group. Others differ:
    I tend to agree with them. Svensmark’s theory makes sense to me, the CO2 driving the climate not.
    During ice ages CO2 followed temperature, clearly documented in the ice cores.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  359. Anyone who buys into the CO2 nonsense fails bravely the idiot test for mental retards.
    The CO2 mafia’s heroine is a mentally disabled girl, who do you think their target audience is? The mentally challenged I suggest, and the weakest, Children.

    Without CO2 there would be no life on this planet, and the CO2 mafia sell it to you as a poison, they want to sell indulgences on CO2. It is a taxation on breathing air.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  360. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard P

    > It’s ironic how the climate debate has become as controversial as the JQ. | Yeah, about that…

    …Zionists rank the lowest in accepting science, and nation of Zionist Christians is nearly as low as the Jews they worship. The Asian Tiger Moms of S. Korea and Japan sure aren’t Joowzed; neither is Obama’s fam.

  361. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    Mass movements of True Believers often make the childish their target audience. Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Greta. How do you propose attenuating these mass movements of immature minds?

  362. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    1. > volume is not direct measured | You’re lying. Go read how PIOMAS does direct observation, including CryoSat radar measurements and from subs breaking through the ice and measuring it.

    2. No, Tony Heller is blatantly misrepresenting NASA GISTEMP data. Tony Heller is such an embarrassing liar to even the denialists, that Anthony Watts fired him from writing on his website. You may as well be touting the work of Bernie Madoff.

    3. You can’t read a simple chart. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index ( NDVI ) from two different satellite data shows earth greened from 1982 to a peak of ~1998. After that, it has leveled off and started browning, although still being greener than when first observed. If you (or NASA) want to assert that the earth is greener than 1982, that’s still true, but the greening effect has peaked, leveled off, and is in slow decline, i.e,, browning.

    4. There was indeed a Medieval Warm Period, but you’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with it. And no, CO2 doesn’t lag temp. That last PRATT has already been refuted in my comment #37, with a graph proving your assertion wrong. If you want to learn something, go take a gander.

  363. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Patrikios Stetsonis

    George Carlin’s wry humor goes right over the heads of the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party. Carlin actually acknowledges AGW as being true. So can you pack of inept liars stop misrepresenting him?

    “I look at it this way… For centuries now, man has done everything he can to destroy, defile, and interfere with nature: clear-cutting forests, strip-mining mountains, poisoning the atmosphere, over-fishing the oceans, polluting the rivers and lakes, destroying wetlands and aquifers… so when nature strikes back, and smacks him on the head and kicks him in the nuts, I enjoy that. I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it’s natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse.”

    Life Is Worth Losing (2006)

  364. @Anonymous

    So , now you are 110,116, 303, 339 and 683, a true deceiver.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @mark green
  365. LP says:


    “1. > volume is not direct measured | You’re lying. Go read how PIOMAS does direct observation, including CryoSat radar measurements and from subs breaking through the ice and measuring it. ”

    Before accusing somebody of lying do your homework.
    “PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations..”

    Assimilating some kind of observations is not a graph based on measured data.

  366. LP says:

    Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    October 6, 2019 at 6:03 pm GMT • 200 Words
    “Tony Heller is blatantly misrepresenting NASA GISTEMP data.”

    It is very easy to prove you are not right:

    In the gif I posted ( October 5, 2019 at 11:08 pm GMT ) from Toni are the 2 graph of NASA GISTEMP superimposed.
    No graph has been changed. Those are the original 2 NASA graphs aligned for years and temperature anomaly.

    First is from 1999 fig 6:
    The second is from 2017:

    Both documented on Toni’s site.
    Historical data should not change.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  367. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Yours is yet another example of banal stupidity; I have no control over the number; Unz changes the number. I’m not sure how Unz’s website determines the number, but it changes if I shut off my computer or change locations, and have a pretty good idea why, but we’ll see if you can divine it. The lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party is as disruptive in a discussion of science as a pack of feral Negroes would be in an English Lit classroom. Thus, it is no surprise you remain incapable of considering a question like, what melts ice?

    Pastoruri glacier in 1986, 2001 and 2012. Photograph: National Water Authority, Peru/Guardian

  368. @Desert Fox

    The warmist community is full of loud and arrogant charlatans. Why are they so obsessed with CO2? CO2 gives life.

    There have been many epochs in Earth’s history with the PPM of CO2 were considerably higher than now, and life flourished.

    Also, for over 30 years (1945 to 1976 approx) global atmospheric CO2 increased annually yet atmospheric temperatures declined.

    Dear Warmist: Why did this happen?

    Do not change the subject. Answer the question, please.

    Other natural forces obviously play a bigger role our planet’s climate than one trace atmospheric gas (CO2). Those forces are still with us.

    Do the warmists deny this?

    If not, then why not discuss this phenomena as well as its implications? Try this for starters: climate is immensely complex and chaotic.

    How does any scientist separate global warming from anthropogenic global warming?

    I hear crickets

    Why do the warmists keep making predictions which fail?

    Shouldn’t warmists be held accountable for dire predictions which consistently DO NOT COME TRUE?

    In summary, the warmist cult is similar to the neocons. They are powerful and united but they keep getting it wrong. Further, their ‘remedies’ for various ‘crises’ cause real harm to outsiders (individuals and industries not in the cult.)

    Lastly, like the neocons, the warmists demonize those who dare to doubt their status and expertise. We are the true skeptics, yet they smear us as ‘deniers’.

    Maybe, like bad/evil ‘Holohoax deniers’, the warmists want to put us in prison or in re-education camps.

    Warmists are a dangerous and dishonest cult, prone to certitude-driven extremism.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @Anonymous
  369. LP says:

    Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    October 6, 2019 at 6:03 pm GMT • 200 Words
    “3. You can’t read a simple chart”

    You have posted no link to a scientific publication but a picture painted red showing 0.005 changes, pretending it shows satellite data 1999-2015.

    I have answered with a broader view and link from NASA that covers 2000-2017 and suddenly the picture changes again to green (5% greener per NASA)

    Is this clear? Do you understand?

    Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    4. “And no, CO2 doesn’t lag temp. That last PRATT has already been refuted in my comment #37, with a graph proving your assertion wrong. If you want to learn something, go take a gander.”

    From your link #37
    based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

    Again: “CO2 follows changes in temperature by about 600 to 1000 years .
    Is this clear?

    Yes, the alarmists are arguing that CO2 is adding to the warming in a feedback, this is a different story.
    Look at the data from the site you posted, at the previous warming. CO2 remained in high concentration for several thousand to 10 thousand years at about 130000-120000 years before present whilst the temperature plummeted to very cold.
    Does this show like the climate driver?

    As your tone is far from polite, to put it mildly, I will not answer further posts from you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  370. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    I did my homework on PIOMAS, and you’re still lying, because (1) you don’t understand basic English, and (2) you have no clue about scientific models. That’s the nature of the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party.

  371. @mark green

    Global warming is being pushed by UN Agenda 21 and 2030 to deindustrailize America and this goes hand in hand with the elites open borders agenda, another UN sponsored deal and all of this is for their goal of a satanic zionist new world order.

    NASA has reports that debunk global warming and reports that CO2 actually acts as a coolant in the upper atmosphere and a recent report by NASA states climate change occurs because of changes in the earths solar orbit and not because of man.

    The government has been spraying chemtrails in the skies of America for over 30 years by my own observation and these chemtrails contain nano particles of aluminum and barium and strontium which are toxic and are going into the air we breathe , the water we drink and the soil we grow our crops in , and these chemtrails are poisoning our earth, but they say they are doing it to block the suns rays to help cool the earth, but actually they are doing it to enable HAARP to ionize the atmosphere to guide hurricanes, tornadoes and in general to control the weather, this is insane!

    For more information on chemtrails and HAARP go to and

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  372. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    The data didn’t change, but with more stations, you get more data. Tony Heller tries to fool you into thinking NASA’s GISTEMP database and methods are not publicly available knowledge:

    Additionally, the amount of raw data and its quality have also increased as more data has been digitized and quality controlled. The station data sources over the years were:
    NOAA/NCDC’s GHCN v27200 stations (1999)
    Official release: GHCN v426,000 stations (6/2019)

  373. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    > your tone is far from polite

    That’s hilarious. You accuse me of being a liar, I simply show that you’re a liar who is also stupid. Cry me a river, snowflake. And now you’re demonstrating even more stupidity, because you’re cherry-picking my reference and deliberately misrepresenting what it says. You’re deliberately lying, and ineptly so, because you forgot this part, the very first sentence, you lying sack-of-shit dumbass:

    “CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.”

    Climate Myth — CO2 lags temperature

    Yes, that chart shows a climate driver: CO2, initiated by other natural cycles, with CO2 being 90% of the driver of the warming cycle.

    The reason you’re running away like a coward is because you can’t take the heat, and it’s so easy to prove you’re lying. Bye Felicia.

  374. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    CO2 gives life, sure; so does water. By your idiotic thinking, that means it could never be bad and cause somebody to drown. Go on, take a long walk off a short pier. Water always gives life, dontchaknow! LOL All the rest of your moronic PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand Times), such as the mid-century cooling, I’ve already debunked previously in this thread. You’re just chasing your own tail in circles because you like to hear yourself barking.

  375. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    > NASA has reports that debunk global warming and reports that CO2 actually acts as a coolant in the upper atmosphere

    That NASA report you’re misrepresenting actually confirms a “prediction of climate change theory.” Let’s read what it actually says:

    “A fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that upper atmosphere will cool in response to greenhouse gases in the troposphere,” says Mlynczak.

    Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

    If we humans lived in the upper reaches of the atmosphere near space, we’d have a cooling problem, sure. But we live on the ground. At least most of us do. Goofy tinfoil airheads like you perhaps don’t.

    p.s. DesertFox promotes HAARP because he sells RF-resistant tinfoil hats, but he tries to memory-hole the “Aliens Cause Global Warming” I posted in #319. These tinfoil hat sellers are shady folks, and perform cattle mutilations in Argentina, which is how UFOs refuel for their methane-fueled Warp-drive, so there’s definitely an Agenda 21 cover up going by DesertFox.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  376. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    Here are the basics of science-denial:

  377. @Anonymous

    I by what I said, do some research and your arrogance says all there is to say about you.

  378. I stand by what I said, do some research and your arrogance says all there is to say about you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  379. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    You might want to study the difference between GHCH data and USHCH data. Show us the fraud. The data is publicly available. Nothing hidden. You do your homework, buddy. And remember, the US is only 2% of the surface of the globe. Making mountains out of molehills is a science-denier specialty.

    Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?
    A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data….They had no significant impact on the global mean.

    Funny how all the climate deniers assert that correcting data is bad, but when climate denier Roy Spencer adjusts the UAH satellite data through 6 versions for things like satellite orbit decay, it’s all good! Except, well, his got adjusted the wrong way for the deniers, so that’s kind of confusing, isn’t it?

  380. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Me “arrogant?” Do you feel I need to apologize for acting white? Let me know how I can make reparations to your repressed psyche, you poor dear.

    “….perceived as arrogant….”

    It’s Not “A Black Thing”: Understanding the Burden of Acting White and Other Dilemmas of High Achievement | American Sociological Review | Vol. 70, No. 4 (Aug., 2005), pp. 582-605

    You must feel very oppressed when in the presence of white folk like me who know and can quantify what melts ice.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  381. peterAUS says:
    @Desert Fox

    You are insane.

    I don’t think so.

    There is certain…how to put it….personality/character at works here, but, there is a method too.


    As I said before, there are really, just two ways to deal with it in real life and only one in “online pubs” like this.

    Hehe…I suggest taking this as a decent learning/training exercise. Online pub version, that is.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @Anonymous
  382. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Your amateur attempt at Soviet Psychiatry could be construed as a sideways compliment… And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is insane. But the only water I’ve walked on was in solid form. What’s left of it now. This fellow has been under twelve feet of ice, more miraculous than walking on the stuff, solid or otherwise…

    Just a few decades ago, ice 10 to 12 feet thick covered the North Pole, with sub-surface ice ridges in some parts of the Arctic extending down to 150 feet. Now, that ice is long gone, while the total volume of Arctic sea ice in late summer has declined, according to two estimates, by 75 percent in half a century.

    The Global Impacts of Rapidly Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice

    Ever figure out what melts such vast quantities of ice around the globe?

  383. @peterAUS

    He reminds me of a blogger on business insider when they still allowed comments, his name was Ted Schnur and he also was a rabid global warming advocate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @peterAUS
  384. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    Flooding? Are you referring to my ability to stay on topic, unlike you? Or the kind of flooding from rising sea levels, such as in Miami?

    Sea level rise is combining with other factors to regularly flood Miami

    If sea levels aren’t rising, like so many confidently claim here, I really think you global warming deniers should make a killing offering discount reinsurance. The water can’t possibly be rising from melting ice from Greenland and Antarctica, right? Will you put your money where your mouth is?

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
  385. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Well, if you can’t figure out what melts ice, at least you can obsess like a rabid bitch over every personal detail of mine, much like the infamous overly attached girlfriend! But seriously, do you have insecurity issues? The most frequent cause of insecurity is a recent failure, and there is no failure worse than being unable to figure out what melts ice. I want you to beat this insecurity you’re feeling right now. Can you take a few minutes, focus your attention on something other than moi, and look into what melts ice?

    p.s. Greta knows.

  386. peterAUS says:
    @Desert Fox

    Well….I just see the tactics as quite effective in online…ahm….debates/discussions. Look at this thread: one character only versus several, and his/its output is higher.

    There IS a method in all this.

    People, in general, are conditioned to react to quantity of input. Quality doesn’t matter here as far as an average person is concerned.
    The essence of propaganda/marketing.

    You do need a certain personality/character (or lack of it) to do that, though.
    It’s…hehe…” good fit”. The character does his/her online therapy and the agenda pushers have their foot soldiers doing the work.

    Now…those really curios and/or cynical could, perhaps, ask: what agenda is that which needs THESE types to push it?

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  387. Anon[259] • Disclaimer says:

    Not everything is as it seems, but all what be told to people is what it is, and what it is is nakedly what best enables the pursuits of the prevailing part of the élite.
    It’s been some decades that the prevailing part of the élite has been deeply hostile towards the tobacco selling élite.

  388. Anon[259] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard P

    who practiced “unethical” farming methods

    These people are nuts.
    How could something be “unethical”, that doesn’t harm you, or someone you care about?

  389. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:

    In the last five days of this comment thread, have you though or wrote of anything other than moi, peter-STAN? Could you divert just 5 minutes of your life from obsessively analyzing me, and give it a whirl to answer the question, What melts ice?


    p.s. Greta knows. For all her many and grievous faults analyzed in this comment thread, that makes her more capable and honest than you. That’s gotta hurt.

  390. @Desert Fox

    No, every comment by Anonymous is 100% correct, he is using scientic fact to hand you your ass on a plate. It is very amusing watching him being swarmed by a dozen IQ 80 mind controlled dolts all braying like jackasses “Global warming is a hoax” as he, all alone against many, cuts the lot of you into lunch meat. Anonymous is grounded in reality, assclowns braying “Global warming is a hoax” live in a fuzzy headed fantasy world. I myself don’t need a Climate Scientist to convince me that Global Warming Is Not A Hoax, I can step outside. For the past 19 years I have directly witnessed the climate of SW Ontario go from harsh long winters of five months duration to short very mild winters, only January and February might be called “cold” if you want to stretch the meaning of the word(we have RAIN in January the last five years!!!), and March, which in the 20th century had the heaviest snowfall, is now the start of Spring. 20th century Summer was just June and July, with leaves beginning to show colors in mid-August, now Summer lasts for 7 months(April-October inclusive) with heat-stroke producing temperatures. 20th century Fall had all the leaves dropping first week of September, now we have no Fall, and there are green leaves lasting till mid-December. Dont go looking for “beautiful Fall colours” we have none. Nope, don’t need no Climate Scientist to convince me Global Warming Is Not A Hoax, I live in reality and it does the convincing. Now, IQ 80 Assclowns, its time to wake up from your fantasy world and accept reality, not that I think you will, nor do I really care.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  391. @Anonymous

    Arigato Sensei, you are a martial artist of the mind. Reading your “exchange” with these mind controlled dolts is like watching a good samurai film, where one impeccable swordsman is attacked by a dozen moronic assholes, and he deftly cuts all twelve to ribbons.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  392. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:

    Bombercommand says:
    October 7, 2019 at 2:51 am GMT • 300 Words

    No, every comment by Anonymous is 100% correct, he is using scientic fact to hand you your ass on a plate. It is very amusing watching him being swarmed by a dozen IQ 80 mind controlled dolts all braying like jackasses “Global warming is a hoax” as he, all alone against many, cuts the lot of you into lunch meat.

    Yes scientic fact is all he has, science not so much.
    As low IQ talk and ad-hominem is all over the thread…
    Anonymous looks to me like an arrogant individuum not able to read more then the headlines. From IQ looks rather average IQ, 98 maximum I would say.
    Your comment is either a sock puppet of himself to help digest the severe blows he received or an even lower IQ character, probably 88 to 92.

    It is not the one that screams louder all over the thread that is right and not the one that puts the last comment that wins the discussion.
    Anonymous and you do not seem to have understood that, even worse, do not seem to be able to understand it.

    Let me give an example.
    If CO2 would be the climate driver as our AXXX says then the high CO2 in the atmosphere after Eemian would have kept the planet warm, or at least slowed down the cooling.
    I have pointed this to AXXX at #384 however he was not able to digest that point. All he can do is repeat and post from other sites ignoring what he does not understand.

    What happens when the planet is warming? Well CO2 is slowly degassed from the oceans. The oceans will continue to degass CO2 as long as parts of the ocean come to the surface and get warmer. The ocean is huge, it takes long. An interglacial is short, about 10k years, by the time it gets colder the oceans are still degassing, then start to absorb CO2. This is what we see in the ice cores.
    Alarmists claim that CO2 is then responsible for 90% of the warming in an interglacial.

    No model can reproduce and interglacial with such a sensitivity.

    If it would be this, then the subsequent cooling could not have went all the way down with that much CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Are you able to digest this? Is AXXX able to digest this?
    No he is not ready and not able. It would need me many threads and a lot of post to slowly educate an average IQ and maybe never to explain to a low IQ.
    So what does a higher IQ do? Well what many in the thread have done, you don’t argue with stupid, you try to tell them once, or twice, then you give up.

    As you pointed AXXX is on a crusade. He though he won, stupid people think he won, as he undoubtedly will have the last word.
    The others do not have all the time in the world and do not follow a missionary call on a crusade.

    In the ice cores CO2 lags temperature. IT is written even on the site he is linking, yet he is still pretendind this is not the case an. Pointing to this simple sentence is not cherry picking, it is a simple fact.
    I start again laughing when I reread his comments trying to run around the corner. Yes maybe CO2 contributes to the warming, but it still lags temperature.
    And even more high CO2 concentration does not stop the planet from cooling.
    Thus CO2 is not the main driver. QED.
    How stupid can you be not to understand this simple fact?

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
    , @Anonymous
  393. lavoisier says: • Website

    I agree with your general assessment of the quality of the postings from Anonymous.

    Anonymous is clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of people to follow where the science is leading. While the science is indeed imperfect, there is more and more reason to think that the Earth is warming up and that we are contributing to that temperature increase.

    What Anonymous has to realize is that most people who are not trained in a scientific field will have a hard time understanding the arguments and do not understand how and why science works. Most importantly, conviction has no place in a scientific argument, only verifiable observations that can be used to form models and make predictions.

    With that being said, if one is going to engage in any rational discussion with others, leave out the name calling, even if you are dealing with individuals who are very closed minded and do not know enough to know that they are ignorant about the subject that they claim knowledge in.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @LP
  394. In my eyes, the biographic details of Greta don’t matter. The main thing is that the young generation follows her call for action and claims its right of survival from the political class. The numbers which she mobilizes exceed a threshold beyond which they can’t be ignored. Therefore, there is hope that it becomes a movement of no return.

    The realization of the ecological turnaround is an enterprise of immense dimensions. The climate change which is the theme of the present article, is only one of the multiple subjects related to the ecological crisis. The most important, overpopulation, has received only insufficient attention so far. Others as consumption of ressources, pollution of air, soil and water (in particular the sea) are each discussed separately. However, alltogether they form a network of interconnected factors. But we cannot change these factors brutally. This would not only be inhumane, but create increased inequality and also be counterprodutive. This means that social and cultural factors must also be included.

    A network of this type must be treated holistically. Science has developed a tool for this: Systems Theory and its popular version, Systems Thinking. Did you hear about it? Probably not, because the knowledge about this branch of science is still kept within the ivory towers of our universities. Thus, if Greta sends the politicians to the scientists, they will not yet find them responsive. They have not yet recognized that their new tool is of fundamental importance for the project “Ecological crisis”, far beyond some applications in a few special disciplines.

    As Greta has shown, the “Project” is a bottom-up effort which must be ported by all of us. However, after a century of ego-individualism, the general public is not trained for an altruistic cooperation in a large scale undertaking. Systems Thinking must become part of the basic training at all levels of education and professional training. Such programs must be adapted to the local level of knowledge. Special attention must be paid to third world countries in order to make them catch up rapidly with industrialized countries, but beware, they may have some knowledge, too, to contribute which we don’t have.

    For more details concerning my explanations refer to my website.

  395. @Christophorus

    Greta’s handlers, through her, are pushing on relentlessly in their drive towards world communism, and leftist fools such as yourself simply cannot see through this, that you are being used in the same perfidious manner as in tune with your stupidity and your own desire for world communism.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Bombercommand
  396. peterAUS says:

    ….if one is going to engage in any rational discussion with others, leave out the name calling….

    Don’t say.

    Maybe, just maybe, the objective of the “flooding” is not any “rational discussion”. It’s, perhaps, simply about feeling good by putting other people down. Among some other things.
    Online self-therapy.

    He has a good company in this pub, for sure.

    That’s for “foot soldiers”. Always the same.
    Now, for the true power, it’s more interesting.

    The very methods used against….read this..”deniers” ( rings a BELL?..) online and in reality are calling for vigilance.

    There is something deeply wrong with all this. And more “they” push, more the ordinary people will realize that.


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  397. @Anonymous

    At least you acknowledged that the planet is warming and CO2 is increasing, so we are making some progress…,….

  398. LP says:

    “Anonymous is clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of people to follow where the science is leading. “

    Correction – where he & the alarmists believes the science is leading.

    The science is not pointing towards alarmism, not pointing towards a catastrophe, global extinction and so on, no matter how hard the drums of alarmism are beating.

    Most realists do have a technical study and understand very well how science works, there are few alarmist who do it properly.
    What I found is that most alarmists use precooked answers.
    However once you asks a question that does not fit with a prepared answer they hide behind the finger, and answer with ad-hominem or ignore the argument.
    This is not how a conversation about science works.

    There were 4 points that I discussed with the Anonymous alarmist, he lost the argument on all 4 but was not capable of acknowledging it, as it does not fit his belief. Here is the problem.

    1) CO2 in historical data is lagging temperature by 600 to 1000 years. This is widely documented and recognised, even on the site that he is linking to.
    Saying that CO2 does contribute to warming does not mean it reverses the position.
    Alarmists claim that CO2 is then responsible for 90% of the consequent warming.

    How valid is this claim?
    If it would be so, how can cold come fast without the CO2 being removed from the atmosphere?

    According to them it should cool gradually about 10% no more ;), the atmosphere would lose some CO2 then cool a little bit again and so on as 90% of the warming was caused by CO2.
    It is not how it happened, therefore their claim is not valid. The cooling shows clearly that CO2 is not in the driver’s seat, as climate driver.

    2) Earth greening.
    Our alarmist claims that in the period 1999-2015 the Earth did not benefit from CO2 enrichment, therefore from now on it is only worse with more CO2.

    a) There are many thousands of scientific work that show plants do benefit from atmosphere with CO2 enriched.
    b) NASA has covered a greater period then he picked up, 2000-2017 which shows 5% greening
    c) Plants can better endure droughts in CO2 enriched atmosphere

    It is obvious CO2 enrichment continues to benefit the planet.
    Most C3 plants evolved with CO2 ppm in the thousands, it is so absurd to pretend otherwise and still… Oh well.
    How does our alarmist follow where the science is leading?
    He sees only his one chart, has no further arguments and insults.
    No, this is not how science is followed.

    3) GISS temperature charts
    I simply posted one comparison between historical data in two periods by GISS. It shows changes to historical data that support the CO2 as main driver theory.
    My personal assumption is that GISS is using their model to process the data and therefore with every new iteration the data fits more and more to the model.

    He screamed hight treason and tried to accuse Toni Heller who is the creator of the respective chart of misrepresenting the data.
    “Tony Heller is blatantly misrepresenting NASA GISTEMP data.”
    Only after several replies by me was he forced to recognise that true, the data is real, that is GISS data:
    “Funny how all the climate deniers assert that correcting data is bad, but when climate denier Roy Spencer adjusts the UAH satellite data through 6 versions for things like satellite orbit decay, it’s all good!”

    Moving the goalposts much?
    There is a different conversation about the need for adjustments, how many such are done and in what directions are the adjustments and so on, but why does one have to start with obvious lies?

    4) PIOMAS
    PIOMAS is a model that tries to model the ice volume.
    They try to incorporate as much as possible from observations, but even the authors explain it clearly as I posted above. PIOMAS is not real data but a model.
    This is why I prefer to work with ice extend which comes from direct observations.
    Now our alarmists wants to take the PIOMAS results as gospel. This is no real data, it is a model.
    I worked with models, I know how difficult is to model complex phenomena and I take the results of models with a grain of salt, even for models that have been validated against real data, especially when I do have real data to work with.

    So in conclusion I strongly disagree to the suggestion that our alarmist understands where the science is leading.
    I rather see him like another alarmist who hides behind predigested arguments that fit his own beliefs.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Anonymous
  399. @Authenticjazzman

    If Greta’s handlers were sincere in their intentions, they would not have picked a spokesgirl who could star in a remake of The Exorcist. Greta doesn’t realize she has been picked to turn people off to her bogus “message”. ” Renewables Will Save The Planet” and “Global Warming Is A Hoax”, two sides of the same worthless coin minted by experts in Psychological Warfare.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  400. peterAUS says:

    We on the mature side of life remember some other “end of the world; we must do something NOW” scenarios.

    We also remember all-knowing PhDs, politicos etc. hammering all that on us. And, of course, people like “multiple Anon” here.
    After some time all that becomes simply boring.
    So, some of us reading/posting here, probably, simply don’t care much about all that tech stuff. I don’t.
    No offense to experts in the field. Just me.

    My interest in this, and related matters, is on the human side of the issue. Mental stuff if you will.

    Or, what is that which drives these…ahm….”aware of the Problem” people to act like that? Those “foot soldiers” of the Movement. What drives the true power behind them is obvious.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  401. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re parroting two common denialist PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) easily debunked at

    1: Denialist PRATT: CO2 is coming from the ocean
    2. Denialist PRATT: CO2 lags temperature

    The first one provides evidence you never made it past 7th grade science class, because you’re trying to turn Henry’s Law on its head. When the partial pressure of a gas in the atmosphere increases, the dissolved gas in the liquid increases. Which has been observed, the oceans are steadily absorbing more CO2, not outgassing it. And the second one is related to the first. If you really think you’ve oceans are net outgassing CO2 right now, try writing a scientific paper on it. You’ll be a world-renowned hero if you’re correct in disproving Henry’s Law.

  402. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    Repeating the same lies over and over and over again doesn’t make something true. If indeed you can prove that GISS data is corrupt, you’d be a world-renowned hero. The data is publicly available at the NASA GISS website, so go do the work. NASA GISS also addresses Tony Heller’s lies that have been made popular among the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party, and you totally ignore that.

  403. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    You haven’t yet thought of anything other than moi for a whole 5 days. I’m living in your head, rent free. 🙂 It’s because you’re frustrated in your quest to answer the question: what melts ice. Well, what melts ice?

  404. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    > Mental stuff if you will.

    Looks like we’ve got a pontificating “mental stuff” expert here, who can’t figure out what melts ice. No wonder he changed his diploma mill major to Amateur Soviet Psychiatry Studies. Still can’t determine what melts ice? Let’s give you hint:

    Graph Source: Four Graphics (and a Book) that Help Explain Climate Change

    Do you really imagine that humans can evaporate earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into our thin atmosphere with zero consequences? That’s “the human side of the issue” about melting ice. But you’re not even interested in “the human side of the issue.”

  405. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    > Anonymous is clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of people to follow where the science is leading.

    “peterAUS” did a good job of analyzing the fact that playing defense is a loser’s game (in comment #261.) Yet he insists on losing. I’m frustrated that Conservatives/Right (or whatever label you prefer) insist on playing defense instead of going on the offense, capturing the flag, and running with it.

    An example of winning by accepting science: The Right’s HBD writers finally went on the offensive to capture the evolution flag.

    Similarly, climate science could readily be used as evidence to justify common sense political policy like prohibiting immigration, as I have written in several comments.

    Does the right want to win with science? Or does the right want to lose by ineptly rejecting it? That’s the choice.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  406. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you for your kind words.

    And to clarify to others, my purpose of arguing here at Unz is not to win against an enemy, but to demonstrate a weapon to the home team, so that the Right can go on the offense, instead of always being on the defense, which is a loser’s game. Science is mighty sword;* presently, the Left is wielding it, while the Right tries to deny it exists. And losing. It’s time to pick up the sword of science and start winning, just like the HDB fellows have done by accepting evolutionary biology.

    * the etymology of science derives from the Latin word scindere, “to cut, divide”

  407. peterAUS says:

    …Yet he insists on losing….

    Well, he suggests, not insists (free will etc…) on starting to think about Secession. Yes, yes, I know, totally O.T. and, more importantly, totally unpopular in this (online) pub. Let’s not even talk about real-life alt-something. Boomers simply can’t have it.

    He simply believes that, this issue wise, “we” (that means White Nationalists, another unpopular thing around) should use their time and energy on other pursuits. This is simply a distraction. As a topic.

    What isn’t a distraction is the mindset of “multiple Anons” here. Because that’s pretty much the same mindset “we” (from above) see all the time when topics “we” care about pop up. Same methodology, same language, attitude, feel. Change “climate change” to “race”, “ethnicity”, “guns”…same.Hehe…let alone “secession”. And the last, but definitely not the least The THING (TM).
    Plenty of examples here of that. The thread is a good exercise.

    I am positive that “we” will need that skill more and more in times to come. Recognizing, after just one sentence, who, really, “we” are communicating with. And then act accordingly. Both online and much more importantly, in real life.

    Online, he believes that endless …ump…”debating”….with “prog” opponents is counterproductive. “Climate Change” zealots among the rest.Time. Energy. Better to spend that time…say….doing own daily fitness routine. Or working on certain skillsets. Having fun. Whatever.
    In real-life….it’s a bit more complicated, of course. For smart people.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  408. Erebus says:

    I think it was in Gleick’s Chaos: Making a New Science, but I remember reading decades ago that if one created a 3D grid of temp/wind/humidity/etc sensors placed one foot apart through the entire atmosphere and fed the data to a perfect algorithm running on an arbitrarily powerful computer, it would be able to predict the weather to about 3 weeks out. After that, the missing data, that data falling unmeasured between the sensors would catch up to the system and it would go unpredictably off the rails. By 4 weeks, its predictions would have no connection to the real world.

    That’s the theoretical best that can be done with a 1’x1’x1′ 3D grid of sensors. I know weather ain’t the same as climate, and that climate is a much more general phenomena, but the data “climate science” has been looking at is orders of magnitude, indeed orders of orders of magnitude more general than that. They’re the equivalent of looking at the world through 100′ of stationary 1″ pipe and making conjectures about what the rest of it looks like.

    At the end of the day, the earth’s temperatures have been going up and down since it solidified into a ball, and we should surely not be surprised that they’re going up or down even now.

    Worst case? There’ll be a die-off. If you believe in that, the best advice for the individual is to collapse now and avoid the rush. Autarchy has salubrious effects even if the die-off never happens.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  409. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    > By 4 weeks, its predictions would have no connection to the real world.

    Except Wally Broecker’s 1975 model of global warming—the study in which the term “global warming” was coined—was remarkably accurate for 30 years. (see comments #315 and #324) So you don’t have the slighest clue what you’re banging on about. You’re simply parroting the same boring PRATTS refuted time and time and time again.

    “…climate models generally produce weather forecasts.”

    Denialist myth: Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Science says: Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth’s energy imbalance, which is more predictable.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Erebus
  410. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    When will you stop telling flat-out lies? For example: “Guns.” I’m strong pro-2A, and am a single-issue voter on the 2A. You demonstrate all the same methodology, same language, attitude, feel of the Ephors, loser. Maybe there’s a reason you want to lose. Hmm?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  411. peterAUS says:

    Hehe…you don’t get it. It’s simple.

    Your types have a character flaw.

    They should not be trusted.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  412. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    Not only are you a born loser, you’re a habitual liar (e.g., blatantly misrepresenting my position on guns and the 2A.) Your malicious lying is a fatal character flaw. So is your inability to address reality. You still have yet to admit what melts ice. That’s SAD. Can you take a hint?

    Warm conditions marked September [2019] over the entire Arctic Ocean and its surrounding lands. Air temperatures at the 925 millibar level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) for the month were 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2010 reference period over the ocean region, reaching 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska (Figure 2b).

    Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis | YEARLY ARCHIVES: 2019
    National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

    Why is all that warmth being retained on the earth now?

    p.s. The only thing from which you’ve ever seceded is factual reality; as a secessionist, you must consider having your head up your ass your greatest success.

  413. Erebus says:

    … was remarkably accurate for 30 years.

    The computer he ran his model on had the computing power of a modern toaster. His data was no more than a quadrillionth of requirements. If it was accurate, and I see no reason to think we know whether it was or wasn’t, it was blind luck.

    With well in excess of 100 comments in 5-6 days, you’re obsessed, if not yet barking mad. Suggest you join your kids in the pool so as to run some cover for the red eyes & sweat, and dissolve some of the long since dry spittle.

    Peter’s right. You are a textbook case study.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  414. Anonymous[683] • Disclaimer says:

    > If it was accurate

    There’s no “if” about it, moron. You can read and see a graph the analysis of Broecker’s 1975 model in my comment #315. And his is the most basic, primitive model of climate science. Later models have been getting more and more accurate.

    You’re “science-man-bad” shtick isn’t any more effective than your character-assassination allies’ “orange-man-bad.” Did you obtain your debate strategy from Hillary Clinton?

    • LOL: Erebus
  415. ron west says:

    Not only is there no human caused global warming, there is no significant global warming at all.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  416. @Anonymous

    Forecasts are not “facts”

    All models incorporate assumptions.
    All models are wrong, some are useful.

    Science stays exactly the same, until it changes.

    CO2 is not pollution, it’s plant food.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  417. There is no scientific reason to conclude that ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’ (CAGW) is on its way or poses any serious threat to humankind.

    On the other hand, there are many genuine environmental hazards and pressing political crises facing humanity right now. The lives and well being of millions are at risk.

    The case, in fact, can me made that a slight uptick in average temperatures worldwide could increase global food production and modestly benefit humankind. No one knows for sure. Surely, a general rise in CO2 will enhance food production and overall plant growth on Earth. This is good news.

    I concede that it is impossible to know ‘future climate’ with any certainty. In fact, no one actually knows what the ideal average global temperature for planet Earth should be. Do you? Even warmists don’t know.

    The link below provides a detailed, scientific examination (hosted by none other than Leonard Nimoy of Star Trek fame) on the perils posed by periodic and cyclical ‘global cooling’.

    Fact: the Earth has had at least eight glacial periods (in No. America) over the past one million years alone. Glacial periods last far longer than mild and productive ‘interglacial periods’ such as the one we’re now living in. (Our interglacial period started about 13,500 years ago but it was seriously interrupted for about a century or so by the Younger Dryas Event).

    Warmists hate to admit this (or even discuss it) but glacial periods are truly devastating to life. Warm periods on the other hand (‘interglacials’) are generally beneficial to life, especially human life, not to mention the rise of human civilization.

    When the next glacial period returns it will be calamitous and deadly.

    Please note that all the scientific ice core data as well as the biological evidence found in deep sea sediment discussed in the documentary below remains accurate and useful in understanding past climate patterns. This understanding allows us to predict future climate changes, even though our planet’s climate remains chaotic and somewhat unpredictable (a fact that warmists often deny).

    Please note that this YouTube video has suspended comments on the documentary below. The suspension of comments is due to the fact that the warmist community hates people who doubt or who question their authority. Warmists therefore often rely upon censorship. As we’ve all observed, warmists also routinely defame people who doubt warmist certainty. This phenomenon has a name.

    It has been identified as the ‘Warmist Authoritarian Personality Syndrome’ (WAPS). It’s been theorized that WAPS comes from feelings of sexual inferiority and low self-esteem. The onset of WAPS has also been linked to high levels of TV exposure and fear-driven propaganda.

    In extreme cases, WAPS has been associated with the rise of politically correct totalitarianism as well as unjust taxation.

    This personality syndrome explains why warmists tends towards hyper-dogmatism and political extremism. Warmists detest skepticism which they mislabel ‘denial’.

  418. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous 304

    That the Trump Administration has made such a forecast is a fact; quit trying to play childish word-games to weasel out of reality, dumbass. Sure, water is plant food too, which means, by you logic, that it can never have a negative effect; go take a long walk off a short pier, and see if you can walk on the stuff. And tell us, would you analyze Wally Broecker’s famous—he coined the term “global warming”—1975 model (comment #315) as useful, or not?

  419. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @ron west

    > there is no significant global warming at all.

    LOL! Do you imagine ice melts as it gets colder, huh? Back in May, I made several charts with quotes from Tony Heller’s idiotic website that you suggest, Here’s one fun example:


    Tony Heller is such an utter embarrassment to even the lying sack-of-shit science-denialist community, that the fruitcake Anthony Watts had to chew him out and fire him from writing on his website. But I suspect he may have written under the pseudonym “Peter Baggins, Ph.D” for Unz.

  420. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:

    > Makes sense, actually. All what “boomers”…you are a boomer….

    Oops, yet another lie of yours, I’m not a boomer either. Like I said, your greatest success as a secessionist is separating yourself from reality by sticking your head up your ass. You’re a loser who thinks seceding all the port cities, rail heads, and transportation terminals to the enemy is a winning strategy. Apparently, you never heard of logistics.

    But these facts still stand, in spite of your flailing attempts to ignore them:

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

    • Replies: @james charles
  421. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    No serious threat to humankind? But there is. You missed the #1 comment, didn’t you?

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

    And not only is a previous 6°C rise in average global temperatures a serious threat, the exceedingly fast rate of the rise makes it more so.

  422. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > When the next glacial period returns it will be calamitous and deadly.

    So you’re one of those alarmist ice-age-now! flat-earthers. I suppose you follow the work of the the-dumb-cunt-who-can’t-do-teh-maths who states “the substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055,” (Zharkova, 2019) as touted a couple months ago by Unz contributor Lance Welton.

    2020 is two and a half months away. Can’t wait to see those “substantial temperature decreases” over the next few years and watch all the “warmists” like Trump Administration official Mike Pompeo—who publicly states the Arctic sea ice is rapidly disappearing—be humiliated.

  423. Erebus says:

    … his is the most basic, primitive model of climate science

    Rubbish. My model is the simplest, and I’d venture to claim is the only reliable one.

    We know a priori that global temperatures by turns go either up or down when they’re not remaining stable. My climate model predicts that this behaviour will continue indefinitely, even when the data and climate models indicate otherwise.

    It’s a matter of supreme indifference to me which of the 3 they’re doing now, as there’s simply no way to tell.

    With that, I’ll leave you to your apoplectic ravings.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  424. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:

    > My model

    Which is where? Oh, right, you haven’t the slightest clue what a scientific model actually is. You don’t even know what “data” and “numbers” are. Your alleged “model” is nothing more than the #1 most parroted PRATT, that climate has changed before, but you haven’t the slightest clue what drives any of it.

    > there’s simply no way to tell

    For an imbecile in the lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party, true, just as there is no way for a feral pack of Negroes in a nyc classroom to grasp calculus; you haven’t the mental capacity.

    • LOL: Erebus
  425. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    You accuse me of “political extremism,”, because I propose a political policy of prohibiting immigration, in comments #3, #33, #218, #267, #278, #362, and #421.

    Are you some Soros lackey who considers prohibiting immigration as extremist, markgreen? You must have a “refuges welcome” sign in your lawn. You’re just another lying sack-of-shit, as nefarious as Adam Schiff. But like the constant barrage of attacks on Donald J. Trump, you can’t hurt me by name-calling, I’m Teflon-Anon!

  426. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    To all you self-styled skeptics who think you’re so very clever at proving theevhul wharmists are cheating on the data, well…

    Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.

    From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases….

    Guess what! When former global warming skeptics do their own analysis of the data, they show the Earth warming FASTER (!!!) than those evhul wharmists at NASA GISTEMP, as follows:

    Honest “deniers/skeptics” who are actually smart enough to analyze the data become non-deniers. Come on in boys, the water is fine.

  427. @Bombercommand

    ” They would have not picked a spokesgirl who could star in a remake of The Exorcist”

    What you apparently don’t grasp is that the only type of supporters, young or old, they can find for their lunacy is in fact : Freaks. NO level-headed clear thinking person would ever align themselves with these madmen.

    And for your sorely needed information : There is no such workable phenomena as : Psychological warfare, all psychology/psychiatry being humbug., pure nonsense.


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  428. peterAUS says:
    @mark green

    …the warmist community hates people who doubt or who question their authority. Warmists therefore often rely upon censorship. As we’ve all observed, warmists also routinely defame people who doubt warmist certainty. This phenomenon has a name.

    It has been identified as the ‘Warmist Authoritarian Personality Syndrome’ (WAPS). It’s been theorized that WAPS comes from feelings of sexual inferiority and low self-esteem. The onset of WAPS has also been linked to high levels of TV exposure and fear-driven propaganda.

    In extreme cases, WAPS has been associated with the rise of politically correct totalitarianism as well as unjust taxation.

    This personality syndrome explains why warmists tends towards hyper-dogmatism and political extremism. Warmists detest skepticism which they mislabel ‘denial’.

    Good comment.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  429. LP says:
    @mark green

    Thanks for the good laugh and the pretty accurate description of the alarmists, the actual climate change deniers: they deny natural climate change.

    Their mantra is that the current warming is unprecedented, never before seen on this planet, which actually only shows how ignorant they are.

    As you mentioned the Younger Dryas Event was several orders of magnitute higher, with tremendous cooling happening in a very short period of time, decades or years, a 800 years or so reinstated ice age and a fast subsequent warming, but try to make a WAPS 😉 to understand that…

    Modern warming is comparable to the Medieval Warm Period when not a little colder then it was, which seems reasonable as there was a continuous downtrend since Holocene optimum.

  430. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    Funny watching you low-IQ NPCs parrot the tactics of the Leftists. Oh, that awful “hate!” Boohoo! Well, here’s yet another hate fact for you to examine. 🔬

    How long will it take you to gather the courage to make an honest inquiry into what is melting ice around the globe? Or don’t you have sufficient character to honestly assess it?

  431. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    You seem really smart on several subjects. Do you know what melts ice?

  432. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    > Their mantra is that the current warming is unprecedented

    Wrong. ~6°C global warming resulted in near-annihilation of planetary life in P–Tr extinction.

    You sound like an idiot claiming that climate scientists don’t know about the abrupt climate change of the Younger Dryas.

    The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000).

    Perspectives Abrupt Climate Change > The Younger Dryas
    NOAA | National Center for Environmental Information

    Now, I have to ask you a question: Do you understand that Greenland is only a small fraction of the globe? Greenland isn’t the globe. The globe isn’t Greenland. Consider that for a second, ok? Has it sunk in yet?

    > Modern warming is comparable to the Medieval Warm Period

    Wrong. The Medieval Warm Period was regional, not the globe. A region of the globe is only a fraction of the globe. Do you know what the word “regional” means? Have you ever observed a globe before? Could you look at one before responding?

    graph source: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

  433. peterAUS says:

    No need to go

    ….the Younger Dryas Event…..


    ….Medieval Warm Period….

    This guy did some research there:

    I, personally, do remember the “dire threat of Ice Age”.

    What is new, today is the effort behind all that.

    It would be interesting to see (somebody could’ve already done it) who, exactly, are the people behind this girl and the latest use of children. Kids didn’t come up with the idea and put the organization together.
    Who, exactly, are the people who came up with the idea and organized all that. The TOP of that chain, that is. I have a feeling it can’t be more than 20 persons.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Desert Fox
  434. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    Holocene optimum was warm, and the earth is now warmer. Let’s look at NOAA’s article on it, rather than swallow your misinterpretation of the data.

    source: What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

  435. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    > I, personally, do remember the “dire threat of Ice Age”.

    Of course you do! Because you’re a dolt who was glued to sensationalist TV shows and rags, not reading scientific journals. Only 10% of the scientific literature from 1966 to 1979 predicted cooling. (Peterson, 2008) All this has been documented in comment #161, but that doesn’t keep you TV-addled dolts from constantly trotting out PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand Times.)

    > I have a feeling

    A dolt with a case of muh feelz is truly the best sort of evidence. Is this really how you go through life? At least you know what living as a woman is like, without going through all that transition crap. You didn’t do that, did you?

  436. @peterAUS

    UN Agenda 21 and 2030, to turn America into a third world country.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @peterAUS
  437. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Scary stuff, it sounds like an earlier Rabbi’s economic agenda I’ve read, “Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor.” I think we’re on the same side, Desert Fox. As I said in comment #48, “I’m not really wanting to get rid of my multiple gas/diesel-powered SUVs and trucks and fun toys.”

    I bet you don’t want to either. What these bleeding heart Rabbis and Liberals do not understand is—as I wrote in comments #2, #168, and #218—“energy conservation does not help.” Spiritually or climate-wise.

    Want to join me and go rollin’ coal—I mentioned that in comment #104—on some Prius owners?

  438. peterAUS says:
    @Desert Fox

    Well….I get the big picture. Was simply thinking about this exercise (the girl in the article and all those youngster protests around).

    As this, for example:
    Now…not really people in Australia who got their marching orders from abroad.

    That…team abroad…which organized all this.

    …Organisers say…..

    Those are the names I’d like to see.

    Always…”organisers”…never John Smith, Jane Smith…stuff like that.

    The idea for all this (“use the kids” on top of it) must’ve originated somewhere, by some people.

    Or…hehe….who were/are the members of the Inner Party who initiated all this?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  439. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    > Those are the names I’d like to see. Always…”organisers”

    From your reference: “Thunberg, one of the organisers.” If you want to out-organize an Aspie girlie with itty bitty titties, then you’re gonna need to start swinging some dick on this thing.

    > …never John Smith, Jane Smith…stuff like that.

    No! Super-scary! From your reference: “Thunberg, Anna Taylor, Luisa Neubauer, Kyra Gantois, Anuna De Wever, Adélaïde Charlier, Holly Gillibrand and Alexandria Villaseñor.” No John Smith there! I mean, who names their kid “Anna?” Jesus, those names sound spookier than the 👹monsters under your bed.👾

    Yet you still cannot manage to organise a coherent thought in your head to answer the question of what melts ice. Ever wonder why you feel you’re playing defense all the time?

  440. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:

    I know the question regarding melting ice is really tough and has frozen your brain like a deer’s in the headlights, so maybe something easier will help.

    Look at Kentucky, it was mostly green (zone 6) with a little dark green (zone 5) and now it’s all yellow (zone 7.) Is this a horticultural conspiracy organised by the Jooz?

  441. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:

    > not only can you not explain

    Easy-peasy, kermie:

    The Causes of Climate Change

    The Simplest Explanation Of Global Warming Ever

    The Flesch-Kincade grade level is 10.4 on the first, 9.8 on the second, so take your pick, if you can read at a high school level.

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
  442. Anonyous says:

    A couple things to consider, (a) the US is only 2% of the global surface considered in global warming, and (b) the dust bowl era of the 1930s is an example of regional human-caused climate change, drought and heat waves, from dust aerosols resulting from plowing up the prairie.

    Many science-deniers like Tony Heller who bang on constantly about the Dust Bowl high temperatures in the US take full advantage of the fact that most Americans seem to think that the United States, 2% of the globe, is the whole globe.

  443. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    Cartoon from xkcd which describes the behavior of Ivar Giaever to a ‘T’

    Ivar Giaever – Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

  444. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > a network of interconnected factors…Systems Theory…Systems Thinking

    True, true. Good stuff there, Christophorus. It may interest you to look into Tim Garrett’s (whom I reference several times above) work that uses System Theory; e.g., he writes, “For atmospheric scientists like myself, forecasting future human behavior becomes relevant where the goal is to provide society with forecasts of climate change. […] It seems extraordinary, but the implication is that we can begin to think of seemingly complex human systems as simple physical systems.” [source]

    In addition, factored into how humans respond to climate change is the concept of “time preference,” a topic covered even here at Unz. A journal article entitled Time perspective and climate change policy states, “The long delay between the times when society incurs the cost and reaps the benefit of climate policy may make cost benefit analysis sensitive to the discount rate [30,6,7,22,35]. Few people would defend the view that today’s generation should ignore the welfare of all generations in the distant future, but standard discounting assumptions imply approximately that attitude.”

    Just like Negroes have too low IQ and too low time preference to succeed in civilized society, I’m afraid that all humans, Whites and northeast Asians included, have too low IQ and too low time preference to successfully navigate the current worldwide experiment of evaporating earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into our thin atmosphere. We’re like monkeys with our hands caught in a monkey trap, and we self-styled sapient great apes just can’t let go of the fossil fuel bait.

    • Replies: @Christophorus
  445. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > For the past 19 years I have directly witnessed the climate of SW Ontario go from harsh long winters of five months duration to short very mild winters

    Same here, just watching how climate has quite obviously changed in my neck of the woods was my impetus to study global warming in more detail.

    > we have RAIN in January the last five years!!!

    Hell, even Santa’s workshop now sees unprecedented thunderstorms with rain and lightning. Crazy!

  446. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > even when it’s warm outside


    Climate denialists: Heatwaves have happened before.
    Science says: Global warming is increasing the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves.

  447. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > Climate change will never be the same with solar particle forcing

    LOL! Wrong.

    The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs [Galactic Cosmic Rays] are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

    On the contrary, while GCRs are up, global temperatures are also way up, and temperatures in recent years reached record highs.

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
  448. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Hot Arctic today, but guess what everybody’s talking about…

    Why? Google “weakened polar vortex,” or “warm arctic, cold continents phenomenon,” or “wavy jet stream” to learn why.

  449. @Anonymous

    After I checkmated you last time on the last global warming thread, you are at it again.

    I clearly proved that CERN has proven that cosmic rays cause cloud condensation nuclei to form on biogenic aerosols. And that in the entire southern hemisphere clouds are formed by biogenic aerosols. Probably a significant part of the northern hemisphere’s clouds are as well since 60% is covered by water. And I proved that it is the sun that determines the cosmic ray bombardment of the earth. Svensmark has been proven right and the sun does dictate our climate

    Clearly clouds are a much bigger driver of climate than CO2.

    But you guys are relentless in your zeal. Just like the Swedish child who is going to lecture us all and who is probably clueless about who Svensmark is. The earth is doomed because of people like you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  450. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    You begged me to watch the CERN Cloud experiment video. I watched it. This is what it said at approx. 3 minutes and 24 seconds into the video:

    “It will warm. WE are definitely warming the planet. But what the Cloud result will do will serve to sharpen these numbers. They won’t go away. We’re still due for considerable warming. It’s going to be a more precise prediction.”

    -Jasper Kirby
    CLOUD shows pre-industrial skies cloudier than we thought
    CERN | May 26, 2016

    You’re the midwit dolt who checkmates himself by proving himself wrong. All the CERN experiments will do is make the global warming models more precise. That’s it. Go watch the video you begged me to watch.

    > probably clueless about who Svensmark is

    You’re the one clueless about the many journal articles that consider and disprove his hypothesis, as addressed here, here, and here.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  451. @Anonymous

    It was 4 degrees below zero in White Sulfur Springs Montana this morning and 18 degrees where I live in Montana with snow on the ground after a three day snow storm and record cold temps through out the state.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  452. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    Indeed, record lows and highs are constantly being set in our nation. However, fewer and fewer record lows—lows which deniers emphasize—are being set, while more and more record highs—highs which deniers never seem to remember—are set. The resources below, for which you have paid with your tax dollars, will help you understand. Avail yourself of them, as follows:

    Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures

    Source: Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  453. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desert Fox

    To help you understand better: Global warming causes the jet stream or polar vortex to weaken and become “wavy” or “wobbly,” which, like leaving open a freezer door, allows blasts Arctic air to wander far south. Meanwhile, the Arctic is much hotter, a phenomenon scientists are calling “warm arctic/cold continents.” Forbes has a great article on it, with this graph from NOAA’s website:

    The Blizzard In The Rockies Doesn’t Disprove Climate Change But People Will Say It Anyhow

    A couple other resources you may peruse, of which I will take some screenshots. The first here is from, showing the polar vortex/jet stream (winds at 250 hPa height) in the pattern just like the above NOAA chart. Notice how “wavy” or “wobbly” the jetstream is, dipping way below normal latitude and causing the freakish cold you feel.

    Second is which shows that “warm arctic/cold continents” phenomenon we’ve seen this week:

    All that cold “polar vortex” air you felt in Montana used to be contained further north when the polar vortex wasn’t so wavy-gravy.

    • Agree: james charles
  454. The activities of Termites result in more CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere than the activities of all of humankind together. The AGW theory is not a scientific theory (falsifiable theory that can be tested by repeatable experiment) so the author is wrong to give it any credence whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  455. @Patricus

    It is a nonsense to deny that human activity contributes to changes in the climate. This is because human activity must be an input into the system that results in the output that is “climate”.

    It is also an impossibility to deny that sloths and herring contribute to changes in the climate, via the same logic.

    It is also an impossibility to claim to be able to determine what any single input (contributed by any category of being over any course of time) will have on the final output (global climate) as the interaction between all the many millions of inputs is too complex for humans to comprehend.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  456. @Anonymous

    Correlation with your theory does not imply causation (at all). Temperatures in the US are not representative of global climate. Widescale measurements of temperature (said to be representative of the entire landmass ‘the USA’) are unreliable now, and the idea that they were accurate in 1850 is laughable. You’re jumping on correlations in the manner of a zealot convinced that the manifestation of every physical phenomena proves the existence of his/her God.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  457. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    The cycle of life, including termites, adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere. Animals breath out CO2, but they also eat plants that take up CO2.

    Termite activity also results in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2). These CO2 emissions are part of the regular carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

    EPA | Emission Factors AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I
    Chapter 14: Greenhouse Gas Biogenic Sources
    14.2 Termites—Greenhouse Gases

    > falsifiability [Karl Popper]

    Wrong again. You’re 0-2.

    Here we present a few examples of falsifiable predictions used to understand present and future climates that are made before running a climate model. The first is the well-known wet-get-wetter, dry-get-drier response to warming predicted by Held & Soden, which uses the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) scaling of saturation vapor pressure. Our recent work has highlighted two additional examples: 1) CC scaling predicts Hadley cell expansion and a poleward shift of midlatitude storm tracks in response to warming, 2) top-of-atmosphere seasonal insolation predicts the seasonal intensity and position of midlatitude storm tracks.

    Falsifiable predictions of climate change
    American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2017, abstract #U43A-05

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  458. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > Correlation with your theory does not imply causation (at all).

    Wrong. First, yours is a false statement, a lie-by-omission. The shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following: (a) “Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.” (b) “Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.” Second, causality has been established, despite your idiotic braying that it hasn’t.

    Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA [global mean surface temperature anomalies]. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.

    On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
    NATURE Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 21691 (2016)

    > unreliable


    Are surface temperature records reliable?

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
    , @fatmanscoop
  459. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > sloths and herring contribute to changes in the climate

    Wrong. The carbon cycle of life between plants and animals adds zero net carbon to the atmosphere. You forgot the other half of the carbon cycle that most people learned in 7th grade science class. Time to bone up on what you’ve lost…

    Climate Myth: Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  460. @Anonymous

    The cycle of life, including termites, adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere. Animals breath out CO2, but they also eat plants that take up CO2.

    If animals eat plants that take up CO2, then surely this leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. In what respect is that a counterbalance to a produce a net zero (as you suggest above)? In what respect are the particulars of Termite behavior different to the particulars of human behaviour such that Termites’ CO2-producing behavior can be rationalized and excluded as being part of the “cycle of life” or “the regular carbon cycle” or as being “natural”, whereas humans’ behaviors cannot? Misanthropy. Nonsense. If Termites take over the planet, and the particular nature of their lives results in net CO2 output, then that would be part of the “regular carbon cycle” which cannot exist in a stasis.

    Here we present a few examples of falsifiable predictions used to understand present and future climates that are made before running a climate model.

    A falsifiable prediction used to inform a statistical model of a complex natural system does not mean that separate theory as to how that system will behave in future is falsifiable/can be subjected to repeated observation.

    – The theory is that human activity will lead to catastrophic warming in climate in the near future.
    – A model is an attempt to replicate a complex system, such that you can determine which inputs lead to which outputs

    Neither represent falsifiable theories or conclusions, which can be subject to repeated experimentation. For example, an exact representation of all global and extraterrestrial inputs into the earth’s atmosphere at any single point in time, or over a long period of time, can never be replicated as inputs into a computer model, such that you can actually test whether the computer’s calculated input matches the output in the real world. N.O.N.S.E.N.S.E

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  461. @Anonymous

    Second, causality has been established, despite your idiotic braying that it hasn’t

    Your report states;

    As already noted in the Third Assessment Report11, unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings12. Therefore attribution analysis is mainly performed through the application of Global Circulation Models

    But you stated above that AGW theory was a falsifiable theory that could be subject to repeated experimentation? Strange that the paper you reference explicitly contradicts that statement.

    This is a study which states that, where any change in real-world phenomena is consistent with modelling, that correlation can be taken as validation of the relevant model’s explanation of the cause of that change. This is NONSENSE, does NOT meet the scientific standard, is completely insane with respect to any complex modelling. It is INSANE. If you do complex modelling of e.g. a financial market, you do not take any single instance of a trend in the market which is consistent with what your model predicts as absolute validation of your modelling. That is SO WRONG.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  462. @Anonymous

    Wrong. The carbon cycle of life between plants and animals adds zero net carbon to the atmosphere. You forgot the other half of the carbon cycle that most people learned in 7th grade science class. Time to bone up on what you’ve lost…

    Humans are animals, so according to your stated theory above, human activity adds zero net carbon to the atmosphere. Thanks and great that you’ve given up your cause so early.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  463. @Anonymous

    I stated the idea that there was in any way, an accurate record going back to 1850 is ridiculous. The link above just states that people are trying hard in the year 2011. So not relevant to my point. And your link is superficial in any case. In isolation, 30,000 thermometers (located overwhelming on the land and concentrated in particular areas) obviously do not measure the “global temperature” (single digit) such that we can say that the “global temperature” (singularly) is going up or down. Garbage again.

  464. Wally says:

    Must see Russian take on this.

    Greta’s handlers: political pedophiles
    “This 10 minute segment is from “In the Evening,” a news talk show from the Motherland. They absolutely nail the climate scam…”


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  465. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    You imagine that philosopher Karl Popper is the Grand Poupon and sole arbiter of science. He’s not. Basically, you’re trying to invalidate science that can’t be done in a laboratory setting. Studying sunspots? INVALID! Studying the ocean? INVALID! You sound like you’re retarded, which when it comes to science deniers like yourself, it pretty close to reality.

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  466. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > If animals eat plants that take up CO2, then surely this leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Wrong, halfwit. That is an idiotic statement, but it leads me to think you probably believe in perpetual motion machines too.

    > If Termites take over the planet…

    They already have taken over the wooden blockhead on you shoulders.

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  467. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Trying to be as clever as Slick Willy isn’t helping you. Let’s break it down Barney style for you:

    1. By breathing, humans add no CO2 to the carbon cycle.

    2. By burning fossil fuels, they do add tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

    Got the difference?

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @fatmanscoop
  468. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    While your objections are hare-brained garbage, you would do well to consider the work of Berkeley Earth, folks who “found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012.” They found that the several temperature records are accurate, and even more conservative in measuring global warming than theirs. You can see their chart, compared to NASA’s GISTEMP in my comment #442.

    At any rate, even if humans hadn’t ever invented thermometers, polar and glacial ice around the globe is melting rapidly. Do you have any idea what melts ice?

    Any clue at all, my little thermometer-doubter?

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  469. @Anonymous

    Thank you for your constructive reply. I read with interest the article from Tim Garrett and was pleased to find there ideas similar to mine, e.g. that the laws of nature (called the laws of physics by Garrett) are universal, i.e. they are also valid in fields different from those of the natural sciences as are economy, sociology or psychology. This fact allows for useful cross references between domains of human activity.

    Another interesting finding was the notion of time preference. Indeed, this is an important parameter of human decision taking. It describes the degree of our reponsability with respect to the future of the planet. 100% would mean that we assume our role in the evolution as any other species on the planet even independent of what the outcome will be.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  470. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    You made my day. I’m glad that you found those two topics of interest; it’s a pleasure to make such a connection.

    > they are also valid in fields different from those of the natural sciences as are economy, sociology or psychology

    Indeed, I heartily concur! Even to the extent that life itself is merely a subset of physics, i.e., the 4th law of Thermodynamics, a.k.a. Maximum Power Principle (Lotka, 1922; Odum, 1994). Another young whippersnapper has figured it out too.

    [T]he origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    A New Physics Theory of Life
    Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.

    • Replies: @Christophorus
  471. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Some peoples’ disagreeable political reactions to a science do not negate the science evidence. If you could cancel scientific evidence by equivocating “guilt by association” to some peoples’ political reactions to the science, you then could overrule the validity of E=MC2 because you don’t like the politics of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that has kept you hometown under a nuclear Sword of Damocles since 1949. Sure, it’s bat-shit crazy, but it doesn’t follow that E=MC2 is a “scam.”

    The only scam here is your avoidance of the evidence behind what melts ice on a global scale.

  472. @Anonymous

    – You said that climate science was a falsifiable theory which could be tested via repeatable experimentation.
    – I show you that a study that you’ve just cited explicitly states that it is not. In its introduction.

    Just say you’re wrong. It’s not hard. Modelling a complex system is fine, but it isn’t a way of testing or proving a theory about the behavior of that complex system. Stop being a fraud and pretending that is.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  473. @Anonymous

    If plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere (their existence reduces the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere), how can consumption of (destruction of) plants by animals offset the volume of CO2 that those animals expel into the atmosphere?

    Explain yourself.

    I thought human AGW zealots usually tried to offset carbon emissions by PLANTING trees and vegetation, not by eating them.

    Please explain yourself.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  474. @Anonymous

    Of course, ice melt in a particular location in the Swiss Alps might demonstrate warmer temperature at that particular location. But I thought you were claiming that the entire globe was getting warmer in a singular fashion? Surely you wouldn’t take evidence of warmer temperature in one particular location as evidence of your grand theory, would you? Surely you couldn’t be so unremittingly stupid? Or does evidence of decades of ice increases in various locations (e.g. Antartica) show that the entire globe is cooling? You wouldn’t claim otherwise would you, my little thermometer-doubter?

    And again your link didn’t address the points I made, the study group just checked whether the readings should be adjusted for urban heat effects, which isn’t what I was talking about.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  475. @Anonymous

    Let me break it down for you.

    1. By breathing, termites, human-beings and all other beings add no net CO2 to the atmosphere, according to your hippy GAIA theory. You claim this is offset because animals often *destroy* vegetation (??!?) (I think you mean aid in the reproductive processes of vegetation)

    2. By burning fossils, humans do add CO2 to the atmosphere. As a result of their particular behavior in consuming dead foliage, termites emit CO2 into the atmosphere, as a result of their particular digestion process (of which CO2 and methane are by-products).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  476. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re an idiot who doesn’t understand 7th grade science class on the cycle of carbon. Animals eat carbon based life, they breath carbon into the atmosphere, the rather undestroyed vegetation of earth takes up that carbon again, and round and round it goes. Stop braying like a jackass about things you can’t get, but the average 7th grader can.

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  477. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Ice is melting glaciers and ice caps all around the globe, not in a single location, moron.

    > decades of ice increases in various locations (e.g. Antartica)


    He and his colleagues concluded that the rate of ice mass loss across the entire continent increased over each decade studied: 40 ± 9 gigatons per year in 1979–1990, 50 ± 14 gigatons per year in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 gigatons per year in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 gigatons per year in 2009–2017.

    Antarctica is colder than the Arctic, but it’s still losing ice
    NOAA | March 12, 2019

    > urban heat effects

    Wrong. Yet another denialist PRATT.

    Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  478. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Deliberately misrepresenting a simple 7th grade science lesson about the carbon cycle doesn’t help you efforts to deny science. Animals have been eating plants for millions of years, and surprisingly, plants are still around. Explain how you can’t grasp that.

    • Replies: @fatmanscoop
  479. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > You said | No, I didn’t. Re-read what I said and what I quoted, and stop trying your various strategies at misrepresentation. Some aspects of climate science are falsifiable, as noted by the American Geophysical Union, which I quoted, and you wish to misquote. Which makes you the fraud.

    > Modelling. | And now it’s onto the 6th most favorite PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) of all time. You’re like a dog returning to eat its vomit. Sadly, you don’t even understand what science is. As John von Neumann stated, “The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models.”

  480. @Anonymous

    No I EXPLICITLY said in my reply to you that i was NOT talking about urban heat effects. Obviously you feel unable to retort the points I’ve made to you. Hard luck.

    Two links claiming that ice is increasing in Antartica:


    Because there is measurement indicating that ice volumes are increasing in one geographic region (the Antartic), this must mean the entire globe is cooling (<— pastiche of your "logic").

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  481. @Anonymous

    You’re an idiot who doesn’t understand 7th grade science class on the cycle of carbon. Animals eat carbon based life, they breath carbon into the atmosphere, the rather undestroyed vegetation of earth takes up that carbon again, and round and round it goes. Stop braying like a jackass about things you can’t get, but the average 7th grader can.


    Again, what you originally said to me was:

    The cycle of life, including termites, adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere. Animals breath out CO2, but they also eat plants that take up CO2.

    Please explain to me – given what you wrote above – how the process of animals eating plants balances their expelling CO2 via respiration, such that it becomes net zero. Please explain this to me. Or just admit you don’t understand the theory you’re trying to expound to me. Because you’ve clearly got it wrong haven’t you, you total idiot. Again, no-one goes around trying to offset their carbon emissions by eating trees or more vegetation – they do so by planting more vegetation. You total clown.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  482. Scientists from around the world are increasingly rejecting the emotional and politicized scare tactics being used by warmists to promote the unproven hypothesis that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is right around the corner.

    Does it matter to the highly-funded warmist community that their predictions keep failing? No. Never. They just keep pushing back their ‘day of climate catastrophe’. This sleight-of-hand renders their hypotheses unfalsifiable.

    We must temper their politicized certitude and emotionality. It is also possible that a mild uptick in average global temperatures will be beneficial to humankind, especially when one considers the broad environmental benefits of CO2.

    Warmist hysteria must be therefore resisted. Rationality must prevail.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  483. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > Scientists from around the world are increasingly rejecting | Wrong. Exactly the opposite. 97% is the old number; 99%+ is the new percentage of scientists in agreement.

    > They just keep pushing back | Wrong again. Exactly the opposite. Faster-than-expected is the new watchword.

    • Europe warming faster than expected due to climate change, August 28, 2019, American Geophysical Union
    • Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change
    • New climate models predict a warming surge

    > We must temper

    Can’t do that without credibility, and denying the nose on your face and other science-denying tactics, is the best way to shoot your credibility in the foot.

    • Replies: @mark green
  484. @Anonymous

    Deliberately misrepresenting a simple 7th grade science lesson about the carbon cycle doesn’t help you efforts to deny science. Animals have been eating plants for millions of years, and surprisingly, plants are still around. Explain how you can’t grasp that.

    Funnily enough, I wasn’t disputing there has been coexistence of animals and plants for a long time. You don’t seem to be able to understand what is under dispute. Oh dear. What I would like you to explain is your theory, that you posited above, which is that:

    1. animals respire CO2
    2. plants take in CO2, and animals eat plants.
    3. the above two facts equate to all (non-human) animals having net zero CO2 output (because these non-human animals necessarily eat plants (in itself not true))


  485. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    > Please explain this to me. | Carbon cycle. 7th grade science lesson.

    Do I have to explain what a cow is too?

  486. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    You actually need to read the NASA study you linked to, if you can read. First sentence mentions “the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.” That’s from global warming. And yes, ice mass is increasing in part of Antarctica, the Eastern side, because of increased snowfall from global warming, i.e., “the air became warmer and carried more moisture.” Got it? The scientists who wrote the study you’re trying to misconstrue actually have warned that denialists like you would misconstrue their study. That makes them behavioral scientists too, with precise predictive powers of liars like you.

    Why this 2015 NASA study is beloved by climate change skeptics

    Play your games all you want, nobody is fooled by your misrepresentations. And there are more current studies that you ignore. Why are you ignoring them, if you think NASA is a great source, hmm?

    In recent years, researchers have warned that Totten Glacier, a behemoth that contains enough ice to raise sea levels by at least 11 feet (about 3 meters), appears to be retreating because of warming ocean waters. Now, researchers have found that a group of four glaciers sitting to the west of Totten, plus a handful of smaller glaciers farther east, are also losing ice.

    More glaciers in East Antarctica are waking up | December 10, 2018

  487. Wally says:

    “Trump obviously believes in human caused (by CO2) global warming, because he says so, made such a statement, and signed his name to that unequivocal statement.”

    “Obviously” LOL Where?

    You are simply lying, he has never said that CO2 is responsible for “global warming” and you have not, cannot show that he has.

    I note you added “(by CO2)”.

    You are in over your head here.

    have another:
    Trump Administration Targets CO2 Standards for Vehicles:


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  488. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Trump didn’t have to scientifically explain the mechanics of global warming or mention the specific chemical CO2 when Donald J. Trump signed the document that stated this:

    “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet…We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today…Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.”

    Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, what?
    By Ben Adler and Rebecca Leber on Jun 8, 2016

    How else do you think Donald J. Trump meant to “control climate change,” other than by reducing CO2, hmm? Cook up one of your grand conspiracy theories about that.

  489. @Anonymous

    Obviously, there is disagreement among scientists. The concocted “97% scientific consensus” about anthropogenic ‘global warming’ however (OOOPS! make that ‘climate change’) is being quietly put to rest.

    Indeed, that alleged ‘97% consensus’ was a fraud from the very start. Sadly, dishonesty runs through the veins of the warmist community. And when are we genuine skeptics (not the fake ‘skeptics’ from you ‘skeptic’ web site) going to get an acknowledgement from the global warming cabal that they’ve been wrong repeatedly in their predictions? Repeatedly.

    Can’t you a least admit that your timelines have been way off? They have. So why not admit it? Go ahead: confess. It might make you a better person.

    Fact: polar bear populations in the Arctic are healthy and rising. The Arctic sea ice has not melted as predicted. Catastrophic rising sea levels have not occurred. Plants and crops are not being disrupted (food as a percentage of the average family budget is at historic lows) by miniscule (and normal) variations in weather. Your doomsday scenario is all a big NOTHING BURGER. We’re not buying it.

    Now take your meds and go to bed.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @james charles
  490. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    > ‘global warming’ however (OOOPS! make that ‘climate change’)

    That never was the case, liar. Climate change was a term in existence in 1956, long before global warming was coined in 1975. I’ve explained it comments #41 and #295 already, with good references to the original articles, yet you continue to lie and lie and lie some more about it. And the remainder of your post is a Gish Gallop of more lies, misrepresentations that have been refuted a dozen times already in this thread. I’m not going over all them for the third time with you.

    > Now take your meds and go to bed.

    Oh, so you’ve got your credentials to practice online Soviet Psychiatry now. Did that come with your Barbie and Ken house?

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
  491. @Shadow

    Very vexing indeed. Verily.

  492. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    w h a t a r e y o u s p o o k s u p t o ?

    It’s telling how lower-IQ half of the Stupid Party acts like a pack of feral Negroes in attacking a girl for acting White.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  493. The government has been spraying chemtrails over Montana for the past week and today Sunday the 13 of October , they sprayed all night and this morning and have a grayish haze across the sky, and this is to ionize the atmosphere to enable HAARP to send microwaves to attempt to control the weather by guiding the jet stream and guiding storms, hurricanes, tornadoes , cold fronts etc..


    • Replies: @acementhead
  494. Erebus says:

    OK, I don’t get it.

    You’ve posted ~175x in this thread, issuing a Biblical flood of hair-on-fire warnings both that “climate change/global warming” will have catastrophic consequences for humans and all other life, and that nothing can be done about it.

    I agree that if “climate change/global warming” is in fact underway, then the planet is on a climactic trajectory that we can do nothing/infinitesimally little to change.

    However, the notion of embracing and politically weaponizing this useless info to reverse decades of entrenched immigration policy is as deranged as trying to stop “climate change/global warming” itself.

    In any case, only you see the memetic connection between them, and you haven’t bothered to articulate either that or any strategy you might use had you successfully shown it.
    IOW, you’re just another source of noise.

    So, there it is.
    Some of those who subscribe to “global warming” embrace the change and plan for survival, others head for their graves with their hair on fire. As one whose jury is still out (and fully expected to remain so), I simply hedged my bets.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  495. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    > only you see

    Wrong, my opinion is backed by published science.

    > to reverse decades of entrenched immigration policy is as deranged

    Ok, Mr. Soros, we know you want everybody to think reversing immigration policy is “deranged.”

    > you haven’t bothered to articulate

    Actually, I have. You haven’t bothered to read, or don’t have the ability to comprehend. Oh well.

    > you’re just another source of noise.

    No, one does not write six paragraphs to dismiss mere noise. Something is bothering you, most likely mortality salience, and your defense mechanism to assuage your mortality salience is denial.

    > plan for survival

    Survival of a species requires habitat. When habitat is destroyed, extinction results. Remember, the Trump administration has already promised a  ~4°C increase in global average temperature within a single human lifetime.

    “…the near-annihilation of planetary life recorded in the end-Permian extinction event was associated with a ~6°C increase in global average temperature…”

    Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change
    Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 16724 (2018)

    > others head for their graves

    You’re not dodging a dirt nap in the Sixth Mass Extinction that humans are causing on the planet.

    > hair on fire

    Ok, Mr. Soros.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  496. Erebus says:

    Um, either you have a reading comprehension problem, or are simply disingenuous. Your snipping of quotes out of context is so patently obvious as to suggest the latter. Below, I added and highlighted the relevant context, exposing your ravings as the attempt to create maximum noise. To whit….

    only you see the memetic connection between (immigration and climate change)

    Wrong, my opinion is backed by published science.

    No science, published or otherwise, could establish a memetic link btwn climate and immigration, or anything else, which is presumably why you cut out the salient part of what I wrote.

    … the notion of embracing and politically weaponizing this useless info to reverse decades of entrenched immigration policy is as deranged as trying to stop “climate change/global warming” itself.

    Ok, Mr. Soros, we know you want everybody to think reversing immigration policy is “deranged.”

    No, as is clear from the contextualized quote, I don’t “want everybody to think” immigration is irreversible. It can certainly be reversed, but not by waving charts & graphs with your hair on fire. As in Bismarck’s day, the great questions of the day will not be decided by fine speeches and majority votes, but by blood and iron. It’ll take plenty of both.

    … only you see the memetic connection between them, and you haven’t bothered to articulate either that or any strategy you might use had you successfully shown it.

    Actually, I have. You haven’t bothered to read, or don’t have the ability to comprehend. Oh well.

    Oh, where have you articulated the memetic link btwn climate and immigration, pray tell?

    Survival of a species requires habitat.

    I’ve seen estimates based on genetic studies that the eruption of Mt Toba 75k yrs ago reduced the planets human population to ~2k individuals. Whether 2k, 20k or 200k, humans survived and eventually multiplied because they could adapt their habitat to their needs and/or seek out other habitats. Whether the species survives or not will be decided in the fullness of time, but I’ll never know. All I know is that me and mine will survive in the event of a rapid onset of global warming. Likely, in reasonable comfort.

    If you haven’t hedged, well I’m sure everyone here will agree that you won’t be missed.

    As for writing six paragraphs “to dismiss mere noise”, welcome to Unz Review. Fools aren’t gladly suffered here. They’re taken down in flames.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  497. Anonymous[314] • Disclaimer says:

    > link btwn climate and immigration | Got it for you, memetic or not, in my comment #3, i.e., “How Immigration May Affect Climate Change Mitigation: Immigration Overloads our Resources Needed to Mitigate Extreme Weather Events,” a title mimicking the one found here:

    > will survive in the event of a rapid onset of global warming | Oh cool! How? Are you transforming into below-squirrel-size, warm-blooded dinosaurs? Me too; see ya in Qikiqtaaluk. Wanna go Eskimo with our wives as we “do the evolution?” (Pearl Jam, 1998) Yaba-daba-doo! 🙂 Keep in mind the hothouse temps a comin’, i.e., If CO2 Emissions Keep Up, Earth Is Headed Back to The Triassic Period – Or Worse.” Oh wait, that’s not your wife’s nasty pussy, what the hell is that smell coming in the air tonight, Oh Lawd?

  498. @Desert Fox

    The government has been spraying chemtrails over Montana for the past week

    No it hasn’t. There are no “chemtrails”, what you are seeing are condensation trails(often called contrails) the vast majority of which are formed by commercial air transport aircraft. You can prove this for yourself by using Flightradar24

    When you see a “chemtrail” being formed look on FR24 and you can see all about the aircraft which is forming the trail.

    • Disagree: Desert Fox
  499. @Anonymous

    You made my night. I slept well after receiving your encouraging comment. Thank you. It is refreshing to meet a being with human reactions in this basket of crabs.

    If the cause of the climate is not determined with certainty (what I don’t believe), it is precautious to undertake the necessary steps to reduce the CO2 emission. The time scale of the warming periods are long. We cannot wait several thousand years to be sure that another natural cooling cycle is under way. It would be interesting to know whether data collected with ice cores allow for a Fourrier analysis to know more about the fine structure of temperature cycles.

    But my preoccupations are on another frontline. Our minds are stuck in the cartesian-newtonian worldview (paradigm) which is not suited to confront the complexity of the ecological crisis. We lack a meta-level of understanding, a meta-view. This meta-level mind should not only comprise a strong rational component, but also an intuitive-spiritual component which intervenes when we reach the limits of science. The two components should form an interactive loop in order to control each other. At present, forces are at work which try imperatively that this new mind cannot arise (see “The Crucifixion of the Goddess” on Unz Review). More on this subject in “From Reason to Consciousness” on my website (indicated above). I should be interested to read your comment. I appreciate the discussion with you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  500. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    After perusing your website, it elicited in my mind the following Jungian-inspired dream art entitled Anima mit Lichterkrone painted by Peter Birkhäuser and published in his book Licht aus dem Dunkel:

    We humans often vainly speak of Mother Nature (or God/Creator) in nurturing tones, a Gaian parent who loves her offspring, but Peter Ward argues that Mother Earth has no problem murdering her children like the Greek mythological goddess Medea. He posits in his text “The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?” that multicellular life, understood as a superorganism, is suicidal, attempting to return the Earth to the microbial-dominated state it has been for most of its history. We humans are repeating the PETM mass extinction, in short, (1) increase CO2, (2) change ocean state to fatal warm/anoxic, (3) 95% extinction rate from hydrogen sulfide produced by anaerobic purple sulfur bacteria. These three steps are outlined in Ward’s text “Under a Green Sky.”

    I wish we humans weren’t committing suicide. We could avoid planetary suicide by, as you say, taking the “necessary steps to reduce the CO2 emission.” But the concerned individual is powerless, because their conservation efforts only makes fossil fuel cheaper for the next bastard to buy. Plus, riding a bicycle along side road-raging SUVs is suicidal in itself; hence I’ve got a couple SUV behemoths myself. Which makes me sort of two-faced, like this next Jungian-inspired dream-painting by Birkhäuser, Der Gespaltine (The Cloven Man):

    I’m certain several of Unz’s basket of crabs (I’m crabby too! 😉 ) feel the same split, as many have expressed sorrow at the way the earth’s environment is being destroyed through various ways (even if they don’t accept the scientific evidence of global warming) yet still unavoidably participate in that destruction.

    Perhaps the system thinking we need to realize the most is that God/Mother Nature/the Creator might be murderous, like Medea. This is hard to admit. We’ve all had in our heads that the Earth is some creamy nougat upon which to endlessly feast our appetites, all the while Mother Nature/Creator/God is an evil witch enticing us with treats into her oven. A wizened child admits a parent has flaws.

    In closing, I’ll leave you a treat by marine biologist Bonnie Eldred [1910-1991], a book of her poetry and stipple art, something all biologists have to learn in undergrad, entitled “Mother Earth is a Bitch” (Valkarie Press, 1974.) God/Momma is a killer bitch. We need to deal with that fact, systematically. How? I yet do not know.

  501. Anonymous[342] • Disclaimer says:

    While you dumbly call PIOMAS (Arctic sea ice volume) and global warming a hoax because you don’t understand the math or scientific models, neither Russia nor China are so stupid as you.

    Charts Source:

    There will be serious strategic consequences for science-denial nation.

  502. Richard P says:

    I’m sorry Greta, but you’re wrong.

    “Dying Populations, Not Climate Changes, are the Biggest Threat to Western Civilization.” (Viktor Orban)

    “If Europe is not going to be populated by Europeans in the future and we take this as given, then we are speaking about an exchange of populations, to replace the population of Europeans with others. There are political forces in Europe who want a replacement of population for ideological or other reasons,” said Orban.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  503. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard P

    Get rid of industrial civilization, and hit two birds—demographic decline and global warming—with one stone. Somebody break Uncle Ted out of SuperMax to guide the Luddite Fertile. 🙂

    As the Unabomber Ted Kazinsky might say, technology affects everything and society gets further and further away from the natural order. Only an industrial society would postpone marriage and family formation long past a biologically appropriate age in order to spend the youth’s most productive years learning to run the machines and push the paperwork. Feeding the machine becomes more important that reproducing the race; the machines become more important than the biology. So society will go back and forth between repression and degeneracy as long as it suppresses biology.

    Memory-holed now: hipsterracist[.]wordpress[.]com/2017/08/26/bang-gang-the-second-sexual-revolution-no-coloreds-no-fags-no-rape-no-jealousy/

  504. @Curmudgeon

    I’m a Geotechnical Engineer who has studied geology and was always interested in this. I will say one thing – search for the CO2 released by volcanoes all over the world and compare the CO2 released by humans.

    The climate change is real and it has happened before. However, one big volcano can release enough CO2 that humans won’t release in thousands of years. So my point being – if natures wants the climate to change, humans can’t do anything. It’ll just happen!

    • Agree: Desert Fox
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  505. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    Are humans not part of nature? Duh! That’s the big mistake you’re making. Humans are changing the climate way faster than volcanoes did in the end-Permian extinction.

    • Agree: james charles
  506. @Anonymous

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

  507. @mark green

    The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.”

  508. @UncommonGround

    What basic science? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is that it? So what?

    What hasn’t been known till very recently is how the sun, which was assumed to be a constant, and which had no effect on climate on human timescales, is not the constant it was presumed to be. More and more science is proving the contrary, and that our sun is more variable than we had thought and thus it impacts climate in ways we did not know.

    For example, we now know that the solar wind has a huge role to play in climate. We know this because we now know that galactic cosmic radiation causes cloud condensation nuclei to form. The more cosmic radiation, the more clouds and the cooler the earth gets. And the solar wind dictates how much cosmic radiation the earth gets. High solar winds protect the earth much better from galactic cosmic radiation than low solar winds do. And the solar wind is in constant flux.

    During high solar magnetism the solar wind is strong. During low solar magnetism the solar wind is weak. The sun flips its magnetic poles every solar cycle — about every eleven years. So the solar wind is in a constant state of flux meaning the amount of cosmic rays that hit the earth fluctuate also. And the sun has long periods of week solar magnetism and long periods of strong solar magnetism. During the 20th century the sun was highly magnetic, perhaps more magnetic than in the last thousand years. So the solar wind was stronger last century than in times past and there were fewer cosmic rays to create clouds to cool the earth.

    But that may well be changing. The last two cycles have produced weaker solar winds than occurred in the 20th century. It has recently been cloudier than during most of the twentieth century. That is expected to occur for the next solar cycle as well. And if so, there will be more time with more clouds and we may eventually see cooling if it stays cloudy long enough.

    And that is not all that scientists now know about the sun’s role. Actual sunlight dims slightly during low solar magnetism, and this dimming, though very slight, primarily occurs in the UV spectrum. UV penetrates the atmosphere and the oceans far more than IR. So this dimming has already caused the atmosphere to shrink due to less solar radiation. The reduced solar radiation of the last two cycles, has shrunk the atmosphere so much that satellites are staying in orbit far longer than expected because they have much less atmospheric drag than they used to have. So the atmosphere is clearly cooling from reduced UV.

    Moreover reduced UV is really important for the oceans. UV penetrates to depths of 100 feet while IR only penetrates to depths of a few feet. So there will be much less ocean absorption of solar radiation. And the ocean is the primary heat sink of our planet, far more so than the atmosphere.

    More and more research on the sun is proving that it has more and more impact on climate than we thought. These things about the sun and its effects were not really understood when it was declared that the science was settled.

    And it may turn out that it was the sun that caused most of the global warming since the 1800’s.

  509. @fatmanscoop

    Not only that, but Svensmark’s theory, that galactic cosmic rays cause cloud condensation nuclei to form, and cosmic rays are regulated by the solar wind, has far more application in the southern hemisphere which is cloudier than in the northern hemisphere.

    The weaker the solar wind, the more cosmic radiation hits the earth, and the more clouds are created due to cosmic ray enhancement of cloud formation. (Svensmark’s theory in a nutshell). Lots of evidence and studies show that cosmic rays enhance cloud creation.

    The southern oceans cover 80% of the southern hemisphere and only have 10% of the world’s population, which means we have very little actual surface temperature data in the Southern hemisphere where changes in cloud cover due to cosmic rays are likely to occur the most.

    Sulfuric acid from pollution also enhances cloud formation and in the northern hemisphere it may be the dominant means of enhancing cloud formation where 90% of the world’s population lives. But even in the northern hemisphere where 60% of the surface is covered with water, a sizeable portion of cloud cover is still enhanced by cosmic rays.

  510. @Anonymous

    Every time you post a chart you shoot yourself in the foot.

    In this case it is the actual instrumental record which shows a whopping .5 C increase in global temperature from 1900 to 2020.

    Not much cause for alarm.

    And of course the lines on solar activity have no basis or explanation as to why they are included in the graph.

  511. @Anonymous

    Anyone who cites Skeptical Science cannot be taken seriously. SS is a hit site staffed by Lefty activists, led by an unemployed cartoonist with a Nazi fetish. Critical comments are edited or deleted. No professional or academic would ever link to it. Even the name is a fraud.

    The graph you cite as proof is just conjecture, i.e. someone’s opinion. Are you claiming to be able to predict the future?

    CO2 is a weak GHG, completely overshadowed by water vapor, the real greenhouse gas. The minor increase in CO2 has added maybe 1 watt per square meter of net energy input, or less than a third of a percent of the average insolation value, less than the sun’s natural variance over the 11-year solar cycle. Plant life has blossomed all over the planet thanks to the slight increase in this essential trace gas. There is no planetary emergency, as I understand the meaning of the word.

    By all means, keep writing, though. With every post you weaken your case further.

  512. jo blo says:

    This chart shows that the wavelengths at which CO2 has the most effect are already ~100% blocked – CO2 can do little more, no matter how much is added.

    But you will say, feedback effects will make the small increase in heat retention a catastrophe. No – because CONVECTION is a far bigger effect than radiation and it acts to remove heat : more heat means more rising air means more heat removed:
    (the image at the top shows how radiation energy enters and leaves earth. notice that the energy entering = 100% = the energy leaving, (30% as light – shortwave)(6% as infrared radiated direct from surface)
    AND … (64% EMISSION BY CLOUDS, WATER VAPOR, CO2) – this 64% is 19% from incoming light and the rest is radiated from the surface, absorbed by CO2, water vapor, other gases RISES BY CONVECTION THRU THE TROPOSPHERE (lower atmosphere), radiating energy all the way.)

    All the abuse about ‘read the science’ – the thing is, AGW alarmist sites never do discuss the basic physics of how this is supposed to happen.

    It’s characteristic of scammers to refuse to explain, then when they are forced to explain they resort to obfuscation and abuse. A great deal of confusion is created by their lies, and attempts to refute their lies increase the confusion by giving them any credence whatsoever. People are getting pretty tired of having corrupt liars in control of our govt..

    “CO2 spreads evenly thoughout the atmosphere, water vapor does not – it rises rapidly (2 H and 1 O ). This is why areas with little water vapor ( above the clouds, deserts and clear skies at night)
    cool off so rapidly ”

  513. Just as I suspected

    Main Scream Media is a platform for the Anti Christ

    a femamale camp followherr

  514. @marylou

    Lots of retired experts do not agree with the 97%

    Only retired people can go against the “climate change” fraud. If you go against it you will lose your job. Peter Ridd, in Australia, needs financial help to keep fighting against the fraud. I have personally contributed over(slightly) US$10,000 to his cause, also slightly over US$10,000 to Dr Jennifer Marohasy, another scientist who tells the truth. Please donate to them.

    Tim Flannery, on the other hand, continues to receive two handsome incomes for producing his climate nonsense. He does not produce scientific papers, he just spouts rubbish through the MSL* and the popular press. Due to his nonsense, Australia has wasted AU$10,000,000,000 on three unneeded desalination plants. That money would have been better spent on child health care.

    My apologies for the low quality of the construction of this comment.

    *Mainstream liars

  515. Great article! If people would turn their TV off and research a bit instead they would see the bigger picture.

    But you don’t know much about Hitler and the 3rd Reich. What is being told about Hitler is mostly nonsense. The same type of liars are behind the Global Warming as were behind the Anti Hitler propaganda machine. Without Hitler, Europe would already have become sowjet-communist by 1934/35. It was on the brink!
    Hitler knew that democracy always will be subverted by the Jews. The only solution was a dictatorship. A national AND social government which removed them from their positions to stop the infiltration and destruction of Europe. Sadly enough most of the other European Nations did not understand the danger or were already in the hands of the Jews and we see the result today.

Current Commenter

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