The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Alfred McCoy: Climate Change as the End Game for U.S. Global Power
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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

If you think of the age of Trump as a spectator sport, then perhaps the truly riveting show isn’t on the president’s Twitter feed or in his latest shout-outs to the press or at another of those “cabinet meetings” where everyone is obliged to publicly praise you-know-perfectly-well-who (and so does he). I wouldn’t for a second claim that any of those weren’t spectacles in a media world in which the very word “spectacle” is now spelled D-o-n-a-l-d-T-r-u-m-p. Still, if you’re into such things, I don’t think there’s a better one around than watching the president and his crew assiduously working to dismantle, piece by piece, an American imperial system, a genuine world order, that was almost three-quarters of a century in the making.

From his regular swipes at NATO to those threatened tariffs on German cars, from the ditching of the Iran nuclear pact to the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, from the cutting of U.N. peacekeeping funds to leaving the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, from the threats against the international criminal court to those leveled at just about any trade pact in sight, America First has turned out to be a curious kind of America Second policy. After all, the structure of much of our planet since the middle of the last century has been an America First one (even if Donald Trump is clueless on the subject). Now, it’s being ditched and, in doing so, The Donald seems to be speeding up a process that, historically speaking, was already underway.

In that context, TomDispatch regular Alfred McCoy, author of In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, offers a monumental look at what American decline is likely to mean in the context of the collapse of past world orders and on a planet that, thanks to climate change, seems to be in its own kind of decline.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Global Warming 
Hide 73 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. APilgrim says:

    The US has opted out of the Paris Accords, Kyoto Accords & the like.

    Some ‘holders on’ continue to pretend that such lunacy remains in effect. But we are out, of that foolishness. We shall NOT convert to electric cars, begin a nuclear renaissance, or abandon air travel.
    Nor shall socialist quasi-state organizations, such as California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS) prevail in their efforts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  2. APilgrim says:

    ‘Big U.S. pension funds ask electric utilities for decarbonization plans’, Reporting by Ross Kerber in Boston; Editing by Matthew Lewis, BOSTON (Reuters), BUSINESS NEWS FEBRUARY 28, 2019 / 10:07 AM / A FEW SECONDS AGO,

    Making electricity carbon-free by 2050 will be key to meeting the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement to constrain global warming, the investor group said in a separate statement. They praised a December announcement by Xcel Energy Inc that it will aim for carbon-free generation by 2050.

    Investors including New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who oversees retirement funds, and leaders of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System are asking the 20 largest publicly traded electric generators in the United States for detailed plans for achieving carbon-free electricity by 2050 at the latest, according to material seen by Reuters. Stringer termed decarbonization a “financial necessity” in a statement sent by a spokeswoman. “This initiative makes clear that mobilizing for the planet goes hand-in-hand with protecting our pensions, and we need these commitments now.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  3. climate change has nothing to do with the decline of the american empire and embracing or rejecting it will have zero material effect on the outcome.

    the american empire is in accelerating collapse for the same reasons that brought down rome, the spanish empire of the 16th century and host of other long forgotten empires now consigned to archaeology.

    military over reach, economic dissipation, debasing the empires intellectual achievements by tolerating and promoting too much absolute intellectual mendacity and mediocrity into positions of influence and power and generalized sloth in areas of morality, business ethics and everyday tolerance for degeneracy.

    the ongoing implosion of the once great american empire may well take down western civilization with it.

    we have reached a denouement in our civic life where those who will arrest the ongoing collapse can not and those in power who can will not.

    looking for nonsense like climate change is an irrelevant non sequtir typical of the sloppy intellectual scholarship and just plain wrong conclusions found in decaying societies.

    one more nail in the coffin as we all collectively watch eur-asia inexorably rise to replace us in the west as the future beacon of civilization from where new growth and invention will take place.

  4. AWM says:

    Paris Accords?
    Iran nuclear pact?
    U.N. Human Rights Council?

    Only those Marxists that never worked a day in their lives would think any of these was a good idea.
    And yes, they had better worry about their “pensions.”

  5. APilgrim says:

    Rome TAXED their Empire.

    America subsidizes ours.

    The empire shall not be missed. Nor the reserve currency status.

  6. @paraglider

    ” . . . looking for nonsense like climate change . . . ”

    “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.

    If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. 

    So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @paraglider
  7. @james charles

    i am denying with reams of facts that man is not source of even a minute amounts of climate change. the main drivers for climate now and for that past few billion years is the sun and here on earth major volcanic eruptions. the year following the tambora eruption in indonesia around 1813 was called the year without a summer all over the world. google it for tales of snow in july in new england and crop failures everywhere. so much dust was blown into the atmosphere it clouded out sunlight for a few years time. THIS is real climate change.

    our climate is cyclical and has been since it all began. man and his activities vis vie climate change is for hucksters trying to get grants or goverments trying to scare people into accepting living standard killing taxes.

    we are currently going through a global cooling phase which began in 1998 and is documented. cooling is historically what cause famines, plagues and mass die offs not excess heat of a few degrees.

    look at the historical record yourself instead of accepting spurious conclusions from self serving organizations.

    man made climate change is bullshit and you are free to fervently believe and embrace any fairy tale you choose it does not however change reality just like pretending trump is a russian agent won’t make hillary clinton president or the msm and punditocracy that gave her a slam dunk to win any smarter.

    climate change is real in that its cyclical and caused by the sun, volcanic eruptions and such but mankind….. no way! we are too insignificant.

    the sun spot activity is currently going into a deep trough which historically presages increased volcanic activity worldwide. the next 20 years we are more likely to face crop reductions to outright failures and famines in poorly organized nations, plagues and increased diseases associated with colder climates…………this is the outcome responsible government ought to be planning for not some carbon trading schemes and other silly crap.

  8. @paraglider

    I agree 100%. I’ll just add the following:

    We are in the middle of an Ice Age which began on the order of one million years age and which is likely to last for another five to ten million years. Ice ages are characterized by periods of glacial advance and retreat called glaciations. The last glaciation lasted about 1oo,000 years and ended about 12,000 years ago. Before the glacial retreat began the area where New York City is was buried under approximately one-half mile of ice. Since the last glacial retreat the Earth has experienced a warming trend with fluctuations due to unknown causes.

    The last warming period occurred occurred over a millennium ago, during the so-called Medieval Climatic Optimum when average global temperatures were significantly warmer than they are now. This was followed several centuries later by severe drops in average global temperatures, the so-called Little Ice Age. These colder temperatures may relate to a decrease in solar activity occurring at roughly the same time, the so-called Maunder Minimum.

    Since then, average global temperatures have shown a significant rise. None of these temperature fluctuations are even vaguely related to changes in atmospheric levels of so-called “green house gases”, e.g., Carbon Dioxide and water vapor. None are explained or predicted in any way by the climate models that are supposed to be predicting global warming.

    The recent official temperature data used to parameterize current climate models and test their predictions have been fudged to lower early temperature readings and raise more recent ones. This is a transparent attempt to bolster the apparent validity and utility of these models.

    The resulting temperature time-series data should be analyzed using Box-Jenkins methods, e.g., ARIMA. Unfortunately, very few climatologists appear even to be aware that such statistical procedures are available, let alone that they are the gold standard for detecting trends and patterns in such stochastic processes as temperature time-series data. Interestingly a few published ARIMA analyses of temperature time series have been done. The ones I have been able to find all detect no statistically significant trend in recent temperature data, even doctored data like that disseminated by NOAA. All predictions of increasing temperatures correlated with rising levels of Carbon Dioxide, based on data for the past half century or so, are just wrong.

    I’ve worked with models of the type used by climatologists. They are exquisitely sensitive to parameter estimates and input data. One of the first persons to notice this, essentially coined the term “butterfly effect”. He noticed that a very small change in an input to his model produced an extraordinarily large change in its output/predictions. He said something to the effect that, “It was as if a hummingbird flapping it’s wings in the Brazilian rain forest caused a hurricane to form in the South Atlantic.” This was a critique of the models, not a description of how nature works.

    In fact those creating climate models have absolutely no data or understanding of weather and climate systems which is precise enough to estimate model parameters which are sufficiently accurate that they can produce scientifically useful predictions or explanations of either weather or climate. Instead they guestimate parameters, run computer simulations using their models, and then re-guestimate to get models that produce the results they want. It’s an amusing game, actually a con game. It is not science.

    By the wat, the reasonably accurate weather forecasts one gets these days are not based on models anything like those used by today’s climatologist con artists. These weather models are all probabilistic, based on matching past weather conditions to current ones. Anyone who pays close attention to weather reports will hear occasional references to this.

    I am always running into people who assume that because I am skeptical of anthropogenic climate change I am scientifically ignorant. I invariably determine that it is these people who are ignorant, relying for their knowledge on MSM reporters who are almost as ignorant as they. I fully realize that climate change is inevitable and that we should be prepared to respond to such change, even if it is unexpected and sudden. I do not believe that it is currently within humanity’s capacity to predict such change, let alone affect it in any way. The human race could as readily be facing a rapid onset reglaciation as rising sea levels from rising temperatures. We don’t know.

    The only reasonable approach gumanity can take towards dealing with climate change is to assume that it will occur but that we cannot predict when nor the form it will take. We will only be able to respond to climate change after the fact with policies prepared ahead of time and infrastructure and other resources designed for a flexible response. To assume that warming is inevitable and can be impacted by drastic alterations in the economy is putting all of the human race’s eggs in one basket. It would be an unimaginable tragedy if the climate suddenly became colder and dryer and humanity find itself unable to respond because we’d already squandered the necessary time and resources dealing with a nonexistent warming threat. Probabilistic calculations, based on past geological history, suggest that humanity should worry more about falling average temperatures rather than rising ones.

    • Replies: @paraglider
    , @Anonymous
  9. @Jus' Sayin'...

    the real tragedy we in the usa and in western europe face is the intellectual decay within our higher level learning institutions. we have as a society endeavored to pretend the bell curve of human genetically based intelligence is not valid or fair to all those on the left side of the curve.

    as a result we have policies which move up the ladder individuals wholly incapable of performing at the level to which they have been hired and public policy at all levels is predicated on increasing this farce. that might be ok in an agrarian society but unacceptable in a high tech civilization. and this is not race based though there is plenty of that embarrassing nonsense. there are loads of white morons with soft humanities degrees in the state department, fbi and cia making foreign policy and planning military adventures to which they have not got a clue how to execute to win. poly sic and english lit degrees do not comport well with threatening peers like russia and china run by military and scientific professionals easily able to run rings around fools like bolton, pompeo, the entire obama team…. just for starters.

    regrettably our best universities are filled with wastebasket courses offering wastebasket degrees taught by wastebasket level intellects all in the name of fairness and PC

    if you want a recipe for societal failure look no further and it shows everyday in the quality of our leaders and non stem graduates who pretend that wishing and legislation make it real.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  10. Sean says:

    After all, the structure of much of our planet since the middle of the last century has been an America First one (even if Donald Trump is clueless on the subject). Now, it’s being ditched and, in doing so, The Donald seems to be speeding up a process that, historically speaking, was already underway

    . If the structure was in practice benefiting America why was China so happy with it, eh? China is growing too fast for America, and countries like S. Korea, Japan and Germany are economic aggressors that are also military freeloaders. Trump is the begining of a trend, but it has been left too late and China is probabally unstoppable now.

  11. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    “… president and his crew assiduously working to dismantle, piece by piece, an American imperial system, a genuine world order, that was almost three-quarters of a century in the making.”

    I doubt it, but is Mr. Engelhardt regretting this? I thought he was supposed to be an antiwar dissident.

  12. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    If climate change is nonsense, then why is Arctic ice circling the drain?

    • Replies: @paraglider
    , @restless94110
  13. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    You are scientifically ignorant; the climate models are actually very accurate, as this graph shows:

    More info:

    Climate Myth: Models are Unreliable

  14. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    Even if your vaunted Grand Solar Maunder Minimum happens, it would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming.

    More info:

    A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

  15. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    The real tragedy we in the usa and in western europe face is the consequences of evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere. You do understand that consequences cannot be wished away, right?

  16. @Anonymous

    pay attention!

    i said man-made climate change is bullshit not cyclical climate change which has been happening for several billion years.

    arctic ice disappearing has happened numerous times over the earths life and antarctic ice has not diminished but is increasing and all this is irrelevant anyway.

    the greatest trials the earth has ever experienced apart from large meteors hitting us have been the great lasting ice ages sweeping down from the poles. you want mass extinction apart from crap hitting us and mass volcanic eruptions look to glaciers and numbing cold for centuries.

    global warming has always historically coincided with the rise of civilizations going back to the sumerians and rising agricultural killing cold has wiped off more great empires and civilizations than any single factor.

    the graphs you claim prove your point prove 3 things none of them flattering to you critical thinking ability

    1. to believe and hang your hat on the simple minded idea that a trend in motion will remain in a linear line over time is the height of idiocy. ask anyone who has EVER tried this childish concept out by buying stocks on the nyse and see how fast they have lost money over time.

    2. the graphs you show are predicated on the accuracy of the data. garbage in garbage out. to offer you a comparison more in keeping with your apparent intellectual rigor recall all the so called scientific and well researched polls on hillary clintons probabilities to win the white house in 2016 assured us she was unbeatable.

    3. the data sets used to justify this climate change nonsense are very short duration, several decades at most which prove NOTHING since data of such a short term on something as large as a planetary scale of life several billions years old is not even a rounding error. all the data prove is that the publisher has an agenda and/or is too sloppy to actually do the needed research to come to an accurate conclusion using a far larger data set and not merely using data from limited locations like over sampling cities

    climate change hysteria now underway is intellectual sloth in service to a political agenda which if i wasn’t such a trusting soul i might conclude the REAL purpose behind global warming hysteria is ultimately to force a huge depopulation humans on the earth reducing the bulk of the population into a high tech neo-feudalism of brutish living standards.

    if all man-made climate hysteria was actually politically acted upon whose grandchildren are you trying to prevent from born, yours or mine?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  17. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s funny how each of your well-worn denials are listed and debunked at the outstanding Skeptical Science website.

    Climate Myth: “Climate’s changed before”
    Science Says: Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

    Climate Myth: “It’s the sun”
    Science Says: In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

    > paraglider says: you trying to prevent from born

    Huh? Funny how you have to resort to bald-faced lies and try to put words in my mouth. Because you can’t stick to the science. Try not lying for once and sticking to the science briefly, ok?

    I know by your low intellect, as evidenced by your preponderance of bluster and name-calling, that facts won’t change your mind, but I post this in the interest of showing others a good website that debunks the silly climate myths you’re repeating.

    • Replies: @paraglider
  18. @Anonymous

    Two points:

    (1) The temperature data are fudged. It’s an open and well known scandal that NOAA’s “corrections and adjustments” to historic temperature data have almost universally decreased temperature readings for older measurements and increased them for later ones. This has been a pattern across the board regardless of location or other circumstances. It’s not quite as blatant and scandalous as Michael Mann’s now thoroughly discredited “hockey stick model” but damned close.

    (2) The “predictions” you show are not actually predictions. They are outputs from models whose parameters have been adjusted to give the desired results. These models, their parameters, and their outputs – what you refer to as predictions – have changed almost continuously over the entire time since AGW first reared its head. The models have currently been adjusted so their outputs matched NOAA’s current fudged temperature data. Based on past experience, the outputs will undoubtedly change in the future.

    You are a perfect example of the smug scientific ignorance I noted in my first post. You have obviously gained your “knowledge” from superficial reading of biased reporting in the MSM, have done little if any in depth research into the science involved, and have failed to address any of the points I presented in my original piece.

    Unfortunately, your type of ignorance is all to common, as illustrated here:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  19. @Anonymous

    If you are claiming that fluctuations in solar output have less effect on Earth’s climate than human activity then you’re wrong by better than five orders of magnitude.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  20. Anonymous[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    No, the temperature data isn’t fudged; that’s another bullshit lie of yours, addressed here:

    Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

    Are surface temperature records reliable?

    Again, you show your ignorance how science works. Climate models are adjusted and changed to give the desired results, that is, to conform as perfectly as possible to known historical data. Only then are they turned around to point to the future to predict.

    You’re the perfect of somebody who doesn’t get outdoors enough. Maybe you just need to get outside of your mommy’s basement. Even a simple gardener knows what’s coming up – the temperature. That’s why hardiness zones have moved so far north.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  21. Sparkon says:

    Climate models are adjusted and changed to give the desired results, that is, to conform as perfectly as possible to known fudged historical data.

    Fortunately, there is a temperature record that is out of reach of the temperature adjusters. Local and state high temperature records prove that the 1930s were the warmest decade in the instrumental record in the United States.

    Nineteen states set all-time high temperature records during the decade of the 1930s, but only one new state high temperature record has been set since 2000, and one tie.

    Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

    What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

    As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, “Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.”

    So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.

    The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  22. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re right, there’s a public record of temperatures; there is no hoax monster hiding under the bed.

    No, the 1930’s were not the warmest decade in the US, the last decade was. See this graph of US Temperature:

    Tony Heller (Steve Goddard) is a proven ultra-liar that even climate deniers like WUWT now shun because his lies based on ridiculous cherry picking are so embarrassing. You can keep up with his lies here, even regarding his lies about GISS temps being wrongly adjusted.

    Another detailed exposé on Tony Heller’s fraud:
    USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

  23. @Anonymous

    for you the man made climate change hysteria is not about science

    climate change hysteria and earth worship has moved into the irrational world of religion

    either we believe your point of view or we do not.

    all the tables and charts are 21rst century pseudo scientific worry beads to camouflage what is at base just another faith………something to make life seem less scary……religion.

    no point for me wasting any more time with you

    my only choice with you and your ilk is to drop down and worship at the climate change… Gaia altar or be burned at the stake as a heretic.

    good luck placing your trust and future in fairy tales you’re going to need it

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  24. Sparkon says:

    Making a personal attack on Heller/Goddard proves nothing. The discussion at WUWT does not support your hysterical claim that “Tony Heller (Steve Goddard) is a proven ultra-liar that even climate deniers like WUWT now shun…”

    From your WUWT link commenter Eliza::

    June 26, 2014 at 7:09 am

    Wow it appears that in the main, apart from Stokes ect., that most of the postings above are in fact SUPPORTING Goddard, not WUWT. Take note. When you look at the WHOLE picture its obvious that Goddard is correct just look at all the “other” adjustments everywhere BOM, NZ, GISS graphs its all over the place this is just ONE quibble (this whole post is just about that ONE quibble). Anyway I back Goddard 100% his contributions outnumber any other I’ve seen in the ciurrent AGW debate.So far all the current climate data is supporting his contention (no Warming, AGW is Bull####) take note. Take Five LOL.

    Hoist by your own petard?

    Steven Goddard

    Investor’s Business Daily chose to quote Heller/Goddard in 2018, so that publication obviously doesn’t share your biased opinion, nor is his the only voice saying the numbers have been fudged to make the distant past appear more cool, and the recent past warmer.

    This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

    But after the NOAA’s wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

    Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

    Nineteen states set their high temperature record in the decade of the 1930s, but only one state record and one tie have been set since 2000, so clearly, the 1930s were much warmer than the last two decades as reflected in NOAA’s own state temperature record data that has not been subject to jiggery pokery.

    Here are NOAA’s state high temperature records in condensed format:

    AL 112 09061925, AK 100 06271915, AZ 128 06291994, AR 120 08101936²
    CA 134 07101913, CO 114 1933²/1954*, CN 106 1916/1995*, DE 110 07211930²
    FL 109 11111980, GA 112 1952/1983*, HA 100 04271931², ID 118 07281934²
    IL 117 07141954, IN 116 07141936², IA 118 07201934², KS 121 07241936²*
    KY 114 07281930², LA 114 08101936², ME 105 July 1911*, MD 109 Aug 1918*
    MA 107 08021975, MI 112 07131936², MN 115 07291917, MS 115 08291930²
    MO 118 07141954, MT 117 1893/1937², NE 118 1934²/1936²*, NV 125 06291994
    NH 106 07041911, NJ 110 07101936², NM 122 06271994, NY 108 07221926
    NC 110 08211983, ND 121 07061936², OH 113 0721934², OK 120 Aug 1936²*
    OR 119 08101898, PA 111 07101936²*, RI 104 08021975, SC 113 06292012¹
    SD 120 1936²/2006¹*, TN 113 08091930²*, TX 120 1936²/1994*, UT 117 07051985
    VT 107 07071912, VA 110 1900/1954*, WA 118 1928/1961*, WV 112 1930²/1936²*
    WI 114 07131936², WY 115 1983/1988

    ¹ 21st century – one record in SC in 2011, one tie in SD 1936/2006 (*)
    ² 1936 appears in this list 14 times; 1930=5, 1934=4, 1954=4, 1994=4, 1983=3, 1911=2, 1975=2.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  25. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    I made no personal attack, it’s an attack on his really stupid bumbling lies. You’re such a dumbass that you instantly regurgitate what I already addressed that proves Tony Heller (Steve Goddard) is lying. Read my links in comment #23 why Tony Heller is a liar, from both Anthony Watt’s (a climate denier for whom Tony Heller used to write before he became too embarrassing) perspective, and otherwise. Investor’s Business Daily isn’t a science publication, and they’ve been suckered by his lies, or find his lies comforting. You may as well be quoting Ladies Home Journal.

    But nothing will convince you you’re wrong, because that’s how your kind of stupid works. However, even the densest of morons are going to start doubting your position when the Arctic has a “Blue Ocean Event,” with nearly all the ice gone in September (under 1×10^3km^3) as depicted in the PIOMAS data in my comment #12.

    Do explain what is melting the ice, given that you think we’re getting colder. Do you understand the simple 2nd grade concept that heat makes things warmer enough to melt ice?

  26. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    Do explain what is melting the ice, given that you think we’re getting colder. Do you understand the simple 2nd grade concept that heat makes things warmer enough to melt ice? (This is a graph of the arctic ice minimum volume that happens in September, same data as the black line in the graph in my comment #12, just presented differently, with trend line.)

    Sorry, all your lies about me are utterly wrong. I don’t worship Gaia. I vote Republican, never have voted Democrat. I’m presenting the science in an effort to try to prevent conservatives from looking like totally stupid dumbasses when the “Blue Ocean Event” (Arctic ice under 1000 km^3) happens, which according to the trends depicted in the chart above, will happen circa 2024, give or take a few years.

  27. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:

    Is anybody willing to admit what makes ice melt?

    Could it be…Satan!?! 🙂
    (hat tip to Dana Carvey’s comedy character Church Lady)

    Denial involves blocking external events from awareness. If some situation is just too much to handle, the person just refuses to experience it. But no one disregards reality and gets away with it for long.

  28. Sparkon says:

    “I made no personal attack”

    Blah, blah

    “You’re such a dumbass…”

    Blah blah

    “Your kind of stupid.”

    Blah blah blah

    Apparently the irony of your hypocrisy entirely escapes you

    You would like to focus all your attention on Goddard and pretend that he is the only one who sees the data fudging and is calling it out, when hockey stick skeptics are numerous and vocal. You have completely ignored NOAA’s U.S. state high temperature record data I posted which proves unequivocally that the 1930s were the warmest decade.

    Nineteen states set their all-time instrumental high temperature record during the 1930s, but only one new record since 2000.

    California’s all-time high temperature record of 134° F was set in 1913, more than 100 years ago.

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    I suspect it is getting cooler. Obviously, the ocean retains heat much longer than the atmosphere. Recently, there was a news report that Palm Springs had set a new record with 88 consecutive days without hitting 80°. The old record was 71 days, but I don’t think Palm Springs has quite made it to 80° yet this year, so it’s probably over 100 straight days below 80° in what is traditionally one of America’s hot spots.

    Remind me again where it is etched in granite the ideal amount — if any — of Arctic ice.

    Remind me again how the Vikings on Greenland farmed land that is now permafrost.

    Remind me again how lush forests grew under glaciers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  29. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    “I suspect it is getting cooler.” That’s the 5th most used climate-denier myth. It’s not. Grab a thermometer. Do you know how to use one?

    Reminder: nobody mentioned any “ideal” amount of ice. You’re in denial, and trying both put words in my mouth and to move the goalpost. The ice is melting, steadily, over many years, in a long term trend. Because it’s getting warmer. You’re too much in denial to admit what melts ice. Warmth. Also, your cherry-picking of a single city is risible. No, I have not ignored your cherry picking of single days of anomalous data. Global warming isn’t about cherry picking data, and cherry picking anomalies does not negate an average.

    Reminder: The icecap on Greenland is at least 400,000 years old, as evidenced by ice cores dating back that far. “According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. However, the age of the ice sheet, which is more than 3 kilometres thick in places and covers 80% of Greenland, proves that the opportunities to establish communities would have been limited to rather small areas…Greenland wasn’t green.”

    Reminder: There have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth’s temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

    Yet the globe warms. Even the ocean.

  30. APilgrim says:

    Scientist who popularized term “global warming” dies at 87, NEW YORK (AP), Yesterday, 02/18/2019,

    Wallace Smith Broecker, 87, the Columbia University professor and researcher who raised early alarms about climate change, and popularized the term “global warming”, died Monday at a New York City hospital.

    And his math was faulty.

  31. APilgrim says:

    Wallace Smith Broecker ATTENDED Wheaton College, Illinois.

    That’s about it, actually, as far as his academic record.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. APilgrim says:

    Around the world, sea level rose about 8 inches between 1901 and 2010, due to meteoric ice routinely entering Earth’s atmosphere.

    ‘Climate-Change’ and ‘Global-Warming are scams to sell: nuclear reactors, solar, wind, electric cars & other uneconomic products.

    No Sale!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  33. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    Let’s fact-check APilgrim, a liar.

    Born in Chicago in 1931, he attended Wheaton College and interacted with J. Laurence Kulp, Paul Gast and Karl Turekian. At Wheaton, he met his wife Grace Carder. Broecker then transferred to Columbia University. At Columbia, he worked at the Lamont Geological Observatory with W. Maurice Ewing and Walter Bucher…. /wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker#Life

    Broecker’s areas of research include Pleistocene geochronology, radiocarbon dating and chemical oceanography, including oceanic mixing based on stable and radioisotope distribution. This includes research on the biogeochemical cycles of the element carbon and on the record of climate change contained in polar ice and ocean sediments. Broecker has authored more than 500 journal articles and 17 books… /wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker#Research

    Broecker was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, Foreign Member of the Royal Society, and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and European Geophysical Union…. /wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker#Fellowships_and_awards

    This is exactly how climate deniers work: blatantly denying reality. They’re bald-faced liars. They expect you to be sucked in by their solemn lies.

    I bet APilgrim will never admit what melts ice either. You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  34. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    Still won’t admit what melts ice, will you?

    Climate change denial is a psychological defense mechanism for pasty basement-dwelling snowflakes who don’t peek outside and observe simple reality, such as when leaves first begin to bud in the spring.

  35. APilgrim says:

    Wallace Smith Broecker apparently never EARNED an academic degree, of any sort.

    No: BA, BS, BBA, MS, MA, MBA, JD, LLD, PhD, ThD or a God-Damned Associate of Arts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  36. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    So what? Do you think your distraction somehow negates the reality? Try harder. Maybe actually address climate change. Are you up to it? Maybe you should man up and admit what melts ice. Here’s a hint:

  37. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    I fact checked your new assertion. Aaaand….you’re lying. Again. Like I said, climate deniers have nothing to offer but 100% bullshit lies.

    Broecker was born Nov. 29, 1931, in Chicago. He received his undergraduate degree in physics at Columbia College in 1953 and his Ph.D. in geology from Columbia University five years later.

    Wallace Smith Broecker, Scientist Who Popularized Term ‘Global Warming’, Dies At 87
    19 February 2019, 6:21 pm EST By Allan Adamson, Tech Times

    Do you ever do anything other than tell bald-faced lies? Hmm?

  38. Sparkon says:

    Ancient forests emerging from beneath the melting Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska prove that the region was warmer than now about 1,000 years ago, or — wouldn’t you know it? — just after the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period, which the data fudgers and hockey stickers have been trying to erase, but whoomp there it is.

    Ancient Forest Thaws From Melting Glacial Tomb

    An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  39. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    “We shall NOT convert to electric cars…”

    “General Motors believes in an all-electric future,” Mark Reuss, GM executive…

    GM’s Future: 20 All-Electric Vehicles by 2023

    Ford is cranking up the EVs too.

    The gold rush on electric is all about the international market. Chinese drivers buy half the world’s EVs…

    Ford Finally Makes Its Move Into Electric Cars

    Don’t forget…

    38% Of American Cars Were Electric In 1900

    …electric cars are just old-timey American ingenuity and capitalism at work, just like in the good old days. We shall NOT care if you have your panties in a twist about them. LOL

  40. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    You tell yet another lie – nobody is “trying to erase” the Medieval Warm Period. Climate scientists are well aware of it. First, I already quoted an article in my above comment #30 that mentioned it. Second, the following article directly refutes your lies:

    Arguing for a hot MWP is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to these natural factors, and if the climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance caused by a change in solar or volcanic activity, there’s no reason it wouldn’t also be sensitive to changes in greenhouse gases as well. In short, a hot MWP also means a high climate sensitivity. Sorry “skeptics”, you can’t have it both ways.

    Climate Myth: IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period

    Furthermore, by bringing up the MWP, you only step on your own denialist limp dick, as the article points out. Loser! LOL

    Keep swinging, and I’ll keep proving you a liar. 🙂

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  41. Sparkon says:

    All you’ve proven is that you are a trash talking alarmist trying hard to deny the clear evidence it was warmer in Earth’s past.

    Now, your childish trash talk has earned banishment to my ‘ignore’ list, but please continue shooting yourself in the foot with your immature language and name-calling. Nothing hurts your cause more that a fool like you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  42. Sparkon says:

    (NB: I had deleted what now appears as comment 42 in moderation while trying to edit it, but there must have been a flux in the matrix, and it didn’t work. Blame it on some UR balkiness of late. Sorry about the slight duplication below, but I like to get it right.)

    It had to have been warmer than now during the MWP for the forest to grow where there are still glaciers, but I know that requires independent thinking beyond your obviously limited capacity for it, so keep on dodging.

    Now I’ve had enough of your childish low brow verbiage, and you are herewith banished to my ‘ignore’ list, but please do go on, and continue shooting yourself in the foot with your immature language and name-calling, I’m sure others here are getting a kick out of your antics, watching you self-destruct.

    Other than the raw data, nothing hurts the warmist cause more than a fanatic like you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  43. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:

    Pro-tip for climate denialists: Before you humiliate yourself, please check the website for well-worn but long-debunked climate myths. With the constant barrage of desperate incompetence on display here, I’m starting to feel bad for y’all!

  44. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:

    Who is “trying hard to deny the clear evidence it was warmer in Earth’s past?” Not anybody I know! Sweet Jesus, you’re dumber than a sack of hammers. You didn’t read the article and I even provided a chart in my comment #41 that shows the Medieval Warming Period. You need to stop going Full Retard, you precious little snowflake who had your poor feelings hurt. LOL

    It’s been WAY warmer in the past, warmer than even the Medieval Warming Period. Of course, when the earth’s climate changes, that’s when mass extinctions happen. Do you really want to go back to a Cretaceous Hothouse climate? That’s where we’re heading.

  45. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:

    You didn’t even read my comment #41. Read it. Nobody, not me, not anybody I know, is denying a Medieval Warming Period. You have to be dumber than a discarded tampon to keep saying so. How’s that for trash talk, you precious little snowflake? LOL

    How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

  46. Sparkon says:

    Nobody, not me, not anybody I know, is denying a Medieval Warming Period. You have to be dumber than a discarded tampon to keep saying so. How’s that for trash talk, you precious little snowflake? LOL

    Well what have we here? Another trash-talking twerp with canned laughter. Nobody? Really? You simply continue to deny reality, but do continue, I certainly won’t interrupt you while you make a fool of yourself, but as most sane and rational people following the discussion would know – this entire runaway global warming scam is based largely on Mann’s hockey stick, and there is clear evidence that Mikey Mann et al erased both MWP and LIA in their “hockey stick” reconstruction of Earth’s recent climate past.

    Before the jiggery pokery:

    However, that chronology represents a problem for climate alarmism, since it indicates that there’s nothing particularly unusual about the warming which occurred during the 20th century. In 1999, Mann, Bradley & Hughes challenged that orthodoxy with a new temperature reconstruction, in their heavily-hyped “hockey stick” paper, which erased the MWP and LIA to create a straight “hockey stick handle” from 1000 AD to 1900 AD, followed by a sharp “hockey stick blade” of rising temperatures in the 20th century.”

    Whoomp there it is!


    Chew on it with your next Twinkie.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:

    I got you back! I figured your dramatic goodbye flounce was a fake, as is the rest of your out-dated tripe. Thanks again for proving what a dullard you are. You’re 20 years behind in your reading. Hockey stick ain’t broke.

    While many continue to fixate on Mann’s early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result – that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).

    Climate Myth: Hockey stick is broken

    Ever going to admit what melts ice? LOL

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  48. Sparkon says:

    that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years

    Your graph and that claim are completely demolished by those doggone facts that just won’t go away. Those ancient forests being found under melting glaciers have trumped the squiggles.

    Sic transit gloria mundi And squiggles too.

    Anybody can draw, fake or fudge points and lines on a graph, but nothing besides mother nature could have put those old forests under melting glaciers. You can fudge data, but you can’t fudge old forests under melting glaciers, which prove it was warmer 1000 years ago. But go ahead and ignore the lying forests. After all, you’ve got squiggles.

    I got you back! I figured your dramatic goodbye flounce was a fake.


    Unz’s software assigns a unique number to anonymous posters, so you’ve outed yourself now as posting as both Anonymous[310] whom I had put on ‘ignore’, and now Anonymous[163]. Thanks for that, and I’ll add your sock puppet Anonymous[163] to my ‘ignore’ list as well. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that you have others.

    Welcome to the Peanut Gallery. Being on ignore reduces but doesn’t entirely exclude the possibility that I might read any given post, but I use it at my discretion to reduce clutter and dark noise since I may re-visit any article many times, and now all the ignored guys have their comments collapsed with an option to display any collapsed comment, so it works for me as I have some control over what is displayed.

    Bottom line. The temperature data have been fudged to cool the past and warm the more recent decades to create an alarming hockey stick fabrication of the climate record that has been used to promote the Watermelon green agenda, a sneaky red plan to transfer money from the wealthier nations to the poorer ones, with most of the big bucks really ending up in the pockets of a relatively small number of well-placed crooks.

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.

    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation


    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…

    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment


    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University

  49. Anonymous[192] • Disclaimer says:

    Your obtuse misunderstanding and lies about MWP doesn’t magically negate AGW. (You keep up the lie that MWP has been ignored, and it hasn’t. Stop lying.)

    Leftoids using AGW for their own nefarious political purposes doesn’t negate AGW.

    Your repeated lies about data being fudged don’t negate AGW.

    It’s still warming, and when the Arctic warms enough for the forthcoming Blue Ocean Event, who is the fool here will be readily apparent, and the Right’s deliberate ignorance of scientific evidence will be used against them. Myself, I voted for Trump and still support his agenda, but sadly his opposition to scientific facts is going to prove as futile as stopping the tides. He’s missing a great opportunity to grab the AGW narrative from the Leftoids and run the ball for the home team.

    AGW is based on scientific facts; some day soon you’ll have to face the consequences of ignoring facts. Stupidity always has consequences.

    Source: Climate Myth: There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature

  50. @paraglider

    Spoken by someone as marinated in propaganda as the typical SJW.

    Right now it is warmer in Prudhoe Bay than it is outside my house at 45° N.  There used to be a polar vortex which mostly confined winter arctic air to the arctic, but with the greenhouse effect weakening the polar circulation that vortex can’t hold the air any more and, thanks to an errant jet stream, it’s spilling my way.  Overnight temperatures will be below zero F for the Nth night in a row.

    Just last year it was the opposite.  There were 4 solid weeks of thaw conditions in February and March and the ground almost cleared of snow twice.  This is the general trend; the season for “ice roads” which are the only way to move heavy freight through much of the north gets shorter every year.  The “corn belt” has moved well north into Canada.  These things don’t lie.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  51. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Rational

    You’re correct, Alaska is warmer (in some places by far) than the Midwest and even Texas(!); the phenomenon is now called “Warm Arctic – Cold Continents.” This is the way it looks right now:

    It’s caused by global warming, which warms the arctic more, and reduces the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. A reduced gradient weakens the Jet Stream (polar vortex) to the point that it’s “drunk” and dips up and down wildly, such as today looks. The Jet Stream (at least one segment of it, since the weak jet stream is now often splitting) wanders from south of Japan to nearly the North Pole, then drops wildly to the US mainland.

    There are several videos on youtube explaining it well, better than I can with still maps. Anybody who spends 10 to 15 minutes to understand it knows that Trump sounds like an utter moron when he trolls twitter about these “polar vortex” cold snaps that are becoming more frequent and stagnating with a weak jet stream. It makes me sad, I voted for him, like his style, but ignoring reality is stupid and has consequences.

    We really need that cold air in the Arctic, keeping the ice cold. Instead, we’ve actually had ice retreat in the winter in the Arctic this year. It’s like somebody left the freezer door open.

  52. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    Do you know how old the science is that proves carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Climate change science has been going for 200 years. It takes only a bit of old-fashioned common sense to understand it.

    Source: The History of Climate Science

  53. @Anonymous

    The source you constantly use, skepticalscience, is false. For a detailed explanation as to why, see:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  54. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    A cartoonist? LOL!

    Another such Internet celebrity that has pushed pseudoscience is comic artist Scott Adams. On his blog, he has promoted both creationism and climate denial before.

    Dilbert Cartoonist Scott Adams Still Fails Basic Climate Science

    What are you going to offer next? A Bible-banging, snake-handling fundamentalist preacher railing about the Scopes Monkey Trials?

    Funny how you think a creationist cartoonist blows up tens of thousands of science articles with magic.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  55. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    But the other important thing to keep in mind is that this is simply not a good-faith challenge from Adams. As climate scientist Tamsin Edwards notes, models are never perfect. But if you pick the least wrong one, they are important tools that can’t be ignored.

    Dilbert creator Scott Adams issues bad-faith ‘climate challenge’
    Too bad climate science won’t actually change his mind

    • Replies: @restless94110
  56. @Anonymous

    You are not qualified to comment unless and until you watch the video I referenced.

    Your points are irrelevant since Scott simply questions the expert, challenging him to flesh out his assertions.

    It matters not what Scott does, only what questions he asks and what thought processes he employs. Anyone who had seen even one of Scott’s videos would know this. You do not, thus you are just trolling and all of your comments have now become completely worthless.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  57. @Anonymous

    Your claim that this is not an effort in good faith are evidence free. In fact, the contrary is true. No one from the climate alarmists will join in any kind of dialog though. And that is a fact.

    As for models? All models and projections are wildly innaccurate. All of them.

    But as is pointed out in the video you are too busy trolling to take the time to see, models that have 20 different possible results are not science and do not represent evidence.

    Science is provable. 20 alternatives is not proof.

    I can see from your many many many replies on this thread that you troll and troll and troll until people stop replying to your endless nonsense from the skepitcalscience misinformation website.

    You convince no one.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    The news has covered your cartoonists silly challenge, the challenge was accepted, and your cartoonist was made a fool by a scientist who actually understands how science and scientific models work. Quit projecting how worthless and uninformed you are.

    You can’t even answer what melts ice!

    • Replies: @restless94110
  59. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re right, science never convinces Creationist retards like your cartoonist.

    And you’re retarded too. In an article about how climate change is the end game for US global power, you’re the damned “troll.” But SJWs always project, and you’re a prime example.

    And you’re a liar. “All models and projections are wildly innaccurate.”

    Climate models have also been accurately projecting global surface temperature changes for over 40 years. Climate contrarians have not:

    Source: How reliable are climate models?

    There’s the proof.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  60. @Anonymous

    You are not allowed to comment on this subject until and unless you have watched the video in full.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  61. @Anonymous

    My first reply to your post was somehow deleted. I’ll say it again and to the moderator: this reply is specific to the post it replies to.

    You are not allowed to comment on a video you have not watched. If and when you watch it then you can comment on it.

    The idea that you would put something down or criticize it without even knowing what it was is the height of ignorance and trollery.

    Basta. Watch something before you criticize it. Otherwise you are the equivalent of the screaming child that cups his ears and tightly closes his eyes while screaming so no one else can talk or think.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  62. Anonymous[184] • Disclaimer says:

    I like your idea! You are not allowed to comment until you have read all the peer reviewed articles that you falsely say are lies and manipulating data. After you’re done doing things to your own standard, and report back to me, I’ll get started following your good example. 🙂


  63. Anonymous[184] • Disclaimer says:

    You have to read all the peer-reviewed scientific journal articles evidencing the data in the following NASA chart before you criticize it. Your rules. Get back with me when you’re finished reading, and I’ll take your report. 🙂

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  64. Sparkon says:

    Nice cherry slice to exclude the Little Ice age and preceding Medieval Warm Period from your short-term graph. Looking at a longer term graph should dispel any misconception that current warming is either unique or alarming.

    Jo Nova

    Remember, the ancient forests being found beneath currently melting glaciers in Alaska also prove it had to have been significantly warmer during the MWP for forests to have grown where now there are only glaciers.

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

    You’re still stepping on your own dick.

    “arguing for a hot MWP is actually arguing that greenhouse gases must be causing significant global warming”

    Climate Myth: “there is nothing unusual, nothing unnatural or nothing unprecedented about the planet’s current level of warmth, seeing it was just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods”

  66. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    And remember, Arctic sea ice extent is currently lower than at any time in the past 1,450 years.

    This, in spite of the Arctic cooling over the last 2000 years, which has been abruptly halted by AGW, as seen in the graph below:

    Graphs above sourced from:

    So nobody but you is surprised by glaciers advancing in the last 2000 years as the Arctic has been steadily cooling (until that recent “hockey stick” of warming.)

    Another reminder: if you want it even warmer in the past, you can’t just say it was warm from magic. You have to have a mechanism for it to be warmer, which is why you’re “stepping on your own dick.” You’re not thinking your argument all the way through.

  67. Sparkon says:

    Another reminder: if you want it even warmer in the past, you can’t just say it was warm from magic. You have to have a mechanism for it to be warmer, which is why you’re “stepping on your own dick.” You’re not thinking your argument all the way through.

    The pot calls the teacup black.

    In addition to having a mechanism for making it warmer, I have also a mechanism for making it cooler. Can your magic molecule make it warmer some of the time and cooler some of the time?


    It’s the Sun, son.

    Let me guess you’ve never studied either Astronomy or Geology, and spend your idle hours thinking about fantastic dongs long enough to step on.

    Meanwhile in California, LA just went the entire month of February 2019 without reaching the 70°F mark for the first time in recorded history, and it hasn’t hit 80°F in Palm Springs in over 100 days, and counting, also a record.

    Back in the Midwest earlier this year, Illinois recorded its instrumental low temperature record of -38°F on Jan. 31, 2019 at Mt. Carroll.

    Solar Cycle # 24 is expected to reach its minimum by late in this year.

    For hundreds of millions of years such changes in solar activity have been associated with changes from warming to cooling. And back again. The long run to the recent peak in activity was the strongest in thousands of years. Despite this, temperatures were not as warm for as long as set during the Medieval Warm Period. The end to that long trend and turn to cooling in the early 1300s was drastic, causing widespread crop failures and famine in Northern Europe and England. A book by William Rosen, “The Third Horseman” covers it thoroughly. The die-off from 1315 to 1320 is estimated at some 10 percent of the population. Deaths of cattle, sheep and horses were severe as well. All due to the turn to cold and unusually wet weather.

    The change to what some are calling the Modern Minimum is significant. In geological perspective, it is now a built-in cooling force.

    (my bold)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s the Sun, son? You done pulled a funny…here we go again! I just type your words into the search engine at and…

    As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

    Climate Myth…It’s the sun

    Sorry, you can’t get rid of the anthropogenic component, no matter how hard you try. Reality is like that.

    Then you Gish gallop to a cold continent temperature forgetting that it’s actually a Warm Arctic – Cold Continents phenomenon that is caused by global warming, as noted in comment #52. I doubt another dose of reality about chilly Illynois (see, I can pull a funny too) will help you, but I’ll try:

    A meandering jet stream allows deep troughs and ridges, allowing some areas to get unusually warm while other areas become unusually cold.

    See that area in the illustration below marked “unusually cold?” Please make a note of it.

  69. Sparkon says:

    Variation in Solar output is the only known force capable of starting and ending advance of the continental ice sheets.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  70. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    Wrong again. But at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that. If you were right, the globe would be cooling now. But it’s not, not by a long shot.

    A recalculation of the dates at which boulders were uncovered by melting glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age has conclusively shown that the glacial retreat was due to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as opposed to other types of forces. The data helps to confirm predictions of future glacial retreat, and that most of the world’s glaciers may disappear in the next few centuries.

    Greenhouse gases caused glacial retreat during last Ice Age

    But we know these orbital changes are not behind today’s global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

    What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  71. Sparkon says:

    Nope; you’re still mixed up about cause and effect.

    In the ice core records, CO₂ lags temperature by up to 800 years. The increased level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an effect of global warming, and not its cause. As the oceans warm, they outgas carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

    The Medieval Warm Period occurred between about 1100 and 800 years ago. QED. We are now reaping the benefit of the long-ago warmth in terms of increased CO₂ in the atmosphere, which I happen to think is a good thing that contributes to the greening of our planet and the bounty of our harvests.

    Put in more prosaic terms, your beer does not get warm because it loses CO₂, but rather it loses CO₂ — that fizzy carbonation — because it gets warm.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  72. Anonymous[403] • Disclaimer says:

    Wrong again…

    To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

    • Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
    • CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
    • CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
    • Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3 below).

    CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?

    …but I’m glad you keep giving opportunity to educate.

Current Commenter

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

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower