June 2012 – Leading Alarmists Declare That Global Warming Is Over

Leading alarmist John Cook told us this week that temperatures have been nearly flat for 15 years,  are below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario, and that it is because we have already cut our emissions of the most potent greenhouse gases (CFCx, CH4 and N2O) by 80-90% below what was forecast.

John provided this graph showing that temperatures have risen very little for 15 years, and are below Hansen’s “zero emissions after the year 2000” Scenario C.

Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988

The father of GAIA, James Lovelock also told us this week that his forecasts of global warming doom were misguided.

‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change – World News

If alarmists are telling us that we have already made huge cuts in emissions, that temperatures are barely rising, and that they were wrong all along – what is it that they are worrying about?

Time to pack this $100 billion/year scam up and figure out why some of the key players continue to lie about it.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to June 2012 – Leading Alarmists Declare That Global Warming Is Over

  1. Hugh K says:

    Alarmists defeat global warming….war over…world saved!
    At the least, a segway parade for the team at The University of East Anglia is in order.

  2. johnmcguire says:

    Oh , they’re not through stealing yet. They are just going to shift their direction and keep right on stealing until they are held to an accounting. I am pretty sure neither Obama or Romney would prosecute them or even take away their funding. We still have a terrible problem with having a corrupt government. I fear it is going to get even more evil.

    • cb says:

      “…neither Obama or Romney…”

      Place iron in fire = Bush.
      Hit the iron with a hammer = Obama.
      Place iron in fire = Romney.

      Repeat (with some minor variations between actors).

      Its all part of the same process. This is what happens when a large part of the voting public is perfectly happy to assign zero negative value to being a liar: witness the blatant buying of the Hispanic ‘vote’ – but most of all note that the Hispanics COULD be bought. There are other, highly obvious examples of entire people groups who regularly yield to similar corruptions (ex. the unions)… but noting them ALL by name would be oh-so not politically-correct.

      I always find it so amusing that the same hippies who scream for free-speech, so vocally support hate-crime legislation, which is nothing less than the institutionalization of thought-crime. The amusing part is that so very many people fall for the ‘hippies actually are good people’ meme: no, they ARE evil.
      In the end, it is again the (biblical) Christians who will stand and bleed for truth, justice, and all those good things… while the atheist-hippies oil the guillotine, loudly calling for ‘alternatives’ as they do so.

      It has become so blatant, that it keeps surprising me that no-one seems to notice that the battle is already lost: the few who remain are surrounded by crowds of blood-hungry barbarians. Perhaps there had been a time to fight, but that time is long, long, gone. The few are going to die, at the hands of the hippies: nothing can stop that now.

      • Brian says:

        It seems to me it’s you religious people who grease the guillotines and set fire to the free spirits you pretend to think are evil. Do you think Obama & Janet Napolitano are “liberals” or “hippes”? In that case, do you think the Loch Ness Monster is a liberal? How about the Marquis de Sade, wasn’t he a damn hippie? And then there’s Maude. She was a damn plesiosaur, and a hippie to boot! Hang ’em high, you righteous “Biblical” retard. Bibble bible babble while they divide & conquer us with ease!

        • There, there Brian… Mommy will be home soon & she’ll sooth your anger. Or are you off your medications? Or has it been a few days since you last meditated?

      • religious people who grease the guillotines

        I have to admit, Brian here finally got something right: socialism is a religion.

    • Laurie Bowen says:

      “””ConThey are just going to shift their direction and keep right on stealing until they are held to an accounting”” Would that accounting you are referring to be an accounting method? (“prey tell”)

    • Brian says:

      “I have to admit, Brian here finally got something right: socialism is a religion.”

      Mr. Dick… I assume that was a shot directed at me. However, that post you’re addressing was not made by me.

  3. Otter says:

    Things began to cool- AS THEY WELL KNEW IT WOULD- before they could get their agenda in place, so they are starting to back off… and like John above said, they’ll just find another way.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Yes, Otter. The goal is de-industrialization; the climate is just the pretense, and truth is, they could care less about it being a few degree warmer, or the sea rising a few feet. And once AGW theory shows itself to be beyond repair, they’ll hook onto any other pretense they can find to continue to push for the urgency of…. de-industrialization. My wuwt comment I just left at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/24/a-quiet-cue-ball-sun/:
      One of the things Mann’s h stick tried to suppress is the Little Ice Age. Turns out we’ve been in a process of a recovery from the LIA, but any sign of even mild warming, fully amplified by the h stick travesty, was jumped on by the warmists as proof of coming doom. Interesting, my imperfect understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted. Only with the rise of the environmentalists did the greenhouse gas theory find its new home.
      Now, with the sun stuttering, if temps start to drop in an even more pronounced way, expect the warmists to abandon all previous contentions, and in fact proclaim that the sun is to “blame” for the lack of warming. But expect the drum beat to continue about cutting CO2 on the basis that once the sun restarts, we’ll be in for it again. Expect that to fall upon ignoring ears, so the warmists will… become coolists. Just like the drastic cutbacks in industrial production proposed as a remedy by the global cooling fanatics of the 1970s, and by today’s global warmists, the warmists turned coolists will shout out that we need to cut industrial output to prevent disastrous global cooling. They will say: “Industry, STOP what you are doing right now, or else expect this cooling to become a freezing the likes of which our world has never seen; previous ice ages will be nothing in comparison, we’re talking a snowball earth in 20 or 30 years where we all will meet snowy graves.”

  4. Don Gaddes says:

    Perhaps John Cook will now allow further debate on Solar Influence on Climate, and restore the thread ‘It’s the Sun’ that he closed down to get rid of me. His ‘born again’ Christian cabal and his mentor/boss the self-styled AGW Guru Ove Hoegh- Guldberg (Climate Shifts) are becoming more nervous, irrelevent and ridiculous.

    • Paul says:

      The ‘It’s the Sun’ thread is still on Skeptical Science (No. 2 in the most popular ratings) and from what I can see, so are many of your comments.

  5. ilma630 says:

    Don Gaddes: Please don’t taint all Christians with the pro-AGW brush. There are many of us who utterly reject the AGW hypothesis, and find the behaviour of the climate scientist cabal, governments and environmentalists totally repugnant. As Christians, we see the misery and suffering caused to people and nations in the name of AGW and rally against it however we can, and *don’t* place Gaia before people, but hold people up to be more important. We also see fossil fuels as God’s gift for man to use, and God certainly wouldn’t have designed earth to be destroyable by man, nor allow him the capability to do it, so even if man burnt every last ounce of fossil fuel, no ill effect would become the earth.

    • Paul says:

      Erm where in the Bible does god say it is a gift??
      When the Bible was written, there was no knowledge of refining or any industrial process. How do you know God didn’t put fossil fuels on Earth as a temptation and that you are supposed to leave them alone?

      Your view of God is very naive and thoughtless.

      Your interpretation is biased and has no logic. You are imposing your own preconceived point of view onto the interpretation and getting the result out that you feel happy with. Thus justifying your initial POV and ignoring God totally.

      • ilma630 says:

        Perhaps “utterly reject the AGW hypothesis” was the wrong phrase, but “don’t see the weight of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis whereas there is more and growing weight of evidence that refutes it”.
        As many scientists have clearly said, computer models and the projections made from them are *not* evidence, whereas observations are. There is a great deal of observational evidence out there, of mixed quality and reliability, but much is coincidental and symptomatic, and not causal. Observational evidence examples are: rising CO2 is a symptom if rising temperatures, and the last 15 years temperature record being essentially flat whilst CO2 levels continued to rise. These refute the AGW/CAGW hypothesis. The evidence of the behaviour of the climate scientists involved with the IPCC are not in accordance with that expected from impartial scientists or those without vested interests (primarily playing the political game to maintain their funding and prestige).
        When the bible was written, God had full knowledge of the fossil fuels laid in store, and the processes that created them (and is still creating them), and gave man the ability to (eventually) learn and discover them. When God created the earth (and I, like many, don’t see creation and evolution as contradictory – again, evidence based), he declared it “Good”, which would contradict and so reject your possibility (logic) of fossil fuels being a ‘temptation’.
        I ground my statements in logic, i.e. that the actions of those supporting AGW are doing it them the detriment of people, causing them suffering, which is contrary to Christ’s commandment to “love your neighbour” (although the full command is “Love the Lord your God, and your neighbour as yourself”), an entirely logical response. Is denying developing countries the opportunity to use cheaper fossil fuels and so keeping them in poverty and ill-health, a good or bad policy? I would say bad, when the evidence is that the developed nations look after the environment much more effectively – we have cleaner air, clean water. Developed nations generally manage resources and the environment rather than strip them to survive (there are exceptions of course).
        I see the pro-AGW scientists, environmentalists and politicians continue to push the AGW/CAGW hypothesis despite evidence that the slight warming the world has experience this last century as we continue to exit the LIA is not dangerous or catastrophic. I see increasing numbers of other scientists now speaking out and rejecting the hypothesis, and formerly ardent environmentalists and Gaia-first believers changing their minds in the face of the evidence (the subject of this article), whilst the AGW supporters continue to deny that any explanation other than CO2 has any credibility – an illogical, closed mindset if ever there was one.
        I see large trains of unelected bureaucrats, UN, EU, EPA, etc. trying to steam-roller through policies overriding national governments and sovereignty, spending billions of tax payers money trying to prove their ‘side’, and trying to impose tax and regulation to solve a perceived problem based on a hypothesis that has yet to provide any evidence to unequivocally demonstrate the cause of something that hasn’t even been demonstrated to be a problem. And you say I don’t base my arguments on logic!

      • Paul says:

        ilma – so you think using fossil fuels to wage war is good?
        Logically anything is both good and bad.
        You are cherry picking to suit your own belief and have forced a meaning on fossil fuels that satisfies your justification for them.

      • Paul says:

        ilma – does God impose obesity and many other health problems onto humanity, because using fossil fuels to increase production is good?
        More and more is only good? Life is not that black and white.
        God requires you to take responsibility for the use of resources, including the bad outcomes of using them, otherwise you are just as guilty as any one if you promote the bad use of them. Humans are required by their religion to take responsibility, you seem to think that making a decision on this is black and white, that only good can come from fossil fuels.
        That is basically and largely a fantasy.

      • ilma630 says:

        Paul, Of course I don’t think using fossil fuels to wage war is good. Please stop putting words that I didn’t say in my mouth. As I said, denying developing countries access to cheaper fossil fuels is bad, not the fuels themselves, which as part of God’s creation, he called “good”. Of course, man can use anything for good or bad. The car was a fantastic invention, and has had a huge positive impact in our world, but they can also be put to bad use. The word processor, invented by Xerox (I knew the now late product manager), had as one of its first customers a pornographic publication. That doesn’t make the word processor bad?
        It’s these fuels and man’s learned knowledge to use them that have enabled developed nations’ people (us) to climb out of the poverty that was rife in past centuries, to allow them to develop skills, ingenuity, businesses and livelihoods, become healthier, live longer, etc. The greens and pro-AGWers would and are trying to deny them that, citing people are the problem and wanting to dramatically decline numbers. Even wars over fuel resources are a wrong response, as even the concept of ‘peak oil’ has a growing body of evidence against it. Why fight over something that isn’t as scarce as has been made out to be.
        I simply cannot agree with the green’s concept that man is the problem, or that burning fossil fuels is bad and will be catastrophic. It goes against a huge body of evidence, and against all Christian principles.

      • Paul says:

        Ilma you stated:
        “When God created the earth (and I, like many, don’t see creation and evolution as contradictory – again, evidence based), he declared it “Good”, which would contradict and so reject your possibility (logic) of fossil fuels being a ‘temptation’.”

        In your statement you are clearly stating that fossil fuels are good by gods decree. I am not putting words in your mouth. You have stated that god declared them good. Hence your rejection that they could possibly a temptation.
        You have inferred that humans can not be tempted and that no matter what, only good things can come about from using them.

        Next you quote inventions that were invented by humans and then compared those with the fossil fuels example. Yet you have clearly stated that fossil fuels are linked to creation and are declared good by god. But wordprocessors were not produced at the point of your creation concept. By definition they are not the same thing in your own belief system. One has clearly been created by god at the start, the second is the invention of the human mind. A mind that your religion says can choose to do both right or wrong through free will.

      • Paul says:

        “If there were no fossil fuels available for a week, even the stupidest person would recognize that they are good.”

        Take anything away for a week and most people would miss it. That isn’t a definition of good, that is a definition of prior knowledge that something existed.

    • Paul says:

      Ilma said:
      “simply cannot agree with the green’s concept that man is the problem, or that burning fossil fuels is bad and will be catastrophic. It goes against a huge body of evidence, and against all Christian principles.”

      You are contradicting yourself again and your religion.
      You say that ‘man’ is not the problem and it would go against christian principles.
      Yet the Christian religion clearly and regularly states that people are a problem, otherwise there is no religion, we would all be in a paradise. It is the duty to understand what the problems are, denying that humans could not cause the problem is a bit naive, especially if you base it on religious belief from the start.
      It is perfectly possible that fossil fuels are a problem, in particular the way humans use them. Religion does not state that the choice humans make is going to be black and white. It is perfectly possible and inevitable that something that appears to be initially good, can turn out to be bad. Indeed, that is the whole concept of temptation in a nut shell.

      You could only possibly come to a rational conclusion by looking at the science first and then deciding whether the religious principles are being broken by accepting humans are causing a problem. In the Christian religion there is no automated response to any dilema.

      • suyts says:

        Paul, do you have any idea what you’re babbling about or are you intentionally being obtuse?

        “Yet the Christian religion clearly and regularly states that people are a problem, otherwise there is no religion, we would all be in a paradise.”

        That is entirely incorrect. That isn’t in any Christian doctrine I’m aware of. Perhaps you could share with me the which denomination holds this.

        Most Christian faiths hold that it was the temptation of the Serpent which caused the original sin. Most also hold that we were made in the image of God. That we inherited the good characteristics but, were only corrupted by the original sin.

        While it is true, man can do works of evil, we are, by and large, a part of nature, not an antagonist to nature. And, if one does take an objective look at the science and history, we can see mankind, and his prosperity, has a great and positive effect on nature. Your word games with sincere people are despicable.

      • ilma630 says:

        Paul, it is evident that you have no idea at all what Christianity is about and your understanding of theology is non-existent. I don’t claim to be a theological expert, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that man is the problem (for the earth). It does of course say that man has rejected God by his own choice, hence the ills of the world and his capability and desire by many to use good things for bad.
        Yes, fossil fuels are “good” as God declared his whole creation “good”. Go and read the genesis story, the evidence is there in black and white. Part of his creation of man though was to give him (us) free will, to either follow or reject God. We chose the latter. The temptation therefore is not what God created, but how we choose to use it – a huge difference.
        Steve is right (although you twist his meaning), if we didn’t have fossil fuels, then we would not have been able to create the society we have, with the health and benefits we enjoy. Without cars powered by petrol/diesel/gas, we could not go out from our cities and enjoy the country. Without fossil fuelled transport, we couldn’t go on holiday, we couldn’t travel any distance to work or visit family and friends, or be fetched and rushed to hospital by an ambulance or receive treatment when there. You may say electric vehicles could do this, but their impracticalities and inefficiencies mean they don’t (even electric milk floats seem to have all but died out).
        What goes against Christianity, is when people make the earth (Gaia) more important than man, i.e. governments and bureaucrats that enact policies they think will “save the planet” but actually harm people. Take the biofuels debacle that took arable land away from food production, incl. wheat, so pushing up food prices. Do you applaud that? I don’t! Take the renewables sham. They have needlessly pushed up energy prices which make the poorer less able to afford heating, and transfer huge amounts of money from them into rent-seeking wind farm landlords. I am no socialist, but I cannot stand by and watch such wanton harm be foistered on people based on the CAGW hypothesis, when there is so much evidence against it, and policies enacted that actually kill people. Look at the Met Office and their CO2 driven (or is that drivel) but failed seasonal forecasts, especially the last few winters where their forecasts completely failed to predict the harsh weather in which so many died, avoidably so. Your position seems to place you in the camp that supports such policies, so supporting deliberately harming people by a multitude of methods, poverty, homelessness, starvation, hypothermia, isolation, injury, death! How can you accept that? I hope you don’t. I can’t, and won’t.

      • ilma630 says:

        “Religion does not state that the choice humans make is going to be black and white.” Actually, Christianity does. God says we are either for him or against him. There is no sitting on the fence.If we accept him, we accept that his creation is inherently good, fossil fuels included. Gaia worshippers reject God, so are against him. They reject his creation is good. They reject that the earth can sustain even today’s population. They reject that we should build the infrastructure and harvest the natural resources, God’s good creation, for our benefit, and that those will sustain us.
        For example, the EU prevented the building of water storage facilities to meet the needs of a growing population, something that is quite within our capability to do, such that when there is a dry season, we have enough stored up to manage. Another, why does the gov’t not provide good winter fuel payments to the elderly and try to make electricity as cheaply as possible, rather than force expensive and unaffordable renewable generated electricity on us. Why? Because they ‘believe in AGW’ and mitigation rather than natural change and adaptation. The former is hugely expensive and doesn’t meet needs, whereas the latter is far cheaper and does. Meeting peoples needs and helping them adapt is a Christian response, trying to play God and control the climate (via CO2 control) is most certainly not, for when we try to play God, the results are catastrophic – just ask all those who unnecessarily lost relatives in the recent cold, harsh winters. That response, of meeting needs, is entirely based on evidence, both scientific and Christian.
        I’m afraid to say though, your view of religion, and on Christianity in particular, is way out with the fairies, in cloud cuckoo land. If you had some understanding, then you might start to get some idea of why so many Christians (i) disagree with (C)AGW, and (ii) are leading scientists.

      • suyts says:

        ilma, I just wanted to say well done. Well stated. This might interest you…..

    • Thomas Turk says:

      And as non Christians, ilma630, we see the blood of 200 million on your hands over the last 2 millenia, that fuelled by trying to spread the nonsnse about an imaginary deity and human wordship.

      • LLAP says:

        @Thomas: 200 million? As if. Maybe you should wake up to the reality that many Christians are being killed these days, especially in the Middle East and Africa, simply for being Christians. Maybe you should also look at the secular communist regimes of the 20th century (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc), with a death toll of well over 100 million in under 1oo years.

      • ilma630 says:

        Thomas, you confuse what is a nationalistic label ‘christian’ meaning from countries with Christianity as the national religion, and a personal faith, i.e. being a Christian. The UK is historically a christian nation, with an established church (C of E), but I doubt whether you would call yourself a Christian, in the sense that you have placed your life and trust in the God’s hand because of the death and resurrection of his Son Jesus, and live according to the Christian faith (labelling yourself as a ‘good’ person is not the same).
        What was done all those centuries ago, and even more recently by so-called christian nations, isn’t the true Christian faith in action, far from it.New Testament Christianity is a personal faith in God and His son Jesus Christ, a personal acceptance response to his offer of forgiveness through Jesus’ death and resurrection, it is no longer a national thing.
        As LLAP says, the death wreaked is is still being wreaked by communism and other despotic dictatorships and totalitarianism regeims makes the crusades (if that’s what you’re referring to) a tea-shop brawl by comparison. What would you rather have, someone who reflects God’s love, mercy and peace in their life defending you, or a Taliban code of conduct enforcer beating you senseless and killing you because your beard wasn’t long enough?

  6. Rosco says:

    Red faces worldwide soon I think !

    Oh wait – these guys have no conscience.

  7. Harpo says:

    I don’t understand Mr Cook…. Tim Flannery, the head of the Australian Climate Commission, said that “If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.” …. So who is right Mr Cook… You? or Tim Flannery? or neither?

    I thought the debate was settled….

  8. As the US citizen & the electorate realize that the earth is not warming they are also realizing that AGW is a political attack on their freedom. Completing the victory continues with better explained data & theory, as this site & others do so well, congratulations.

    However, the real victory will only come with a crushing blow to the Marxist & lame Leftists who are trying to hid behind the moniker of Progressivism. The crushing blow requires resources & money, money & more money. Please DONATE as much as you can EACH MONTH to CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES, not RINO’s, not Libertarians, CONSERVATIVES. I’m sorry to say, it all comes down to: POWER = MONEY =DONATE = CONTRIBUTE!

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Gostop, I totally agree with you, it will all come down to money, and you are so right to point out that it is key that we donate$. And I agree with you that we can all agree that RINOs are bad.
      But I don’t agree on Libertarians; and certainly over 50% of Republicans would classify themselves as generally libertarian (pro military also), Libertarians represent the antithesis of the big govt advocating warmist & progressive, so I’m not sure what your beef is. The Tea Party is Libertarian; it is the old time stodgy establishment that is not. I hope all of us conservatives can agree and get along, but I know that many libertarians, like Breitbart, are itching for a fight, and if the old establishment wants a fight, we are ready to take it all the way to breaking apart the Repub party, and building something new in its place.

      • Personally, I’m more of a total half breed as a political animal: 1/2 Libertarian – 1/2 Conservative. I used to vote RINO because that was the only way to “win” on issues I cared about deeply. But now, I can win by voting for the conservative Republicans… progress, versus perfection, if you will. I’d vote for most Libertarians if I thought they would win & I certainly contribute to Libertarians in many, many races.

  9. ntesdorf says:

    Well, thank goodness for that! Can we now get back to doing normal science instead of paranormal science. The poor of the World will be eternally grateful.

  10. Don Gaddes says:

    Yes Paul, the ‘It’s the Sun’ thread is still there – but Tom Curtis’ comment is the last one allowed, many months ago. I have tried to answer his scurrilous accusations of ‘hind-casting’ repeatedly, to no avail. Do you still maintain Tom, that the Lunar Metonic Cycle has no role in Climate Change?
    Do you,and those who work for your blog deny AGW John? If so, say so. I did not mention ‘all’ Christians, you are being typically duplicitous and devious..

    • Paul says:

      I just posted a comment on the ‘Its the Sun’ thread. It’s still accepting comments.
      The comments are upto page 20 now.
      No idea what you mean about Christians. From what I can see, people writing and commenting at Skeptical Science are a very mixed bunch, which is what I would expect from a site that is focused on a science issue.

    • Glenn Tamblyn says:

      Don Gaddes.

      OK I’ll bite. What in Cthulhu’s twisted Creation is a Lunar Metonic Cycle?

      Is that where Dr Who lands on the moon in the Tardis, encounters a hitherto unknown race from deep underselene, who have laboured for over a century to complete Wagners second great opus. Forget the Ring Cycle, this is the Metonic Cycle!

      Let me guess. Wagner gave up on Rhine Maidens, Niebellungs and such and went instead for grunge bands from Seattle riding high tech ‘metonic’ bicycles around the opera stage, complete with drink bottles filled with special Me-Tonic for anytime ones ego might possibly be eclipsed by mere Valkyries.

      Please Explain?

  11. John Cook is a follower, not a leader. He believed in the cause out of fear for his children, clearly knows less about science than most schoolchildren looking at his ridiculous claims for why nothing’s really happening on his website, and if he says temperatures are flat then you can guarantee temperatures are flat, as he may be as dim as an eco bulb but I don’t think he is dishonest.

    However, in standard delusional ways, he is now forced to rationalise the unexpected result with any possible way he can, despite a linear rise in CO2 since the IPCC began the hockey stick diagram start point. I suspect many of his far less than honest colleagues (I know them only too well, I’d rather try and escape a nest of vipers than try and beat them in an argument) will be doing it in their pants after such a statement, like me, fully realising he has both blown the cover and made such a bleeding awful excuse even Michael Mann will be turning his face away in embarrassment. The UN however, along with such greats as Obama and David Cameron are still bleating on about rising CO2 levels and who is going to reduce them first, while the scientist (sic) John Cook has just used his superior qualifications to quietly tell a few people on the internet they have actually been put under control for at least 15 years.

    You couldn’t make it up.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      I know them only too well, I’d rather try and escape a nest of vipers than try and beat them in an argument.
      That’s the problem we have when we think these bullshit artists come to skeptic sites acting in good faith. No, instead they have a disruptive self-serving agenda. They are worse than snake oil salesmen. With them you get the whole snake, not just the oil.

  12. Max Michael says:

    Still they are attempting to retain some credibility with that statement: – …”and that it is because we have already cut our emissions of the most potent greenhouse gases by 80-90% “… Mr. Cook may I remind you that Alarmism’s atmospheric levels of C02 have still been increasing, this year levels are 396.37 ppm. These levels are what is purported to be causing the warming not an unbelievable cut in emissions.

  13. Oakden Wolf says:

    Funny, I read the whole article you linked and read the final paragraph, too. I don’t get the same impression you did.

    “What this tells us is that real-world climate sensitivity is right around 3°C, which is also what all the other scientific evidence tells us. Of course, this is not a conclusion that climate denialists are willing to accept, or even allow for discussion. This willingness to unquestioningly accept something which is obviously simply wrong is a good test of the difference between skepticism and denial. Indeed, in misrepresenting Hansen’s results, Solheim has exhibited several of the 5 characteristics of scientific denialism.”

    So that would mean continuing global warming as greenhouse gas emissions rise. Not a good final note. Most certainly not a scam. Definitely a world concern.

    • It is quite normal for alarmists conclusions to directly contradict the data they present. That is why I look at the data rather than the gossip.

      • Paul says:

        You seem to like gossip here!
        If you look at the data, then why have you attributed thye wrong author to the Skeptical Science article?
        That would suggest that you aren’t as careful with data as you claim.

  14. swemson speaks says:

    Temperatures HAVE INDEED been flat for the last 15 years, but it has NOTHING to do with us cutting emissions.


  15. I’d like feedback on this claim: “I claim that Government Issued temperature data is flat for the past 15 years, however, that data has been consistently biased high, due to UHI & general “adjustments” that incorrectly raised temperatures throughout the the Northern Hemisphere, at least.

    Therefore the temperatures have actually been falling for the past 15+ years… Yes, No?

    • Paul from SA says:

      Yes. They manipulated older data to make current data look ‘hotter.’ Now it’s backfiring on them.

      Plus, they rely on the fault ground-based ancient thermometers. They are the easiest to manipulate.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:

        Even though 70% of the Surface Air Temperature record doesn’t come from ground based anything because 70% of the Earth is ocean. So it is SST measurments that really count

      • Me says:

        does that include the missing heat that sank to the bottom of the oceans that can’t be detected for some reason.

  16. Shooter says:

    Alarmists admitting defeat? Ain’t that something!

  17. Doug Proctor says:

    Somehow the correlation between no-CO2 after 2000, Scenario C, and observation do no disturb Gavin Schmidt (or other warmists). Scenarios A and B have CO2 forcing, while the closest one, C, does not. If I were doing the research, I would suggest that CO2 had little prognoticating value. I would also suggest, if I liked CO2 as a warming agent, that some other factor – and possibly a natural buffering agent – was involved, something I should look for.

    But this does not happen in the warmist world of science and politics. The Communists MUST be behind the social unrest because they are so “good for it”. So let’s unleash the army.

    Suzuki has retired from official connection with his own organization. When Romm and McKibben retire from writing, Hansen from NASA, and Gore from public speaking (to “focus on private means of protecting the planet”) we’ll be able to discuss the disconnect between models and observation because egos and heroes will no longer be threatened.

    Oh, how I wish all these “leaders” had been born a decade earlier – then our troubles would be over sooner!

  18. Don Gaddes says:

    For the edification of Glenn Tamblyn. The Moon ‘nods’ on its axis once every 18.61 years, thus the Lunar Metonic Cycle. You can glean the significance of this Cycle and its correlation with the
    ‘Sunspot Cycle’ (11.028148 years) in Alex S. Gaddes’ book ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990)
    An updated version of this work (with ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail.com

  19. Paul from SA says:

    As yet there is no evidence to prove their theory, statements and predictions. If there was evidence, the world would believe it. I’ve read nearly all they have. I don’t believe it. If there was evidence, they would present it to the world, along with methology and welcome a debate. Why do they attack skeptics?

    Why won’t global warming scientists participiate in a public debate?

    What causes inter-glacial periods?

    How can anyone prove climate change is not natural?

    Global warming is bunk and they know it. They know it takes only a few minutes of facts and most uninformed believers stop believing this nonsense. That’s why they don’t want a debate. That’s why they must suppress the skeptics.

    We conservatives want a full debate. They do not.

    • Glenn Tamblyn says:


      What we can ‘prove’, from the available data out there, is that there are very few possible sources for the heat accumulation that has occurred over the last 1/2 century. Total extra heat added to the Earth over the last 1/2 century is around 2 * 10^23 Joules. 90% of this has gone into the ocean. Only 3% of this has gone into heating the atmosphere. That air really is the tail that is wagged by the oceanic dog.

      It is the equivalent of detonating 2 Hiroshima bombs per second for the last 50 years. Or to use an analogy that is closer to home for me here in Australia; it is enough heat to boil Sydney Harbour dry twice a day for the last 50 years. And it hasn’t slowed down – the oceans are still warming as much as ever. In fact we know warming hasn’t stopped by the simple fact that sea levels are still rising. Sea level can only rise because of two factors. Ice on land is melting, which requires extra heat from somewhere and we know that around 500 Bilion tonnes of ice is melting a year. Or the ocean itself is warming, causing sea water to expand slightly, pushing sealevels up. Sea level really is like a giant thermometer, measuring the warming of the earth.

      What conclusions can we draw from this? Where could this much heat in the oceans have come from? If it had been drawn from the atmosphere air temps would have dropped 35-40 C. If it could somehow have magically been extracted by freezing water it would have produced around 12000 Billion tonnes a year of new ice. Instead we are loosing ice. And it can’t have come from within the Earth. Apart from requiring some sort of explanation for why geothermal heat output for the whole planet would change so suddenly, measurements by geologists of just how much heat actually flows from the Earth are 3-4 times less than we need. At this point we have run out of possible sources for the heat in the oceans here on Earth.

      So conclusion 1, from the Data. The Earth is in an energy imbalance with space. More heat must be flowing in from space than is flowing out.

      That still leaves several candidates. Could the sun have been producing more heat? We have records from satellite observations for most of this period and Sunspot observations from before then. If anything the Sun has cooled slightly over the last half century. So extra sunlight can’t be the cause. In addition if it were extra sunlight then the extra warming would be greater during the day and in Summer. Actually there has been as much or more warming in Winter and at Night. So not the Sun.

      Could it be clouds. Clouds have both warming & cooling effects, depending on the type of clouds. Low level clouds have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight. If their volume had changed that might explain it. Problem is, there is no evidence of these changes in global cloud patterns at low altitude, and besides, if that had happened, less clouds reflecting less sunlight would have had the same daytime/summer pattern as a warmer Sun. ANd that isn’t the case.

      So the only remaining candidates for what could cause the Earth to be in Radiative Imbalance is either an increase in the GH Effect due to more GH gases, or an increase in high altitude clouds causing warming since high clouds contribute around 25% of the GH Effect.

      But we know in extremely fine detail the behaviour of the GH gases, thanks to decades of spectroscopic research, much of it funded by the Pentagon for non-climate related military research. Where as there is no reasonable explanation for why high level cloud quantities would change and low level clouds not. Not continually for 1/2 a century.

      So on the balance of probabilities, backed by detailed research into spectroscopy, the increase in GH gases is afr and away the more likely answer.

      • Paul from SA says:

        You base everything on one premise: an inbalance. Without that, it collapses.

        Where are you getting your ocean temps from? How deep?

        The “missing heat” is going right back out into space, right past thru all atmospheric blankets. Is Argus showing something new?

        There are many more reasons for a rise in sea level: fraud, bad equipment, inaccurate measurements, bad hardware, bad software, rising ocean floors, tides, etc.

        Global warming scientists are known to manipulate sea level readings. I don’t believe them.

      • ilma630 says:

        Paul from SA:
        “There are many more reasons for a rise in sea level: fraud, bad equipment, inaccurate measurements, bad hardware, bad software, rising ocean floors, tides, etc.”
        Now that IS what you call “Man made” (or is that Mann made), except rising ocean floors of course – until someone gets paid to ‘prove’ that’s down to CO2 as well.

      • Laurie Bowen says:

        I am just curious, you mention “research into spectroscopy” . . . where & how does infrared get counted . . how much “credit” does it get . . . as well as the other wave lengths that impact the atmosphere? It is my understanding that the accumulations of these measurements is fairly recent, albeit relative to the long term nature of “climate” cycles. Even so, I could be mis-informed.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:

        Paul from SA
        You have it back to front. An imbalance with spave over the last 50 years is the conclusion, not the assumption. The depth I am referring to is 0-2000m, as I said in the comment. That constitutes around 50% of the oceans volume. And since there is no possible other source of heat here on Earth that could have caused the scale of warming seen in the oceans the only POSSIBLE conclusion is that heat must have come from somewhere outside the Earth. An energy imbalance. Conclusion of the analysis, not an assumption of it.

        “Global warming scientists are known to manipulate sea level readings. I don’t believe them.” No they aren’t. But some people who live in a delusional world of supposed conspiracy theories and paranoia are prone to thinking the do.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:

        Laurie Bowen.

        The research into Spectroscopy that I referred to is the ongoing research program, started during WWII, to measure the detailed ways different gases interact with light of many different wavelengths – UV, Visible, IR, Microwaves. The HiTran Spectroscopic database for example contains information on nearly 2 1/2 million different spectral lines associated with around 30 gases found in the atmosphere.

        This data is used to calculate what amounts of each wavelength are absorbed or emitted by each of these molecules at differing heights in the atmosphere. The results of these calculations are then compared to the actual observations obtained at various alyitudes, all the way up to space, at different latitudes and different seasons. This work has been going on since the 1960’s – a lot of it was instigated by the Pentagon. They wanted to be really sure they understood exactly how ElectroMagnetic Radiation of all types actually travels through the atmosphere – rather important for designing the sensors on Ballistic Missile Early-Warning satellites and Heat Seeking Air-To-Air missiles for example. The same knowldge is used by astronomers studying other planets, designers of weather satellites, designers of microwave transmission systems (and microwave ovens). Oh and incidently, Atmospheric Physcists looking at the global warming effects of the current and future levels of GH effects. Its all the same science.

        And some of the clearest evidence of how large the current GH effect of the different GH gases is comes from this work. Radiative transfer calculation predict that the Earth’s IR spectrum will be very different when seen from space compared to what we would see if the GH gases had no effect. And observations of this agree incredibly well with the calculations, suggesting the Radiative Transfer calculations are pretty much on the money. You might try Googling the Earth’s OLR spectrum – there are some interesting graphs out there

        Also look up an old scientific paper with Google Scholar – Conrath et al (1970). A comparison study between calculations based on a Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer calculation based on atmospheric temperatures measured by a Radiosonde balloon with observation made by the Nimbus -3 satellite as it was passing directly overhead. With both sets of data plotted on the same graph you almost can’t tell the two lines apart.
        And this was back in 1970! The radiative properties of GH gases isn’t speculative. It has been observed for decades.

      • suyts says:

        Glen I wanted to thank you for the laughs. Yes, research was done way back when. Oddly, it continues. Spectrometry isn’t a lost art or science. In fact it’s employed today. Golly, even maybe better!

        Here…. try this out… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/dept-of-commerce-didnt-get-the-memo-on-spectrometry/ It’s a bit rough, but you’ll understand.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:


        Antarctic sea ice is increasing?

        Not according to the satellite observations. Here is the sea ice area data since the start of the satellite era for thenAntarctic. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
        Look at the bottom of each annual cycle. A bit of up and down, but basically fairly stable around 2 million km^2

        In contrast look at the Arctic sea ice area http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png.

        At the bottom of each melt season the area has declined from around 6 million km^2 at the start of the record in 1979 to around 3.5 million km^2 in recent years. Area cut nearly in half

        So the Antarctic ice isn’t increasing, but the Arctic ice certainly has. And that is only judging it by area or extent. When we look at the data for mass (or volume), the arctic has declined far more. At the height of the melt season in September volumes are down to around 20% of what they were at the start of the satellite observations. And they have continued to decline since the dramatic low extent year of 2007.

        The real measure of the ice is its volume, not its area (or extent). Lots of thin ice can build up in winter but it just melts away again in summer. Much was made this year of the increase in the area of ice around the Bering Strait. But it has all melted away again since it was a large area of thin ice that doesn’t survive the summer.

        The state of the Arctic Sea Ice now is that it is likely to undergow large swings in area over the seasons as it freezes and remelts. But there is very little ice left that can survive from season to season.

        If your readers want to get first hand and detailed info on what is happening to the ice, they need to go to Cryosphere Today, NSIDC and Neven’s blog. Perhaps also JAXA. But the comments at Neven’s blog will give you more than all the information you might want from folks who are absoluteArctic Ice geeks – you want in depth discussion of weather patterns in the Laptev Sea? That’s the place for you.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:


        I read your article but it was quite confused. You seem to be suggesting that the miniscule component of incoming solar radiation that overlaps with the absorption spectra of water/CO2 has some sort of significant effect? You really don’t explain this very well at all. What exactly are you trying to say?

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:

        wrt to the LBL Models and ‘not much going on’
        Firstly you are showing DLR for the tropics. It changes more in the mid and higher latitudes.which you aren’t showing. If you want to inform your readership, don’t just link to your old posts; link to the wide world of information outside Real Science. Otherwise you comments become merely self-referential.

        Next you are showing DLR without showing the impact on Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) for the whole planet. And all the standard descriptions of the impacts of GH gases are based on the Radiative Forcing effect of what occurs at the Top-Of-Atmosphere (TOA). For the whole planet.

        However, within the substantial limitations of what you have presented, just in the Tropics, just DLW, it is still showing a change of radiation of around 1 W/M^2. Why is that so insignificant Steve?

        Even if the response of the world climate were a linear function of Tropical, lower atmosphere DLR, this would still be enough to cause a 0.8 Deg C warming.

        The math is ((398.3/397.2) * 288) – 288 = 0.8
        398.3 & 397.2 are eyeball estimates from your graph of changes in forcing due to doubling of CO2 concentrations. 288 is approximately the current average global temperature

        In fact the Tropics aren’t the main game where changes in the Earth’s energy balance are concerned. So up this figure a bit for the larger contribution from higher latitudes and it is easy to see how the global figure of around 1.2 Deg C per doubling of CO2 is achieved. Pretty much as Climate Science predicts.

        So what exactly is your point?

      • Me says:

        stevengoddard says:

        June 27, 2012 at 11:46 am

        You aren’t impressing anyone with your ignorance.


        But he is trying to baffle them with his bullshit

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:


        ‘You aren’t impressing anyone with your ignorance’

        Well actually, no it isn’t ignorance. If you are citing Antarctic Anomaly graphs from Cryosphere Today while I am citing annual variation graphs we are citing the same data. The anomaly graph shows perhaps 0.5 Million km^2 increase in the Antarctic over 30+ years.

        In contrast, the data from the same source shows a change iin the Arctic of around 6 times that much DOWN. Maybe the Antarctic is bouncing around a bit. But the Arctic is going DOWN 6 times as fast!

      • suyts says:

        Lol, yeh , sorry Glenn, in my early efforts, my audience were people who didn’t like to be told what to think about the information provided.

        But, yes, if we’re going to consider the color spectrum as energy, then you must realize that the energy hitting the TOA is significantly more than what hits the globe. And, this is why the “Greenhouse” effect is a misnomer.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:


        “But, yes, if we’re going to consider the color spectrum as energy, then you must realize that the energy hitting the TOA is significantly more than what hits the globe. And, this is why the “Greenhouse” effect is a misnomer.”

        You really aren’t being very clear about what you are trying to say, so let me put up some numbers. The strengrh of Sunlight out at the Earth’s orbit is around 1365 Watts/M^2. This only srikes one face of the Earth so to convert that the eqivalent rate if it were striking the whole Earth equally so we need to divide that by 4 to convert the Earth’s frontal area to its surface area. This gives us an average of 341 Watts/M^2 over the Earth’s surface at the top of the atmosphere. Of this, around 30% is reflected from clouds, the atmospher and the surface back to space – around 102 Watts/M^2. 78 Watts/M^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere mainly by Oxygen, and Ozone. 161 Watts/M^2 is absorbed at the surface.

        Going back out to space we have the 102 Watts/M^2 of reflected sunlight + 40 Watts/M^2 radiated from the surface that isn’t absorbed by the atmosphere. We also have 199 Watts/M^2 radiated by the atmosphere due it having been intercepted prior to this by the GJH effect.

        So when you talk about the difference between different energy flows and something to do with the overlap between the Sun’s spectrum and the Earth’s spectrum, what point are you actually trying to make? In the wavelength bands where they overlap, the amounts of energy flowing in either direction would be tiny tiny fractians of a Watt/M^2. Insignificant compared to the main flows in the central parts of their spectrums.

  20. Laurie Bowen says:

    The headline should say: Leading Alarmists Declare That Global Warming Is Over . . . For Now!
    He’ll be back!

  21. Don Gaddes says:

    It’s bloody freezing outside at the moment Glenn. Where do I have to go to find all these Hiroshimas of Heat? Perhaps you and I could bottle and sell it! 50/50, What say you!
    On a serious note, you might like to investigate the break-up of monsoon cloud over Australia this year. No categorised cyclones have made landfall since mid-December 2011. This is due to an encroaching One Solar/Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle, which reached Australia in early January 2012. (thirty degrees of longitude/month with the Westward Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.)
    (see ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes, 1990) Colder and Drier Glenn! More Sea-Ice.

    • Glenn Tamblyn says:


      Simple. If you want to find those Hiroshima’s of heat, go visit the ocean. The whole of the ocean down to 2000 metres. You won’t find it by just looking out your front door. That’s what the whole concept of Global means. It isn’t about what is happening just outside our front-door.

      And break-ups of monsoons over Australia! It may have escaped your notice that we have have moved out of a period of 2 consecutive La Nina’s – a much bigger factor in Australia’s weather than any Lunar/Solar cycles. We are currently trending towards a possible El Nino – too early to be sure of that.

      More Sea Ice! Maybe you might like to go to Cryosphere Today and look at the Sea Ice Concentrations in the Arctic. Lots of low concentrations for this time of year. And that is compared to the last few years. Then go back through their archive to see what this day of the year looked like 3 decades ago.

      • You must be betting on a record low Arctic minimum this year.

      • LLAP says:

        @Glenn: Maybe you should read this:


        This is what happens when scientists do real science. You know, like actually going out into the field and measuring temperatures, rather than estimating them and inputting the worthless numbers into a bullshit computer model. The actual measurements show that the results of the computer modelling are completely useless.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:


        Read the article at the Register

        Here is the abstract from the actual paper they are citing
        “The mechanisms by which heat is delivered to Antarctic ice shelves are a major source of uncertainty when assessing the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to climate change. Direct observations of the ice shelf-ocean interaction are extremely scarce, and present ice shelf-ocean models struggle to predict reason able melt rates. Our two years of data during 2010-2012 from three oceanic moorings below the Fimbul Ice Shelf in the eastern Weddell Sea show cold cavity waters, with average temperatures of less than 0.1 {degree sign}C above the surface freezing point. This suggests rather low basal melt rates, consistent with remote sensing based, steady state mass balance estimates in this sector of the Antarctic coast. Oceanic heat for basal melting is found to be sup-plied by two sources of warm water that enter below the ice: (i) eddy-like bursts of Modified Warm Deep Water accesses the cavity at depth during eight months of the record; and (ii) a seasonal inflow of warm, fresh surface water flushes parts of the ice base with temperatures above freezing, during late summer and fall. This interplay of processes implies that basal melting cannot simply be parameterized by coastal deep ocean temperatures, but is directly linked to both solar forcing at the surface as well as to coastal processes controlling deep ocean heat fluxes. ”

        There study is into the processes involved in ice sheet melt at one location. Somehow the Register conflates that to ‘Antarctic Ice Not Melting’. If I was using an outfit like this as my source of information, I would look somewhere else.

        And what even remotely has your comment got to do with ARCTIC sea ice? As observed by satellites.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:


        A low extent is certainly a possibility. More to the point, Ice Mass is still trending down hard. Last few years the minimum in September has been down to jyst 20% of what it was in 1979. With so much 60%-80% concentration up there at the moment, a large melt is certainly possible.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:

        “Are you betting on a record minimum? ”
        What are you referring to? Area, Extent or Volume. I wouldn;t want to bet on a single years variation in extent or area – that is too dependent on what Arctic weather is like over the next 3 months.

        However, What I do expect? Based on the trends over the last 30+ years is that ice volume will continue to trend down. On current trends we are looking at an effectively ice free arctic in September (there will always be some hold-out patches that persist) by the middle of this decade.

        So my prediction? An arctic where Ice volumes at the melt season minimum eare at or below 1000 km^3 by around 2015, +/- 2 years depnding on local weather patterns. Small chance this could extend beyond this. Small chance it could happen this year or next.

  22. prophetic king says:

    100 million barrels of oil is burned in our cars every day , plus coal plants . truth is that global warming is real and on going .

    • You are assuming that CO2 drives climate in order to prove that CO2 drives climate. Completely irrational, but typical.

    • ilma630 says:

      But a drop in the ocean.
      Remember, all of organic life is carbon based, and CO2 is fundamental to life. reduce it too much and we die! Increase it and we thrive even better.

  23. Don Gaddes says:

    ‘Trending towards a possible El Nino’ Glenn? Forget the ENSO/La Nina bullshit – the University of East Anglia bred charlatans haven’t been able to get a forecast out of it for forty years! I can tell you the current Two Solar/Earth Year ‘Wet’/Normal period that started in the longitudes due West of Australia around a year ago is now affecting America in turn (after Asia and Europe,) thirty degrees longitude/month Westward with the Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field. (you may note, that this is the opposite direction to the prevailing weather patterns (axial spin.) It will reach Australia early January 2013. This Two Solar/Earth Year ‘Wet’/Normal Cycle will be followed, (as per above Solar orbit,) by a severe Five Year ‘Dry’ Cycle, affecting Australia 2015 -19.
    Yes Glenn, I am talking about a verifiable ‘current’ planetary event. Nothing to do with bogus temperature games. Nothing to do with ENSO/ La Nina/PDO ‘flips’.Nothing to do with exponential AGW. Hope it’s not too cold for you 2000 metres down in your ‘fantasy’ ocean.

  24. sam says:

    gimme a break…..global warming global cooling..it’s an eliteist scam…..get butthurt and blame religion but the fact is all this global warming crap was a defacto religion in the belief people blindly invested in the theory…and even worse your belief was used by the socialist globalist billionaires to further their power and control…….don’t be used…by anyone…think for yourselves…strive to elimanate your biases and don/t go looking for questions to match your prior conclusions…..live..observe..keep and open mind…be ready….be honest……love others

  25. redtooth says:


    To all you fossil fuel fools out there.

    “To begin with, oil is not a fossil fuel. This is a theory put forth by 18th century scientists. Within 50 years, Germany and France’s scientists had attacked the theory of petroleum’s biological roots. In fact, oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. And oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. This is the real and true science of oil. Read all about it.”


    Discovery backs theory oil not ‘fossil fuel’
    New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
    Published: 02/01/2008 at 1:00 AM


  26. Jules Cave says:

    What about nuclear power and the atomic bomb…Do you think God wants us to use these ? We have the intelligence to create alternatives and we also have free will to do in this world as please Humans are truly evil and if there is a God watching us we will to burn in hell for eternity for choosing greed to pollute and destroy Gods creation. God gave us paradise and we are capable of creating/keeping paradise but are choosing the fast buck and we are trashing Earth. We make bad choices because we are controlled by greed and lust for power but we pretend to be good and can always justify our actions. Stop pretending and be caring and appreciative of every living thing.

    • Before we developed technology, most people died before the age of 20 after living a short crappy life up their knees in filth

    • leftinbrooklyn says:

      wow, Jules…you bear such guilt. You’ve been listening well.

      But fear not— this planet was fine for billions of years before we got here, & it will be fine for billions of years after we’re gone.

    • ilma630 says:

      Nuclear power has an enormous potential for the good of man, but also an enormous destructive potential. How we choose to use it is what counts. New technology is often created out of those two opposed mindsets, good and evil. Note though, the first atomic bomb used was to try and *end* a war, which it largely succeeded in doing. Is that a good or evil motive? You have to ask the question then, why was the LFTR (Thorium) nuclear technology not developed and uranium and plutonium favoured. One reason it seems is that Thorium cannot produce weapons grade material. As always, it is not a matter of whether something can be considered good or evil, but on how we use it. IMHO, we should be trying to get Thorium reactors (a temperature based process, not pressure, and Thorium is an abundant mineral) to a commercially acceptable status as soon as possible.

  27. Morten says:

    ice melting everywhere around the globe is a scam ?? – polar bear loosing their environment is fake ??

    • Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing, as are Polar bear populations.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:

        Sorry Steve, wrong
        Only 1 population of polar bears is increasing, the West Hudson Bay population. 3 populations are stable, 8 are declining and 7 can’t be estimated.
        Antarctica isn’t gaining ice. Antarctic SEA ICE has increased slightly. But land ice in both West and East Antarctica is declining, as is Arctic sea ice, Greenland etc. Total ice loss per year is around 500 Billion tonnes per year.

      • Glenn Tamblyn says:


        The report you are citing makes no reference to East Antarctica. And no, the ice isn’t melting at -40C. It is flowing slightly faster to the coast, breaking off as icebergs and melting in water that is at around 2-5 C.

        Others have had long conversations with you in the past about how the ice mass balance in Antarctica isn’t about melting in-situ but about ice flow rates to the coast. You don’t seem to have learn’t much from those conversations.

  28. Don Gaddes says:

    Colder and Drier, Sea Ice increases. Antarctica is currently experiencing a One Solar/Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle ( In the longitudes from the West coast of USA to the longitudes due west of Australia.) The rest of Antarctica is experiencing a Two Solar/Earth Year ‘Wet’/Normal Period. Thus Ice is being manufactured from different ‘sources’, (land or sea,) depending on where in the various Cycle ‘orbits’ the land mass lies.
    The same Cycle hierarchy is also affecting the Arctic.

  29. Ron Hill says:

    Jeezus H. Christ,
    You selfish, Church of Christian Churchology freaks are so sick in the head and heart!
    You will gladly destroy this Earth for yr sad, sorry need to be god’s few.
    But in one way yr right, the Earth will win in the end, and yr flesh and bones will feed
    Her! I hope you drown in yr beloved, holy, sacred and good black crude oil!
    You worship idols, and oil is yr main one and yr true god!
    You are really a satanist in disguise, as it is taught,
    “the evil ones cloak themselves in feigned holiness and false light”

Leave a Reply