Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice


And it’s an ice so thick that icebreakers have been forced to turn back.

Here is how Chris Turney,a self-proclaimed, “Scientist, explorer and Writer” and a Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and Professor of Climate Change at the University of University of New South Wales, described the “Australasian Antarctic Expedition”.

The Australasian sector is dominated by the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the largest of three ice sheets that contains enough freshwater to raise the world’s sea level by some 52 metres. Until recently it was thought this ice sheet was stable, sitting on the continental crust above today’s sea level. However there is an increasing body of evidence, including by the AAE members, that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.

One of the purposes of the expedition was to “determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica.”

How has that worked out for Turney? The Antarctic ice was unaware that the science was settled… and settled in place instead trapping Turney and his media Warmist allies in its Climate Change denier grip.

The metaphor just couldn’t be more fitting: desperate true believers of global warming/accelerating polar ice melt now find themselves trapped by thousands of square kilometers of summertime sea ice that wasn’t supposed to be there.

No picture could better symbolize and communicate the intellectual bankruptcy and disillusionment of a faithful group who refuse to believe they have been led astray. This has to be deeply embarrassing, if not outright humiliating.

It’s reported here that many of the climate science boatpeople are actually from renowned media outlets, like The Guardian, who we can safely assume were onboard hoping to capture dramatic images of vast areas of open sea water, or of calving ice sheets with hundreds of tons of ice breaking off and plunging into the sea hourly. And with a little luck, maybe even some photos of a couple of drowned penguins.

Nowadays true believers find themselves journeying to the extreme corners of the globe in a desperate search for signs of the coming climate catastrophe. Signs are getting tougher to come by.

Indeed in Antarctica what they found was a reality that was precisely the exact opposite of what they had expected or had hoped for: no open sea seas – just thousands and thousands of square kilometers of sea ice, which ironically turned on them.

In Antarctica, the Warmists discovered just how ice cold Global Warming really was.

 On Christmas Eve, a blizzard hit our ship with 50-knot winds – mild for these parts – that made it difficult to stand up straight on the deck … By Christmas morning, we were beset with ice. Our expedition was forced into a temporary pause, while we waited for the polar winds to be kind to us and blow the pack ice out of our way.

Antarctica is not just cold, windy and wet. It is the extreme of all those things. Leave a hole in your armour – a glove not tucked into a sleeve, a gap around your neck where you forgot your scarf – and the weather will find and punish you fast. The cold starts off as stabbing, then it sears the skin and eventually sends the nerve-endings into a symphony of confusion. I took a glove off to type an email outside at one point and, after my fingers turned white and I lost the ability to move them, I swear they felt hot. Painful, boiling hot, as though I had just plunged them into a cup of coffee.

This is what happens when a bunch of Warmists decamp from their local coffee shop to try and prove the climate wrong while tweeting and tumblring and emailing their way around the coldest place on earth.


  • Lou

    I do not know about the Chinese and the Americans do many, many things better than the Russians (Silicon valley ring a bell?).

    But the Russians are the absolute KINGS of the icebreakers. They do it bigger, & better than anyone. If they cannot do it, then no one can.

    “When even Russian and Chinese icebreakers give up on you…”

  • The March Hare

    Maybe I’m stupid, but isn’t it true that floating ice doesn’t change the water level when it melts because of buoyancy already displacing the volume of water equal in weight to the entire amount of ice. When the ice melts, it can only take up the same volume it has displaced and can’t cause the water to rise, right?

    52 meters??? What would be the volume of an additional 52 meters of water (that is 170.6 feet for you people in Reo Linda) over the entire planet’s water area, especially given that 70% of the planet’s surface is water? Boy, when they lie, they don’t even make it a plausible lie.

    • NiCuCo

      You are right, floating ice, sea ice, does not change the sea level when it melts. The ice sheets, land ice, raise the water level when they melt. The Antarctic ice sheets are melting, pouring fresh water into the Southern Ocean. This water freezes at a higher temperature than the sea water, increasing the amount of winter sea ice around Antarctica.

      • steveW

        Well of course, we should have known. global warming is causing more ice in the antarctic. and Al Gore’s prediction about an ice free arctic by 2013? How did that work out? Not so good. I guess we have to get cold first before we can get warm. are you people for real?

        face it global warmists are following a religion, that requires them to have faith. because right now that’s about all they got. faith. the facts are getting in the way.

        • NiCuCo

          The fresh water coming from the glaciers is freezing to increase the sea ice. The winter sea ice is increasing, the land ice is decreasing. Overall, Antarctic ice is decreasing.

          • steveW

            face it global warming is pure BS. if anything we could face a century of global cooling due to lack of sunspot activity. face it no one knows. we can’t predict next months weather or even next weeks. all the climate models of 50 or 100 years are pure speculation.
            Al gore is getting rich off this BS. And he’s got mansions all over the USA. one right on the shores of the pacific. do you think he conserves? he’s laughing at you idiots.

          • A Z

            Nickel Copper Cobalt Guy looks pretty tough. but pnce you nhit his specific facts there is not much to him


            Two German scientists, Horst-Joachin Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, say that “two naturally occurring climate cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the next century.”

            They added, “by the year 2100, temperatures on this planet will plunge to levels seen at the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in 1870.”

            These researchers used historical data detailing temperatures as well as cave stalagmites to show a recurring 200-year solar cycle called the DeVries Cycle.


          • A Z

            Let’s remember that East Anglia burned records rather turn them over pursuant to a FOIA request.

          • A Z

            The PARAGON OF VIRTUE Michael MANN

            “Mike Mann rages and releases the attack dogs Monbiot, Romm, Media Matters and others in response to a perfectly valid and polite inquiry from the Wall Street Journal, suggesting a smear before the reporter even write the story”


          • A Z
          • A Z

            Also CERN said there was something to the cloud effect. in the last year.

            The Warmists have ridiculed Spencer for his research because he was a meteorologists and not as tech as they were.

            Well CERN vindicated Spencer.

            Meanwhile the stupid climate models do not take into account the clouds properly. They can;t the creators of the models were ignorant and highly biased and are to this day.

          • A Z

            The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less.

            CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect


          • mendezjb

            Weathermen can’t predict the weather 5 days out, but Al Gore knows the earth is warming years out. he can feel it in his fat rolls

          • Fightforjustice

            Which goes to prove the adage – most people only remember or pay attention to something of importance for about 10 minutes then it’s “next”, and forgotten.

          • Tom Servo

            You Liar! Or are you really that stupid? How is ice from the glaciers going to be melting when RIGHT NOW, it is 17 degrees BELOW ZERO at Amundsen??? Land Ice is increasing, just like the sea ice!!! they are BOTH increasing!


            this is how the warmists operate – first they say that warming makes it freeze more, and then they just drop into pathetic lies, hoping that no one will call it out.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            True, but Amundsen station is inland. The warmer areas are near the shore.

          • Teddi

            “the land ice is decreasing”

            Yes, where a mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C in Antarctica, the ice is melting !

            Your as full of it as Chris Tuney,a self-proclaimed, “Scientist, explorer and Writer” who is now surrounded by all that melting ice.

            You AGW cultist are truly funny. If you weren’t doing so much damage to the world with your green agenda policies – it would be best to just laugh at you in the town square for the idiots you are…

        • Mark Nowotarski

          Here’s NASA data on arctic sea ice.

          It is somewhat misleading since the graph has a suppressed zero. Overall, however, it looks like arctic sea ice has been reduced by about 50% since 1979.

          • A Z

            One of the things we learned in Social Sciences class was how people lie using graphs. The simple do not use an appropriate scale for the x or y axis.

            What would the appropriate scale be for the x axis of should I say the time axis?

            German scientists predict a century of global cooling

            Their reputation is on the line?

            Is Al Gore’s. Is Michael Mann’s How about the document shredders at East Anglia that ignored a FOIA.

            I checked you posts in terms of breadth and style. They are not only on one subject and they are generally friendly.

            I thank you.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            “One of the things we learned in Social Sciences class was how people lie using graphs.”

            Absolutely. A great resource for examples of “graphical lying” is “Visual Display of Quantitative Information”.

          • ebonystone

            Why not say the graph shows sea ice has been reduced by ~50% since 1997, which is also true? And even more supportive of the warmist theory. Or say that it shows sea ice being reduced by ~35% since 2006, also true and scarier yet, and an even better argument for warmism?

            Graphs can show all kinds of things.

            And 33 years is a pretty short term from which to draw any conclusions.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            “Mark…that chart left out the 2013 data “
            “2013 was a rebound year. “
            “Graphs can show all kinds of things.”

            One of the beauties of the internet is that if you don’t like what a graph says, you can try to find the original data and re-express it in a more honest manner. Several principles of honest graph making expounded by Edward Tufte in “Visual Display of Quantitative Information”. They include:

            Show all the data
            Let the data speak for itself
            Show where the zero is.

            Based on these principles, I found the source of the Arctic Sea Ice data at The data is shown below. The available daily data only goes through 12/31/12. Hopefully we will have 2013 data before too long.

          • Mark Dietel

            Hey Mike, Using NOAA data is like using NRA data for gun control. NOAA is a government agency. W

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Then what data would you recommend?

          • Mark Nowotarski

            “Mark…that chart left out the 2013 data “
            “2013 was a rebound year. “
            “Graphs can show all kinds of things.”

            One of the beauties of the internet is that if you don’t like what a graph says, you can try to find the original data and re-express it in a more honest manner. Several principles of honest graph making expounded by Edward Tufte in “Visual Display of Quantitative Information”. They include:

            Show all the data
            Let the data speak for itself
            Show where the zero is.

            Based on these principles, I found the source of the Arctic Sea Ice data at The data is shown below. The available daily data only goes through 12/31/12. Hopefully we will have 2013 data before too long.

          • steveW

            2013 was a rebound year. I noticed it’s not on this graph. besides the earth is billions of years old. 30 years is a blink. I’ve heard the arctic was ice free in the early 50’s. how does that fit in your graph?

          • mike

            Mark…that chart left out the 2013 data which states an additional ice area the size of NYC has been added to the ice volume from same time last year. Its growing.

          • Morgan Wright

            But antarctic sea ice has grown by the same amount

          • Steve

            your chart also conveniently doesn’t show the 70% arctic ice rebound that occurred last year. The arctic froze over two months early.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Understood. Does the graph below look more realistic? (You have to expand my next comment to see it, or click this link

      • corday_d_armont

        Antarctic ice sheets are not melting. Recent data confirms that they are, over all (with a few minor exceptions) at record levels and rising.

        • NiCuCo

          Google “Sea-level rise from polar ice melt finally quantified” to find a BBC article.

          Look at the “Science” article referenced in the second paragraph.

          • corday_d_armont

            Antarctic ice TWIT!,,,,,,,, and BBC, Bull! You might as well quote the New York times, in the tank both of them.

          • NiCuCo

            “Antarctic ice TWIT!” Did you read the Science article? It is very thorough.

            What problem did you find with the BBC article?

        • Mark Nowotarski

          Do you have a link to the data?

      • TCinTheKnow

        Review, Mawson landing in ice free Commonwealth Bay in 1912. Global warming then? All of this silly anecdotal evidence and speculation over its cause. If there is more sea ice you have an argument for it being caused by global warming. If there is less, win win? Your embarrassing yourself.
        Look, NASA’s satellites have been taking amazingly accurate temperature readings for decades and find no increase in the Earth’s temperature in the last 17 years. How exactly do you explain that the ice and your fellow travelers are being greatly influenced by a change that can’t be measured? The ice is aware of it but sensors can’t measure it? Really? Magic?
        You get that all of your models have already been proven wrong.

      • Nord357

        Except the expedition is trapped in “SUMMER sea ice that wasnt supposed to be there.”

        • NiCuCo

          I don’t know when the minimum sea ice is in the Antarctic, the minimum in the Arctic is in September, which would correspond to March in the Antarctic. That is about three months away.

          • Morgan Wright

            The minimum sea ice in antarctica is zero unless you count the Ross sea and Weddell Sea which have ice year around. The rest of Antarctica loses all its sea ice by march or april. We are in early summer now and there’s a lot of melting ahead of us.

      • tagalog

        If the Antarctic ice sheets are melting, how come the ice that was supposed not to exist where the icelocked ship is located is estimated to be 13 feet thick? How come this year is reported to be a record year for the advance of Antarctic ice? How does that square with the correlation between warming and CO2 concentration?

        • backlyt

          I believe that freak storms happen all the time in areas of the world that are subject to weather extremes. Deserts sometimes have flash floods, right?

          • tagalog

            That’s true and would be a telling argument except that whenever we have unusually warm weather, like a series of unusually warm summers, that is touted as some sort of proof that the climate is on a long-term warming trend.

            And your point doesn’t address the question about the claimed correlation between increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming.

          • backlyt

            I think that would be the difference between “climate change” and “weather”. There is indisputably a long term warming trend. Even the deniers acknowledge that. The question is whether or not it’s caused by human factors. Thousands of experts agree that it is. I tend to trust the experts. It’s a complex system with infinite variables so they aren’t always right in their predictions.
            All I know for sure is that our path towards sustainable and green technologies as well as lowering our ecological footprint is a good thing, regardless of the disputed issue at hand.

          • tagalog

            There is indisputably a long-term warming trend? Really? Depends on how long you mean by “long-term.” The long-term climatic trend is toward greater and greater cold, leading to a new ice age. The term of that is not fully known, but it’s about 1500-2000 years.
            Yes, I agree that VOLUNTARILY reducing CO2 production is probably a beneficial thing for the environment, although plants, plant eaters, and those who eat them might disagree with you. I am opposed to world government of some kind mandating the reduction of human carbon output.

          • backlyt

            Really? Because summers seem to be getting hotter and storms more erratic.
            Very few will voluntarily reduce their dependance on fossil fuels. People like their cars and they like their imported electronics, clothing, ikea, etc.
            Umm and plants have existed long before we were burning fossil fuels genius. And it’s not like CO2 is the only thing coming out of exhaust pipes. Besides which, I think that ecological destruction due to oil shortages is a bit more important. Things like deforestation, fracking and drilling for oil are the results of fossil fuel consumption. You have to look a bit further.
            The hole in the ozone layer is finally starting to heal due to governments banning CFCs. This is a bad thing? I guess you’re against governments banning asbestos huh? How about you talk to some of the people with severe respiratory problems due to lazy corporations taking short cuts. I suppose that mandating nuclear armament control and biological weapons is a bad thing too?
            Don’t be an idiot. We all suffer from the effects of our carbon economy, if not directly then indirectly.

  • Drakken

    HAHAhahahahahahahahahahahah you just gotta love it when Darwin gets his due, you just can’t fix stupid, not even with duct tape, letem freeze!

  • chthompson

    Oh my. You really have to pity these poor warmists. The whole world is laughing at them but they keep running around acting like nobody noticed that the global warming hoax was debunked :) Poor things. We should have pity for them.

  • NDForever

    I have to say it, but if they all froze to death, we’d have a blockbuster Hollywood movie script ready made topped off with a ironic cherry. But we wouldn’t want that.

  • anor277

    Snow falls in Cairo; a cold Xmas in Antarctica. Ergo, global warming must be a crock.

    Unfortunately, weather (and in particular local weather) is not climate, and a local weather phenomenon is largely irrelevant to the issue of global warming. So what is relevant to the issue of global warming? In fact
    multiple lines of evidence are of prime relevance, including (i) air
    temperatures in the troposphere (the first 15k-20,000 m of the atmosphere),
    (ii) humidity, (iii) temperatures over the oceans, (iv) temperatures at the
    ocean surface, (v) actual sea levels, (vi) ocean heat content, (vii)
    temperatures over land, (viii) cover and persistence of sea ice, especially in
    the arctic seas, (ix) snow cover over land, and (x) glacial cover. (i) – (vii) are increasing, and (viii) – (x) are decreasing (there are excellent records in support of each point). The collective weight of evidence (not proof) has persuaded the vast majority of climate scientists that there has been an unprecedented rise in average global temperature over an historical period. I should also advise that the data sets that comprise these measurements are largely unimpeachable, are
    widely accessible, and are also highly reproducible. Taken together, these strongly support the idea of unprecedented global warming over a short historical time-scale, which is why so many researchers are convinced of the phenomenon. Other evidence suggests that an unprecedentedly high concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the likely driver for the observed global warming; what calculations there are of the Earth’s energy budget (i.e. the energy that is received by, and later radiated from the Earth) has reliably shown progressively increased carbon dioxide absorption by spectroscopic analysis, and supports the notion of climatic forcing by carbon dioxide.

    To conclude, if there is a snowfall in the Middle East, or a
    cold summer in the Antarctic, or even a sweltering hot Xmas in Adelaide, the validity of average global measurement of temperature is not weakened (in fact these phenomena may be examples of extreme weather, though I grant it is hard to identify which local weather is extreme or not extreme). If you wish to
    discredit the global warming hypothesis (and many here, not that they can be
    bothered to engage with the data, appear to desire to do so simply on the basis
    of their political ideology, on which I make no judgement), you will have to
    address points (i) – (x) above, and show how and why they are in error; in
    other words you will have to engage the evidence. I wish you luck with this endeavour.

    • Sfc Ly

      The hoax of “man-made global warming” has long been exposed for what it is-a politically driven hoax. Only simpletons, ideologues, and schoolchildren still swallow this proven nonsense. Moreover, actual scientists have shown the planet to be cooling. Lastly, if the climate is changing, it is part of a natural process far beyond the ability of man to affect, control or manipulate, and this is proven by the geological record.

      • anor277

        That’s telling me, but you are a bit short on evidence. You have also not even addressed the 10 points of evidence for global warming (of course you can’t really do this if you reject the data). And would you tell the names of the “actual scientists”, who have shown the planet to be a-cooling?

        31,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide released annually, and this poster thinks that there is no ecological consequence.

        • Drakken

          Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by plants and has zero bearing on cooling or heating in the atmosphere you bloody hippy. More co2 means more plant food hence more food to be grown.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Here’s a graph of atmospheric CO2 since 1960 produced by NASA. Similar to the sea ice graph below, you have to watch out for the suppressed zero. The total increase in CO2 is about 25%.

          • 57nomad

            You aren’t making your case, you are contradicting it. Let’s grant your CO2 numbers. If CO2 caused warming then the rise in CO2 must be accompanied by a rise in temperature. But for nearly two decades, there has been no rise, consequently causation can not be imputed.

            Secondly your Muana Loa atmospheric monitoring stations are located near a number of continually erupting volcanoes that emit substantial amounts of CO2. It would be more persuasive if they were on Guam.

            Thirdly there are substantial financial, career, and social benefits to reporting outcomes that will allow for continued funding, career advancement, and social standing benefits. As a thought experiment, suppose West Virginia coal producers consortium reported contrary findings, what would be the response from the warmists? Would the science be attacked or would the scientists be attacked for taking coal money?

          • anor277

            1. You are mistaken if you believe no warming has occurred for the past 20 years.

            2. I believe Mauna Loa was chosen as the site of measurement in that it was far removed from major population centres. Carbon dioxide measurements may be mirrored at other sites, and show the same upward trend. No method of measurement is precise.

            3. I don’t know how to answer your hypothetical scenario. Undoubtedly, the motives of your hypothetical scientists would be questioned, but if their data were good this would compel acceptance.

          • 57nomad

            There has been no warming for the past 17 years. You are mistaken. Mauna Loa is near the largest concentration of active volcanoes on earth. James Hansen’s supervisor at NASA said he was a fraud.

          • anor277

            I invite you to consider the data and links at This is a ‘warmist’ site; it is up to you whether you consider their treatment balanced – but your viewpoint should be influenced by the evidence not vice versa. They speak of the difference of long-term signal and short term noise. Needless to say, 1996 or 1998 were not the ‘hottest’ recent years. It is puzzling why the notion of ‘no warming since 1998′ has gained so much traction.

            There are good reasons to accept the accuracy of the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide measurements. (i) it is extremely remote, and (ii) volcanic outgassing of carbon dioxide is very apparent and can be accounted for routinely. Ryan (1995) gives a readable summary.

            As regards Hansen’s supervizor, it is all too easy to shout fraud without engaging the data; of course, the charge removes the responsibility to consider proffered evidence entirely. James Hansen’s work has become mainstream and is now the consensus view (and oh yes, I have heard all about the scientific mavericks such as Galileo and Einstein). If Theon or you wish to challenge this view, some of the evidence you will account for appears here.

          • Sfc Ly

            Seek professional medical attention.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Thanks for the link to the Mauna Loa study. Very interesting how they measure and correct for the local eruptions. Apparently if they see fast moving spikes, it’s a good bet that the plume from the volcano has washed over the inlets to the sensors. See the graph below.

            My guess is that the graph above showing the long term CO2 trend has had a lot of noise filtered out of it.

            But it does raise a number of interesting questions:
            Just how variable is the CO2 level around the world?
            What other CO2 measuring stations are there?
            Are there any parts of the world where there are abnormally low CO2 levels?

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Well here at least is the Global CO2 concentration at mid troposphere. The overall variability is only about 2%.

            Here is the source

          • Sfc Ly

            no warming has occurred. You have been lied to and believed it and now you don’t have the integrity or intellect to change your mind. Even after your theories have been completely exposed as hoaxes. Pathetic.

          • Morgan Wright

            Wrong. The hottest year on record was 1934 and the hottest decade on record, after the medieval warm period anyway, was the 1930’s. But NASA and Jim Henson and his muppets and Michael “Piltdown” Mann have tampered so much with the data to get rid of the 1930’s it’s disgusting.

          • Muawiyah

            There are only 3 terrestrial sites where they measure CO2 on a regular basis. One is on top of a volcano in an area where they also measure trace gases from the mantle (in case there’s any doubt about where the gas comes from) and the other 2 are down wind and down hill (elevation) from other volcanos.

            The reason they chose the Hawaiian mountains was the supposedly clear area coming in from the NW Pacific

            China sure screwed that up eh!

            Then there’s the CO2 measuring satellites. The earliest one was a CIA project. They’ve let a little bit about what it found. The next major project was exploded on the site ~ Many think NASA management were afraid that when the satellite showed something different than what was popularly believed they’d get in trouble. Finally they put up a satellite and it shows what amount to drifting clouds of CO2, not a layered sort of thing.

            Satellites measuring temperature show no increase in 17 years.

          • Muawiyah

            Guam, though, is in danger of tipping over (or didn’t you hear that one).

          • 57nomad

            I did hear about that, although it had slipped my mind. Your timely intervention may well have averted a much greater catastrophe than a miniscule rise in CO2. Can you imagine the cataclysmic tidal way caused by a capsizing Guam? The Guam Tsunami, and we could be very close to the ‘tipping point’.

            Good call, Guam is out. I am volunteering to man the instruments in their new home in Tahiti. That’s how much I care. That’s the kind of guy I am.

          • Sfc Ly

            and it means nothing.

          • Drakken

            I say produce more co2 and let the plants and forests grow. Get a few more buffalo and cows to fart and we got ourselves a winner! Psssst a little hint for you, NASA is now completely taken over by political agendas, not science.

          • Morgan Wright

            Plant food.

          • anor277

            Carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants? Who knew? Do you think that climate scientists are ignorant of the carbon cycle or photosynthesis?

            It is conjectured that if the atmosphere contained NO carbon dioxide, the planet would be entirely ice-bound (at 200 ppm, half of the present concentration, global temperature is moderate. Currently, over 31,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide gas is released to the atmosphere each year (and ALL of this carbon content had once been fixed by plant matter). It stretches credulity quite a bit to state that there will be no ecological consequence.

          • Sfc Ly

            you continued mantra does not make you right-it makes you look stupid.

          • Steve Duncan

            By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. (Wikipedia source, I know)
            It stretches credulity quite a bit further to believe that CO2 is the major factor in any climate change when it is such a small part of the overall content of the atmosphere.

          • anor277

            You are certainly free to propose an alternative mechanism for the observed global warming, one that does not rely on carbon dioxide forcing. You do have to make sure that the mechanism is consistent with the evidence.

          • Drakken

            There is no global warming you liberal progressive window licker, there is cooling happening and your in bloody denial.

          • Morgan Wright

            I have one right here. It’s the sun. The warmers are saying the sun is not responsible for climate change because it only varies .01% in either direction from max to min solar output. But what does that mean? The sun heats the earth by 300 degrees from absolute 0 to 300 Kelvin. But 0.01% of 300 is .3 and because it’s .3 degrees in either direction it’s .6 degrees of difference in centigrade or kelvin. So the solar output accounts for .6 degrees which is almost all of the global warming. But if you account for other variables, I would wager that solar output accounts for all climate change. All of it. Every–single–bit.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Who says .6 degrees which is almost all of the global warming?

          • Morgan Wright

            What? I just said .6 degrees. Can you read? I just said .6 degrees and you ask me who said it. I did. And it’s most of the global warming because the wartards say .8 degr…..wait a second. Your question is some sort of typing lesson for some secretarial school where they just have you type random words? Because your words are just random, I’ll answer you in kind. Who taught you that uncircumcized men need hand cream? Did you know that they don’t? No, the skin is loose. Now what were you saying?

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Even though the concentration of CO2 is low, it’s power to absorb infra red radiation is very strong. You don’t need much to have a significant greenhouse effect. That being said, the most important greenhouse gas is water. CO2 is number 2.


          • Morgan Wright

            That’s a pretty distant number 2. Sometimes number 2 doesn’t amount to anything. The biggest city in New England is Boston. Number 2 is……there are no other cities in New England.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Why do you say it’s a distant #2?

          • Morgan Wright

            Because water vapor accounts for 92% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 only 5%

          • NiCuCo

            Neither nitrogen, oxygen, nor argon absorbs in the infrared. Carbon dioxide is the most abundant non-condensing ,infrared-absorbing gas in the atmosphere. That is what matters.

          • Morgan Wright

            Who cares if it’s non-condensing? Water vapor accounts for 92% of the greenhouse effect and I can prove it. You throw the word “non-condensing” into the argument as a red herring. I don’t care about the condensing. I care about the water vapor in the air. The stuff that didn’t condense…..the stuff that causes 92% of the greenhouse effect. Plus water vapor has latent heat, and CO2 doesn’t amount to a hill of shizzle.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            “I can prove it.”

            That would be great. I’d be interested in seeing how it breaks down.

          • Morgan Wright

            I got the math dude, it’s great. I wrote it someplace on my blog, it’s maybe 4 pages down I promise.


            The part about CO2. Let me know what u think.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Wow. Very comprehensive. If you don’t mind, why don’t we go through Chapter 2B step by step. I think that might be most useful.

            You make a great point about how important the tropics are. You also make an excellent point that the water vapor at the tropics is higher than in temperate zones and is a strong contributor to the greenhouse
            effect. Also important.

            You might want to take a more careful look at the statement “..each water molecule is 40% better at absorbing infrared than a CO2 molecule…”

            Gases are generally transparent except at very specific wavelengths. Water absorbs as some frequencies, CO2 at others. See the graph below. Water is green. CO2 is red. Here is the source:

            This means that CO2 will catch IR radiation that water misses and vice versa. Both are significant contributors.

            This Wikipedia article on atmospheric effects of water IR absorption states that water vapor accounts for “60% of the atmospheric absorption of thermal radiation..” and CO2 accounts for “26% of
            the greenhouse effect”.

            So I would have to agree that water is dominant which I hadn’t realized before. Thanks.

          • Morgan Wright

            Wikipedia says 60% and 26% but Wikipedia is extremely overrun by warmist liberals. The real numbers are 92% and 5%

          • Mark Nowotarski

            I understand your concern with Wikipedia. You are right, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

            Here is a link to original source of the 60/26 numbers. Its a Physics World paper, “The climatic effects of water vapour”.,3

            Registration is required to view the paper, but here is a quote from the relevant paragraph:

            “The spectroscopic data that are required to model long-wave atmospheric absorptions are generally well characterized. When these data are put into atmospheric models, water turns out to be responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, while the much-reviled carbon-dioxide molecule accounts for just 26%. Ozone accounts for 8%, and methane and nitrous oxide – the atmospheric concentrations of which have been increased by human activity – contribute a further 8% to the greenhouse effect.”

          • Morgan Wright

            They use spectroscopic data with water vapor levels that are typical of college labs during the academic year, many colleges are in the north and during the winter the water vapor in the air indoors can be .1% to .4% of the atmosphere, but the earth is mainly heated by sunlight that hits the tropics where the air is typically 2% or 4% water vapor which is 10 times higher than in college labs where they do the spectroscopic tests. But they are happy with these skewed results because it backs up their liberal agenda. So, whatever they find for water vapor, multiply by 10 to get the truth.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            I reread the Physics World paper and couldn’t find what you were referring to in terms of “They use spectroscopic data with water vapor levels that are typical of college labs during the academic year..” Can you quote the section you are concerned about? That will help me understand your position better.

          • Morgan Wright

            Click the Wikipedia pic you posted, where it analyzes all the gases with a spectroscope. It says water vapor was .4% in their study, and CO2 was .039%. Those are normal levels when the dew point is 20 fahrenheit, as it would be in the winter in the northern states. In the tropics, the water level is not .4% but is more like 2% or even 4%. That is 10 times higher than they used for their study. Tell them to conduct the experiment in the summer, or in the south like Miami or Houston, you would get extremely different results. The tropics is where earth gets all it’s warmth, so that’s where they should do this experiment. Not where the water vapor is .4%

          • Morgan Wright


            Click the above link, the one you posted before. In the caption it says the water vapor content was .400000%. You may have to click the picture to see the file metadata on wiki commons. I check the charts and find that the saturation temperature at standard sea level pressure for a vapor content of .4 is -5 C which is +23 F. That means the dew point is 23F. When the dew point is 23F, the temperature is something like 28F and cloudy, 23 and frosting, or 30 and sunny. This to me means winter temperatures in the northern states or northern Europe. This is not typical of the parts of earth that are responsible for the warming of the planet. That is done in the tropics or in the summer up here. It’s not fair to use winter conditions up here and claim it’s a typical situation. 40% of earth’s surface is between the tropics of cancer and capricorn, and most of the solar energy which hits and warms the earth happens there, where water vapor levels near the surface are 2% or 3% or even 4%, not .4%. That is the water vapor content where they should be measuring IR absorbtion by the air. The fact that they use winter conditions like .4% is typical of the fraud that earns money for these clever but dishonest scholars, or else they were just stupid and think .4% is normal. It may be normal for the desert, but the desert is not normal. But in spite of the fact that they used such DRY AIR in their research, water vapor was still a stronger absorber of IR than the CO2. If they used humid air, the absorbtion by CO2 would be utterly trivial compared to it.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            OK, I see your point. The gas mixture used to calculate the Wikipedia graph, however, was not what was used by the Physics World paper to estimate the 60/26 split between H2O and CO2. The graph merely showed how you COULD calculate the absorption spectra for different atmospheric gases IF you picked a particular composition. As I read it, what the Physics World paper did (“…these data are put into atmospheric models…”) was divide the Earth’s atmosphere into individual cells, estimate the gas composition in each cell, and then calculate the appropriate green house effect for each cell. They then added up the contributions of all of the cells, tropics included, to come up with an overall 60/26 split for H2O vs CO2.

            While exploring this further I discovered there is a group of satellites called CERES which are continuously monitoring the greenhouse effect over the entire planet. You can see a sample video of the data they are recording here.
            A screen shot is posted below. The tropics do lose more heat than the temperate and polar regions, but the heat loss at these other regions is still significant. Hence their numbers for an overall 60/26 split for H2O vs CO2.

          • Morgan Wright

            I printed it out and will read it soon.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Sounds good.

          • Morgan Wright

            I read it. It doesn’t say anything about cells. All it says is “we did complex calculations involving quantum physics and general relativity and plugged that into our models and found…” and it doesn’t look like what they found was different from what’s out there, and I never pay attention to models, stopped that years ago. I did some very simple calculations on my blog, that are so simple they must be true, because when it’s that simple there’s no leeway for errors to creep in. On my blog, you read it. It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that H2O is 92.5% of the greenhouse effect, and the trivial gasses are 7.5%, most of it from CO2

          • Mark Nowotarski

            That’s fine. Thanks for the discussion.

          • Morgan Wright

            Your statements are absolutely and positively wrong. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gasses the temperature would be 33 degrees cooler centigrade. But water vapor accounts for 92% of the greenhouse effect, which is about 30 degrees. Carbon dioxide accounts for 2 degrees and methane, etc accounts for 1 degree. So, if there were no CO2 in the air, the earth would be 2 degrees colder and all the plants would die. So would you.

          • Drakken

            Climate whores have a grant to get and get paid, they tell you what you want t hear period, and if you are educated beyond your capability to see this, there is no helping you, and for your info, more co2 in the atmosphere will have no ecological consequences except spur growth.

        • Sfc Ly

          All of this is widely available on the internet and other media outlets-I do not have the time or inclination to educate you-the willfully ignorant, or tolerate you-the willfully arrogant. I will add that on the 4th grade I knew that green plants eat CO2 and release O2, and CO2 is not a poison or a “greenhouse gas” so long as there is GRASS on my lawn. This is fundamentally true worldwide and dolts like you continue to deny it.

          • anor277

            You knew of photosynthesis in the 4th grade? My congratulations. And no one is forcing you to engage with carefully collected evidence if you have neither time nore inclination. And please, do you think you could refrain from personal insult. It does not help your case.

          • Mark Nowotarski

            Actually, CO2 is a poison although not in the concentrations in the atmosphere.

        • Morgan Wright

          There is an ecological consequence. It makes the plants grow faster, healthier, and greener. I’m all in favor of going green, and the best way to go green is to increase the CO2 level of the atmosphere.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The only thing the evidence shows is that it might be smart to keep looking at the evidence. That’s about the only true consensus you’ll find. Funny how often the rational analysis is paraphrased by alarmists.

      So keep looking and keep exposing liars. Then maybe consensus will grow for taking rational steps as needed.

      “‘Global warming’ therefore income redistribution and crony capitalism” will not fly for most rational people.

    • ebonystone

      For the sake of argument, let’s grant that all 10 of your points are true. But what time spans are the data taken from? Accurate measurements of these data have only been possible for a comparatively recent period, ranging from maybe 50 years for troposphere temperatures and ocean heat content to maybe 200 years for land temperatures (and then for only a few places on land). Even 200 years seems pretty short-term.

      • Muawiyah

        The invention of a reliable thermometer made it possible to come up with the standard weather station ~ and that resulted in the installation of a world wide system of about 6000 land based stations all over the globe.

        That didn’t happen until the late 1800s and early 1900s, and as recently as within the last 10 years it was determined that the station networks in Africa and South America were so unreliable they should be ignored!

        That means you have about 120 years worth of so-so data, and maybe 80 years of slightly better data, and no more than 17 years of satellite data ~ the CIA may have more but they ain’t sayin’

        • Morgan Wright

          Muawiyah, the glaciers have been melting for 250 years. We don’t need weather stations, we can use the glaciers as thermometers. Don’t tell that to the warmers. They pretend glaciers have only been melting since we jacked up the CO2. The warming has been going on since 1800 when we left the Little Ice Age. It has NOTHING to do with CO2.

      • anor277

        I do not dispute that 50 years of evidence is short-term. All the evidence presented suggests increasing global temperature, and that carbon dioxide concentration is the likely culprit. Are we to ignore this evidence?

        • Steve Duncan

          When the solar cycle is much more impactful, larger scale and longer term – Yes. Especially when we see similar ‘increases’ occuring on other bodies of the solar system.

          • Morgan Wright

            Exactly Steve. The warmers are saying the sun is not responsible for climate change because it only varies .01% in either direction from max to min solar output. But what does that mean? The sun heats the earth by 300 degrees from absolute 0 to 300 Kelvin. But 0.01% of 300 is .3 and because it’s .3 degrees in either direction it’s .6 degrees of difference in centigrade or kelvin. So the solar output accounts for .6 degrees which is almost all of the global warming. But if you account for other variables, I would wager that solar output accounts for all climate change. All of it. Every–single–bit.

    • R James

      Unprecedented temperature rise? I checked Hadcrut data. The rise between 1910 and 1940 was the same rate as 1970 – 2000, 1910 was before significant anthropogenic emissions, How do you explain the rise then? Sea level has been increasing for the past 20,000 years. Why is it suddenly caused by anthropogenic global warming? There’s no evidence that humidity is increasing. I can pull most of your “evidence” apart. You give no evidence to link CO2 concentration with anthropogenic warming. I wonder if you even understand the hypothesis of thebasic concept – positive feedback (eg water vapour) domination negative feedback (eg cloud cover)

      • anor277

        I do not know what you mean when you write, ‘how do you explain’ trends in the HadCRUT data. The data are empirical; but HadCRUT very clearly illustrates the warming trend. As to humidity measurement, in fact, studies on humidity are widespread. For links to the measurements see, And if you think you can pick most of the evidence apart (you considered 4 lines, and denied that one existed), then perhaps you should start publishing your analyses of the data. As to the role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing, this is very well-established. Temperatures rise as does the logarithm of carbon dioxide concentrations. Empirical evidence, spectroscopic measurements of carbon dioxide absorption over the past 40-50 years, confirms this expectation.

        You can of course wonder whether I understand the hypothesis of the basic concept (+ive versus -ive feedback), but then I do
        not claim that my understanding is as sophisticated as that of a climate scientist.

    • Mike

      Your tone is measured and non-hysterical – unusual for an AGW proponent, judging by the vituperation heaped on any scientist that disagrees with Warmists. And there are many of them. Science does not proceed by consensus, as has been stated many times before, but in this case, IMHO, a Leftist global elite has co-opted the Mainstream Media in an enterprise that is about power and control more than any concern for the poor planet, and pity the poor devils who disagree with this ‘consensus’. They get savaged.

      An economy is a hopelessly complex thing, and Leftists failed hopelessly in their Central Control theories. Now they’re off tilting at the Climate, and the outcome is predictable.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      “in other words you will have to engage the evidence.”

      OK, here you go.

      How about the inconvenient truth that there has not been any statistically significant warming for between >17 years (NOAA) and >23 years (RSS) – check the trend calculator on the skepticalscience site for confirmation, despite the atmospheric CO2 concentration having increased over that period by >8%?

      Or – far more important – that the increase in atmospheric water vapour – the positive feedback from which essential to the CAGW hypothesis – has entirely failed to materialise, Vonder Haar (2012) shows no visible trend in either direction since 1989 and Solomon et al (2010) even shows a ~10% reduction in stratospheric water vapour between 1998 and 2008.

      Nor does the ice cover in the Antarctic appear to be living up to expectations, the above gang of tourists scientific researchers apparently expected to find new, thin ice and were astonished to discover >10 year old thick ice, and the Arctic also has failed to live up to expectations, in 2007 Jay Zwally of NOAA confidently predicted that the North Polar region would be ice-free by 2013.

      Or do you not consider the above utter failures of the climate to conform to the Xbox games computer models constitutes evidence, because it strikes me that the totally discredited “model” evidence is all you AGW alarmists have left.

      • anor277

        I did mention you have to engage all of the evidence. You claim that tropospheric temperature measurement is not statistically significant (and we could argue this). Given this, what of ocean temperature measurements? And the ocean is likey to be a much more reliable indicator than atmospheric measurment.

        PS I haven’t called you a denier. Do you think you could refrain from calling me an alarmist?

        PPS I am still trying to find free pdfs of those water vapour studies.

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          ” You claim that tropospheric temperature measurement is not statistically significant (and we could argue this).”

          Not just the tropospheric, but sea surface and global surface too.

          As to being arguable, that is not the case, the trend calculator here allows calculation to 2-sigma levels of statistical significance (you DO understand stat sig, don’t you?) for all common datasets and none of the datasets gives stat sig warming to that level over any period less than 17 years (the minimum period stipulated by climate scientist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore Labs as being necessary to discredit the Xbox games climate models. That is mathematical fact, so is not arguable – if you believe it to be so, take it up with Foster & Rahmstorf upon whose work it is based.

          Another point, as I recollect, another factor that was claimed to be necessary for AGW was the existence of a tropospheric hot spot, which has also failed to put in an appearance.

    • Steve Duncan

      And all of those things have cycled since long before the advent of the internal combustion engine.

    • tagalog

      One mark of an erroneous belief is its malleability, the ability to manipulate it so that even evidence that militates against the belief can be used to support the belief.

  • clsgis

    As if we needed more proof that main stream climate science is a big lie. We already knew it because Al Gore cashed in on the scare. And he bought a house on the beach 200 feet in the air. Now we can prove all scientists don’t know what they’re talking about, because some of them were on a ship that got stuck in the ice. It makes perfect sense.

  • Sfc Ly

    how do people this stupid become college professors?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      It probably got serious when we let the left take over Hollywood. Now stupid leftists are celebrated. They’re role models.

    • Brightmeadows

      They’re selected by their future peers in their departments. Professors become less and less normal with every generation. Most of them know a lot about one thing and that, they think, makes them geniuses about everything. Don’t believe that? Just ask one of them.

      • Michael McCormick

        Unless you are a History Prof — then you know it all. ;-)

      • LurkingAroundTown

        They can be rather pompous at that, when I have seen a girl walk up to such a fellow and she says “excuse me mister” and he just stares back at her and says PROFESSOR.

    • Steve Duncan

      Simple – when ‘feeling’ is valued over ‘thinking’

  • waymas

    Lazy losers that miss their boat of opportunity, hate successful people, hate successful Americans, and hate successful America, because they are not GIVEN their free fair share of stolen property from those that work, produce, and that made it.

  • smokehouse56

    Oh dear Lord, you have blessed us this day. Please help these useless morons to their safety. They have given us a good laugh for today. They have thoroughly exposed global warming, (ie, climate change) BwHaHahahahahahahaha

  • Muawiyah

    Sometimes the grants show up and it’s good to be a “political scientist” and then sometimes you get trapped in pack ice during the Antarctic summer.

    I think that’s a sign that the grants are going to dry up in the near future!

  • Muawiyah

    The thing to remember about glaciers is they melt from the bottom!

    It’s always warmer down there.

  • corday_d_armont

    This pitiful bunch makes me mindful of the children’s crusade. When the “pure of heart” children of Europe marched in “mass” (pun intended) right into Muslim slave pens.

    The story of the pied piper was invented out of that debacle. Will this trip will be remembered in some future Al-Gore-ical tale?

  • alericKong

    To add further to the metaphor, don’t forget the millions spent by others, mostly taxpayers, to send these morons to get trapped in ice.

    More importantly remember the lives risked by others to save them from their own self-made death trap on Christmas when they should be back home with their families.

  • camp7

    A classic parody. Easy pick for journal humorist. So the pathological climate hobgoblins got froze in while proving to disprove their theory.

    Now they huddle in the cold. Penguin much?

  • Leslie Graham

    That’s right. A ships captain making a bad call negates a century of research by thousands of scientists and overthrows mountains of evidence.

    Good grief.

    It’s just pathetic.

    Now that climate change is simply obvious the denial has become hysterical beyond all reason.

    There is NO ‘debate’ about AGW in the scientific community and there hasn’t been for decades.

    Antarctica is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.

    Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 Gt at an average rate of 70 Gt per year.

    Simple, observable, measurable fact.

    The ‘increase in ice extent’ that the denierblogs keep trumpeting to confuse the gullible refers to temporary winter SEA ICE extent which anyone with even a passing knowledge of climate science could tell you was projected to expand years ago.

    The temporary winter ice extent maximum is increasing by about 1.5% per decade (as projected) as a result of the warming southern oceans increasing the hydrological cycle by around 4% and an increase in katabatic winds from the interior spreading the resulting increase in surface ice further out.
    Also the increase in snowfall helps to insulate the frozen freshwater ice once it has formed

    Here – I’ll try to keep it simple for you.

    The southern oceans are warming.
    The warming has caused an increase in rain and snow.
    There is also increased freshwater run off from the land (obviously as it’s melting fast)
    The oceans tend to stratify.
    The ‘fresher’ water is less dense so it tends to ‘float’ as a layer on top of the more salty water.
    As any twelve year old can tell you fresh water freezes more easily than salty water.

    Still with us?

    Geez – even the denier’s favourite Judith Curry has published research on this phenomena.

    “…The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall…
    … the increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected [in the long term] decline of the Antarctic sea ice….”
    All this article illustrates is the jaw-dropping ignorance of the writer and just how gullible the hapless dupes who believe this utter junk truly are.
    It’s over for the carbon corporations denial machine. Only 15% of people are buying their nonsense now.
    We simply don’t have time for this BS.

    • Sfc Ly

      the whole “global warming” movement is a hoax perpetrated by greedy villains and believed by simpletons. Which are you?

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      “Antarctica is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.”

      Not according to NASA’s satellites it isn’t.

      SCAR ISMASS Workshop, July 14, 2012
      Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
      H. Jay Zwally. Jun Li, John Robbins, Jack L. Saba, Donghui Yi, Anita Brenner, and David Bromwich

      During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

      As to increased likelihood of extreme weather events, the 2013 IPCC AR5 report poured cold water over your hopes for those too, as did the SREX report from 2012.

      Meanwhile, there are almost 1,200 new coal fired power stations under construction worldwide, so it seems that few policymakers in the governments of most industrialised nations are paying even lip service to your discredited catastrophist hypothesis.

      AGW – It’s All Gone Wrong!

      • Mark Nowotarski

        Thanks for the link to the paper.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Isn’t it great how “we don’t have time” for everything.

      Quick we need to rush out a Carbon tax. The science has been settled for two-hundred years. There’s a mountain of evidence based on data we haven’t released!

    • Morgan Wright

      Leslie, the increased snow on the ice insulates it, but I hate to tell you that it insulates it from the air which is much colder than the ice, so it actually keeps the ice warmer than the air. The snow acts as an insulator that would DECREASE the formation of ice, yet it’s increasing anyway. Nice try.

      Increased rain hits the ocean and is fresh water so it freezes faster? It forms a layer of fresh rainwater which freezes faster? You need 8 feet of rain to make 8 feet of ice. Nice try.

      Antarctica is not losing ice at a record rate. It’s gaining ice. Somebody down there found the link.

      Antarctic sea ice was predicted to expand years ago? This is patently false. The AGW freaks always said the poles–and that’s poles not pole–would melt. The south pole is getting colder, on land and sea. You NEVER predicted the south polar sea ice would increase, that’s just an excuse you made up later.

      Increased fresh water run off the land? Maybe the ice on the peninsula sometimes melts in the summer, but other than that, ice never melts in Antarctica. The glaciers calve into the ocean, they don’t melt.

      Only 15% of people are buying this nonsense now? Take a look at the comments on this thread, and check all the thumbs up and thumbs down. I’d say about 97% of the people think AGW is a crock, and another 97% of the people think the scientists are liars, and there is a lot of laughing going on about these scientists stuck in the ice.

  • Icarus62

    The reason that the global warming denial mob have jumped all over this story is that they lost the scientific argument long ago, and this kind of clown dance is all they have left. It’s a proven fact beyond the slightest plausible doubt that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate, and responsible for all of the global warming of the last half century. We’ve created a large planetary energy imbalance, and the thermal inertial of a billion cubic kilometres of ocean means that the warming is going to continue for many decades to come, if not centuries. Far from addressing the problem, we are pumping global warming gases into the atmosphere faster than ever.

    Better get used to living on a much hotter planet than modern human civilisation has ever experienced.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      “Better get used to living on a much hotter planet than modern human civilisation has ever experienced.”


      Still making stuff up, Icky? That’s naughty, your mummy will be cross.

      AGW – It’s All Gone Wrong!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Didn’t you get the message from the Party?

      It’s Climate Change now. Not Global Warming.

      Get ready to live on a much colder or much hotter or much changier planet.

      Don’t worry about the details. Just Doublethink it.

      • NiCuCo

        “It’s Climate Change now.”

        When did now start? The IPCC was founded in 1988, and we know what the CC stands for.

      • tagalog

        Climate change, yes. I’ve found it interesting over the past several years, as the global warming faction has made its claims, that the goal posts keep shifting. The bottom line, that the average ground-level atmospheric temperature is going up due to the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activity, hasn’t changed, but the terminology to justify and support that claim has changed.

        They claim that we “deniers” (we don’t exactly deny – I for one, among others, am willing to say that it seems to have gotten warmer on the North American continent since the cold and snowy winters of my childhood in the northeastern U.S. – but we DO say that what warming there is, is far from catastrophic) are the ones who change the goalposts, saying 1. that warming isn’t happening, then shifting to 2. it’s happening but it isn’t going to be a disaster, then to 3. temperature records say warming’s not happening when they say it is. I suppose there’s some justice to that. But I think the global warming/climate change folks, having made the claim that the climate is on the move toward catastrophic warming caused by human activity, the burden of proving that contention is on them, so our shifting is shifting in order to meet their arguments, which is as it should be.

    • Sfc Ly

      seek professional medical attention. You’re NUTS.

    • bluesky

      You just don’t know when you’re beaten do you? God controls the weather.

      • Icarus62

        Gods are imaginary, and the evidence shows that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate.

        • Morgan Wright

          Icarus62, you are a complete fool

    • bluesky

      I sure wish that warming would hurry up.

      • Icarus62

        That’s what I used to think too.

  • truebearing

    Hilarious! They discovered Antarctica is cold.

    • A Z

      These people literally go stuck in ice during the Antarctic summer. The spring equinox in the northern hemisphere is less than 90 days away.

  • moparmtn

    We have a home 100 feet from the water in eastern Long Island New York…. been there 50 years now and I have not seen and inch of rise yet….

    • Nord357

      How about that? I have friends that live on various islands around the world that tell me the same thing. Facts are funny things no?

      • moparmtn

        facts may be funny…. but you can’t convince these liberal idiots…. it is all about money and corruption…

  • Sfc Ly

    Only the willfully stupid buy into “global warming/climate change” THEORY at this point.

    • Jim G

      Along with those who have a financial/professional dog in the hunt.

  • Barak Obo

    We are all going to die from climate change…… In 30,000 years!!! hahahahaha

    • bluesky

      I’ll be dead by then.

  • tagalog

    Suppose it turns out that humans have the ability to change the climate. The first thing the global warming folks will demand is that this ability be used to cool things down. The trouble is that we’re on a trend toward a new ice age, to begin in a couple of thousand years or so. in the last ice age, humans existed, and human progress was nil due to the cold. If humans are able to manipulate the climate, what will happen if that manipulation triggers a new ice age two or three thousand years earlier than it would have happened naturally?

    Talk about catastrophic global climate change…

    • Roguewave1

      Geologically sudden and drastic drop of 12C degrees in temperature has historically happened approximately every 100,000 years for the last 400,000 years. It has been 110,000 years since it last happened. We are living in one of the very brief recess periods between the vast cold periods. Excessive cold kills orders of magnitude more people and animals than does excessive heat. Do the math. Learn what to fear. If there is a way to prolong the warmth we are presently enjoying, let’s do it, besides, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the greener the planet – it’s plant food, you know.

      • tagalog

        Yes, and the “suddenness” of the change has involved periods of time that are long enough for human beings to get out of the way of the worst of the impact: in the case of advancing cold, to migrate south, in the case of advancing heat, to get off the islands and the seacoasts that may be flooded by rising sea levels.

        The great extinction periods, when large percentages of life were snuffed out on earth, nearly always took place over scores of thousands, often hundreds of thousands, of years.

        Climate change, though potentially much faster than extinction, typically involves centuries of time. Even if we assume that the global warming, such as it may be, is caused by humans, we’re still talking about 150 years or so, with at least another century going by before the great catastrophe that is predicted by the global warming extremists.

  • el_papa

    This is sooooo funny, thanks warmists for all the laughs!!!

  • chetnapier

    I am for circulating a petition to leave them

  • Jock Doubleday

    Good one. We’ve known for five years that the I.P.C.C. forged climate data and colluded to lie to the world about global warming. Still, the liberals hang on . . .

  • Confederate Son

    “the largest of three ice sheets that contains enough freshwater to raise the world’s sea level by some 52 metres.”

    Categorically false.

  • Habbgun

    All of these arguments for global warming are very reminiscent of arguments for the ether. That means of light wave propagation that just had to be there except it wasn’t. It was real science but it was plain wrong.Its proponents had all the observations of light they needed and they were fitting pieces of it into their theory they simply were lacking “precision” and the total cause of light’s behavior. Sound familiar?

    Any scientific “theory” that can not discriminate between causes in amount and quality (what causes what and to what degree) is not a scientific proof. If you can’t reliably say this amount of input will cause this amount of output you have nothing but empirical data but empirical data is an output without a proof of input and no way to qualify what it means. The words global warming are just words they are not a formula. They are not a formula merely a conjecture.

    . To be a settled science you would need to say this amount when and where and AGW proponents haven’t accomplished that but they do have complicated formulas for carbon taxes. Isn’t that a bit backward?

  • USARetired

    Let Al Gore finance their rescue!

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Mark Steyn who was guest hosting for Rush today said he is doing his part to help reduce livestock flatulence which is worse than automobile exhaust when it comes to causing global warming. He said he just purchased a new Holstein cow, but not to worry because it was a hybrid.

  • glpage

    Damn weather never cooperates.

  • American1969

    Oh, the irony! Lol!

    • tagalog

      Ramirez’s cartoons are always great.

  • Joseph Shmeau

    Good entertainment, as good as last summer’s story of UK enviros who wanted to row to the North Pole through the open water supposedly melted from climate warming. They too were stopped when they discovered that thewater was still solid.

    TheLastFirst Rowboat Voyage in the Northwest Passage Coming To An End – DAMN ICE!

  • Nick SanMauro

    Being trapped in ice when one expected to find open water would embarrass rational people without an a priori agenda. But not True Believer Warmists. Given time these folks will manage to come up some off the wall explanation that blames their temporary predicament on “extreme weather” or “climage change” or “global warming” or “the greenhouse effect” or an insidious combination of all the foregoing.

    • Morgan Wright

      They already have. The sea ice is cause by warming that causes it to rain more and the rain is fresh water which turns to ice. You must understand, the 10 feet of sea ice was cause by 10 feet of rain. That’s 120 inches of rain in one winter or 480 inches a year. That means antarctica gets more rain than Noah got, which is why he didn’t put any penguins on the Ark

  • Scott L

    This story is misleading. The ice they are trapped in broke off in 2010, quite probably due to global warming. Its not new ice,its an old part of antarctica which has broken off, a very big part. Being an uneducated observer id say it doent prove global warming but is sure as hell something id be worried about.

  • Gene

    Activist: One of the purposes of the expedition was to “determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica.”
    This is not science; it was an attempt to prove a conclusion. Further, how would one test this pseudo hypothesis on a boat off Antarctica. Take a photo of water? Finally, “impacted” is not a word; it is American University Speak

  • Fightforjustice

    Freedom works – Jim Demint and the communist Koch brothers -say NO more about this writer and his corrupted thinking. Global warming IS going on and adding a toncrap of moisture into our atmosphere, causing massive amounts of snowfall, rainfall and changing wind patterns around topsy turvey. Take a look at photos of the glaciers world-wide over the past 100 years and compare them to today’s photos.

  • Obaaaaaaaama sheep get sheared

    Once again logic proves liberalism is a sickness…and the only cure is extermnation.

  • backlyt

    “So-called “global warming” is just a secret plot by wacko tree huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!” Chip Giller

  • backlyt

    Hasn’t the author passed elementary science education? Let me walk you people through it… What happens when you desalinate water? IT RAISES THE FREEZING TEMPERATURE. That’s why we salt our streets in the winter. Saltier water melts at lower temperatures. What’s the easiest way to desalinate water? YOU DILUTE IT. How do you dilute a large body of water? YOU !#%&*$@ MELT THE GIGANTIC #*^$!@%& GLACIERS, THUS RAISING THE FREEZING POINT OF THE WATER. Seriously, try this experiment at home. Freezer, cups, water, increasing about of salt per cup and a stop watch. I know I did. IN GRADE 6. Damn it, how can people be so mentally deficient? There is a difference between “land ice” aka glaciers aka formed by precipitation, and “sea ice” formed by freezing sea water. IF you thought about it for just a few minutes, wait, nevermind. You should concentrate on breathing. It’s clear that doing too many things at one time might be fatal to you.

    • RealityCheck

      Yawn …. and your point is??

      • backlyt

        That global warming has caused the sea to freeze faster than it normally does. The events experienced by the expedition is proof of global warming, not against it.