Global Warmists Struggle to Explain Lack of Warming in the Globe

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


The mark of bad science is

1. Insisting that a theory is a fact

2. Refusing to abandon a theory even when the evidence points the other way

3. Faking evidence to support a theory for reasons of ideology and profit

Global Warmists are guilty of all three and their struggle to deal with the unraveling science is nothing short of hilarious.

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models. If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.

And by “puzzler”, the Economist means that 2012 has come and gone and the world hasn’t ended, so how do we explain the fact that there was a Mayan apocalypse? It’s a puzzler. Science says there was a Mayan apocalypse. Actual science says there wasn’t.

It does not mean global warming is a delusion.

Naturally. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a delusion doesn’t make the people who did it look good.

Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th.

Well that settles it…

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10.

Yes, maybe the higher temps are sleeping? Maybe they’re on strike. Maybe the higher temperatures are pining for the Fjords?

Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period.

Or maybe rising temperatures aren’t related to human activity at all.

Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

Much like bumps on the head did not respond to personality in ways that Phrenologists had properly understood before. This had profound implications for Phrenology in that it became a laughingstock.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which embodies the mainstream of climate science, reckons the answer is about 3°C, plus or minus a degree or so. In its most recent assessment (in 2007), it wrote that “the equilibrium climate sensitivity…is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded.” The IPCC’s next assessment is due in September. A draft version was recently leaked. It gave the same range of likely outcomes and added an upper limit of sensitivity of 6°C to 7°C

Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity.

This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.

The so-called Mainstream Consensus is not doing too well lately on account of being severely wrong. But at least it’s a severely wrong mainstream consensus, with the exception of those who were laughing at the climate phrenologists.

If such estimates were right, they would require revisions to the science of climate change and, possibly, to public policies.

If, as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3°C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service: rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it.

The world isn’t ending tomorrow. It’s ending next week. Let’s do the same thing we were doing before because we’re still right!

Moreover, if there were an outside possibility of something catastrophic, such as a 6°C rise, that could justify drastic interventions. This would be similar to taking out disaster insurance. It may seem an unnecessary expense when you are forking out for the premiums, but when you need it, you really need it.

Or alternatively, we should sacrifice all Global Warmings to the Volcano Deity on the off-chance that he exists and is responsible for the 1°C warming.

Sure we don’t know for sure that he exists or that he wants an offering consisting of Global Warmists, but it’s like taking out insurance. We should do it in any way, in case we need it.

A related possibility is that general-circulation climate models may be overestimating the impact of clouds (which are themselves influenced by aerosols). In all such models, clouds amplify global warming, sometimes by a lot. But as the leaked IPCC assessment says, “the cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models.” It is even possible that some clouds may dampen, not amplify global warming—which may also help explain the hiatus in rising temperatures. If clouds have less of an effect, climate sensitivity would be lower.

Whew. So we no longer have to destroy the clouds.

That’s a relief.

So the explanation may lie in the air—but then again it may not. Perhaps it lies in the oceans.

Or at the end of the rainbow. You never know. It could lie anywhere. Even in you.

Lastly, there is some evidence that the natural (ie, non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought. A recent paper by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests that “the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.” It is possible, therefore, that both the rise in temperatures in the 1990s and the flattening in the 2000s have been caused in part by natural variability.

Just one last thing. This whole claim we made that your breaths are destroying the planet? It might actually be the natural processes.

Footnote. There’s the outside chance you may not need to sacrifice your loved ones to the Carbon God after all.

  • joe b

    I don't know why Al Gore looks so upset. He just conned the world's biggest funders of Islamic terrorist maniacs out of $500m.

  • http://twitter.com/socialismisevil @socialismisevil

    whats funny is libtards call conservatives and Christians "anti-science" when in fact, the only ones anti-science are the ones pushing the global warming hoax! this is so pathetic, but the general public is dumb enough to fall for it

    • EarlyBird

      There are nearly 1,400 peer reviewed and published scientific papers confirming that global climate change is real.

      So I've got one question for you: what evidence do you have suggesting that global climate change is not real?

      This is not a trick question. Answering something about libtards, leftist conspiracies, Muslims, Obama is a Marxist, communists, tree huggers or any other nonsense simply means you know absolutely nothing about the issue except you don't want to believe it.

      Go on, we're reading. …

      • jay

        1400 peer reviewed studies saying something is real that isn't actually happening, Would seem it isn't very helpful.

        They can say it's real all they want. If the models have no predictive power, it lies outside the realm of science and into religion. All we want is for the global warming cult to come to the realization that they are a religion.

        • EarlyBird

          That's not an answer, Jay. Try again.

          • Western Canadian

            You didn't offer anything of sufficient merit to answer. Try not showing how ignorant you are…

      • Drakken

        Well your living proof that there is sucker born every minute.

        • WilliamJamesWard

          Maybe every 30 seconds or less………………William

      • Western Canadian

        Your dishonesty in using the phrase 'global climate change' is very funny. It has never been static, so it is it's nature to change. And G. is talking about the WARMING fraud. And I seriously doubt if you know just how meaningless 'peer reviewed' standard has become, and has been for quite some time. Thanks to groups like the hockey team, it's gone from poor to disgusting.

        Lets see, a few members of the hockey team produce a 'scientific paper' based on weak data, poor logic, and a computer program that guarantees the results they want. And another member of the hockey team 'reviews' it, and gives it a passing grade. OOOOHHHH!! I'm impressed.

      • wdwrkr

        34,365 priests agree that god exists. I guess that settles it, god really does exist. After all, they have exhaustively studied the matter.

        Or, the "concensus" among atheists is that god does not exist, Therefore, I guess, god doesn't exist.

        See how it works? Climate scientists don't need, or provide, proof. But, they all agree.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "There are nearly 1,400 peer reviewed and published scientific papers confirming that global climate change is real. "

        It's just common sense then since you don't have to actually point to any of them.

        "So I've got one question for you: what evidence do you have suggesting that global climate change is not real?"

        The fact that you're bluffing is all the evidence needed to put your argument away.

      • Snorbak

        You are assuming that having a paper or thesis peer reviewed makes it fact. If you have had any exposure to the scientific community you will relise that if what you put forward for review is in conflict to the accepted norm it will not be reviewed/ published & based on your opening comment, is false.

        There are numerous papers contradicting the accepted norm on climate change that have not been peer reviewed, does that mean that to the one, they are all wrong?

        It was once believed that the Sun orbited the earth & anyone disputing this was a heretic….food for thought!

      • Mary Sue

        Peer reviewed doesn't change the fact that the method for collecting the temperatures (at temperature recording weather sites) is FLAWED. Particularly given the locations of many of the thermometers!

        Did you know they'd test the temperature of the ocean from water that had FIRST gone through a boat's INTAKES?!

    • Lester A Barclay

      Recent volcanic activity in the Antarctic Chilean region providing sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere providing more ice while decrease in atmospheric sulfur dioxide at the arctic is decreasing ice. Sulfur dioxide is the answer to put the ice back Perhaps Richard Bronson should put the Sulfur dioxide back in aircraft fuel to protect the arctic cap like it did before he removed it. By what Democratic do these rich people get the dam right to fool around with things they don't understand? Aircraft and their fuel was the best Sulfur dioxide atmospheric injector. Kyoto Treaty idiots, who elected them?
      http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/1473-chilean-volc
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id

  • Clark Banner

    Mr. Greenfield you never fail to lie to your audience about the articles you link to. I encourage everyone to read the Economist article themselves. The source article isn't denying Climate Change at all. It's just arguing about how much warming will take place.

    Point by point:

    "The mark of bad science is: 1. Insisting that a theory is a fact"

    You clearly show that you have no idea what scientific theory is. Scientific theory is based on body of evidence and experimentation. It is regarded not as a theory but as FACT because it can clearly be tested. This is until body of evidence and experimentation support another hypothesis.

    "2. Refusing to abandon a theory even when the evidence points the other way"

    Yes, this is something I can certainly say about Mr. Greenfield and the David Horowitz freedom center completely ignoring the actual science and peer reviewed data.

    "3. Faking evidence to support a theory for reasons of ideology and profit"

    Didn't you link me to Anthony Watts who lied about temperature stations being inaccurate? What does that say about you?
    3. Faking evidence to support a theory for reasons of ideology and profit

    "Naturally. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a delusion doesn’t make the people who did it look good."

    I supposed spending hundreds of billions more repairing damage from hurricanes, mudslides, tide changes, ocean current changes, forest fires, tornados is all a delusion as well.

    "Yes, maybe the higher temps are sleeping? Maybe they’re on strike. Maybe the higher temperatures are pining for the Fjords?"

    Have you ever heard of the earth's net energy budget? Scientists are trying to figure out where the heat is going because heat doesn't disappear.

    "The so-called Mainstream Consensus is not doing too well lately on account of being severely wrong. But at least it’s a severely wrong mainstream consensus, with the exception of those who were laughing at the climate phrenologists."

    Have you even read a peer reviewed journal in your life? Sandy, Katrina, every glacier in the world shrinking somehow shows they're wrong?

    "Or alternatively, we should sacrifice all Global Warmings to the Volcano Deity on the off-chance that he exists and is responsible for the 1°C warming…..Whew. So we no longer have to destroy the clouds…Or at the end of the rainbow. You never know. It could lie anywhere. Even in you….Footnote. There’s the outside chance you may not need to sacrifice your loved ones to the Carbon God after all."

    More professional journalism from Mr. Greenfield.

    Your lack of professionalism and misrepresentation of an article that does not even question Anthropological Warming is disgusting. I encourage everyone to read the article he linked to for themselves because Mr. Greenfield has no stake in telling the truth about Climate Change.

    • EarlyBird

      Clark,

      Thank you. Everyone, even his admirers on this wretched propaganda site, know that Greenfield is a hack, a liar, a reactionary and a scientific illiterate. They don't even believe what they are saying in regard to global climate change.

      But it's still important to refute lies with facts. Thank you for your concerted efforts in this area.

      • Clark Banner

        What Daniel Greenfield is doing on Climate Change alone is enough to discredit the proponents of counterjihad. He is doing not only his audience a disservice by feeding them lies about Climate Change, but discrediting the counterjihad movement because he can easily be caught telling mistruths. This is giving his enemies ammo that they can use.

        It's because of articles like this that counterjihad is stagnant and losing momentum and credibility. It's a damn shame.

        • Ar'nun

          There is plenty of evidence out there that points to the hoax of man made climate change. You would probably make an unfouded claim that they are funded by oil companies who have a vested interest, unlike the Government funded scientists who have no vested interest (echem, Solyndra). For example

        • Ar'nun

          In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:

          Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

          In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

          The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period.

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists

          • EarlyBird

            Ar'nun, thanks for the link.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Precisely. Get rid of all the hyperbole and rhetoric if you want to be treated like real scientists.

      • Western Canadian

        earlyturd, you pitiable scientific illiterate, cluck does not reply to lies with truth. He is NOT replying to lies, and what he replies with are smears, displays of ignorance, and a level of hubris that matches your own. While on the subject, his ignorance also matches your own.

    • jay

      "Scientists are trying to figure out where the heat is going because heat doesn't disappear."

      Wow, you can't write this stuff! It couldn't be scripted!

      • EarlyBird

        That's not an answer either, Jay. Help us out. Scientifically speaking, why do the world's scientists have it wrong? Calling them dupes, liberals, communists, Marxists, jihadists, gay or otherwise mocking does not count.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "That's not an answer either, Jay. Help us out. Scientifically speaking, why do the world's scientists have it wrong? Calling them dupes, liberals, communists, Marxists, jihadists, gay or otherwise mocking does not count."

          This has been explained to you. You have not refuted our claims with regard to Soviet penetration and corruption of our institutions. Why should we move on to debunk some 1400 alleged "proofs" of "climate change" when you can't even make the same claim from one day to the next?

          You are simply an anti-conservative activist reacting emotionally to everything you read here. Get a life.

          "Calling them dupes, liberals, communists, Marxists, jihadists, gay or otherwise mocking does not count."

          Calling them "dupes, liberals, communists, Marxists, jihadists, gay" is not mocking them. Leftist cultural hegemony has corrupted our institutions. That's why we demand proof, not statistics. Claiming you have "1400" of anything is a mere statistic. Show the evidence.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Scientists are trying to figure out where the heat is going because heat doesn't disappear."

        We tried to explain this before.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynami

        Maybe "climate change" is a "fact" and we've proved the laws of thermodynamics to be false theory.

    • jay

      Sorry, you can't "make it up". Wanted to clear that up in case you couldn't discern what I was going for.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "You clearly show that you have no idea what scientific theory is. Scientific theory is based on body of evidence and experimentation. It is regarded not as a theory but as FACT because it can clearly be tested."

      Some theories are proved by facts and others are not. A theory is not proved ipso facto…

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

      See 6 a and b

      Definition of THEORY

      1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
      2: abstract thought : speculation
      3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
      4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
      b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
      5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
      6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
      b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
      c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

      • pyeatte

        If the observed facts don't fit the theory then the theory must be modified, otherwise you are wasting your time. The left is terrified they are being revealed to be the dolts they really are. We all know the far-left is desperate to pin the blame of climate change, a natural process, on human activity so as to justify implementing global social control via the U.N. The far-left is even more evil than radical Islam, and that is a real feat.

    • Snorbak

      "The mark of bad science is: 1. Insisting that a theory is a fact"
      This is a true statement, the Empirical Method is the standard to test all scientific theory, however this has been replaced all too often by the Deductive Method which is in itself, unscientific & grossly dishonest.
      Although a different field, The Big Bang, Dark Matter/ energy, Red Shift & Nebular Hypothesis – all theory, purported as fact using the deductive method as they are unsupportable & unproven when tested using the scientific method.
      "Have you even read a peer reviewed journal in your life?"
      Having a paper peer reviewed may support an ego but does not turn fiction into fact regardless of how eloquent the argument.
      As for Global Warming, there is "evidence" to support both arguments & I remain unconvinced at this time.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "As for Global Warming, there is "evidence" to support both arguments & I remain unconvinced at this time."

        That's not good enough for the emotional leftist freaks. You must join the global warming jihad.

    • truebearing

      Intentional or not, your post was a fine April Fool's joke. You contradicted yourself at least once in your first point. You had no point in your second point, and things continued to go downhill from there. Fortunately, I stopped reading your drivel when it became apparent that you didn't understand one thing Greenfield wrote and were simply goose stepping like a dutiful little thrall.

    • Mary Sue

      For all your book learning you have a staggering lack of common sense. But then, I've found those two (lack of common sense among those with a lot of "book learning" – really, indoctrination, so…)

      Glaciers have been shrinking for many years. There's old timey photographs out there that show glaciers receding long before the CO2 levels rose.

      I'd love to know how 1 degree warming will make -70 degrees into 10 degrees Celcius.

      And you must really forget that 6 months out of the year, each pole gets NO sunlight. NONE. IT GETS COLD THEN! That's where the heat 'goes'! It gets chilled out by the lack of solar energy at the pole that is facing away from the sun. Good grief, lack of common sense on parade!

      Before you start yapping about Katrina and Sandy, maybe you had better listen to, oh, I don't know, HURRICANE EXPERTS? They found precisely ZERO correlation between the intensity and frequency of storms, and the temperature.

    • Ron

      "What", are you paid by Al Gore.

      • Western Canadian

        SSHHHHH! Not supposed to talk about.

  • Spider

    I remember the seventies when the two big hysterias of the day were over population and Global Cooling i.e an impending ice age. Some of the same scientists of that hysteria are the same as the ones responsible for the Global Warming theory today So were they wrong then or are they wrong npw?
    At least overpopulation is now being solved courtesy of the left with abortions on a mass scale: 1500 abortions per hour in China and 1.3 million per anum in the US alone. This is how the left has historically solved problems: with deception coersion and mass murder. From what i have seen with
    Global warming so far the left wants carbon dioxide production reduced until we are back in the stone age.

    • EarlyBird

      I remember the terrors of over population from the '70s, too. They weren't entirely wrong, however. In many Third World countries the populations have sky rocketed, and resources like food and clean water are getting more and more scarce. They didn't, however, realize how fast the West would slow its birth rate, e.g., Italy experience negative population growth.

      We must accept Global Climate Change science – unless we genuinely have facts to countermand it. Wanting the problem to go away is not an argument, nor is Greenfield's scientific illiteracy, mockery and lies. He's the equivalent of a paid doctor who denies that smoking causes cancer.

      But get this: we do NOT have to accept every "solution" to GCC, which as you stated would bring us back to a pre-modern era. We have a say in that, and there are modern technologies which should be used to combat it.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I remember the terrors of over population from the '70s, too. They weren't entirely wrong, however. In many Third World countries the populations have sky rocketed, and resources like food and clean water are getting more and more scarce. "

        Ay karumba. Resources are scarce by Western standards because they don't know how to produce and develop resources according to our standards. It has nothing to do with population growth. They superficially emulate some of the things from the West and don't know how to actually to do things as productively until someone teaches them and they accept and do it. They build things they don't know how to operate. It's yet another problem caused by the left that thinks having our government hand money to corrupt third-world elites will be better than encouraging and supporting volunteerism and small peer to peer work parties to help make truly productive changes.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "We must accept Global Climate Change science – unless we genuinely have facts to countermand it."

        We must accept Global Climate Change science when it is not corrupted by ulterior motives and plain lunacy. That day has not yet arrived. But in your heart you believe it and then use the rhetoric of rational people to try to make your case. You believe it in your heart because you're just another indoctrinated leftist with an identity crisis.

      • Mary Sue

        Uh, no. We don't accept it until we have genuine facts, not idiot temperature proxies and climate computer models that couldn't predict that I am going to poop tomorrow.

        There's far less science in "Global Climate change science" than there is in a Latin Mass.

    • Babs

      And the bigger portion of the right didn't kill and main countless iraqis and american soldiers?

  • EarlyBird

    More lies from Lil' Danny Greenfield.

    As of 2012 there were 13,950 peer reviewed published scientific papers published confirming Global Climate Change, while there were only 24 rejecting it. And hold on to your hats kids, but many of the 24 were paid for by the oil industry!

    Being involved in science for over 20 years, I can tell you that science is NOT a place where scientists are generally cowed by the conventional wisdom. To the contrary, scientists make a name for themselves when they can seriously challenge a widely accepted theory, and are typically encouraged to write papers with serious counter-evidence.

    On Climate Change there is no such serious counter-evidence.

    Sure, scientists can and will debate the rate at which the climate is warming, its effects – and all of us have a say in what to do about it. But we do know these things for sure: Global Climate Change is real, the Earth is round, and Greenfield is once again consciously lying.

    • Ar'nun

      And hold on to your hat pretend scientist, but the others were most likely funded by the government. And clearly with the crony capitalism that has made the Democrats friends in the Solar and Wind Industry rich with their flawed business models, there is in fact a significant financial interest in claiming that Human Presence is foreign to the planet and adversely affecting it.

      "Global Climate Change is real, the Earth is round, and Greenfield is once again consciously lying.”

      Well except that Greenfield posted NEW (use your science to figure out what "new" means) evidence that clearly shows no significant change. You can even scientifically follow the link or use Google. But phony scientists can't figure out how humans caused these phenomena, and of course the other 5 known similar events prior to human existence.

      But the ultimate hubris is some chuckle head who cites groupthink in order to convince humans towards a futile effort of trying to stop something the magnitude of climate change.

      • EarlyBird

        Calm down, Ar'nun.

        Lil' Danny Greenfield linked to an Economist article which specifically REAFFIRMS that global climate change is real and "not going away," from which he pulls tidbits to engage in demagoguery. As I stated, there are plenty of arguments about the rate at which the globe is heating up, and important other details.

        What is irrefutable is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of global climate change.

        And by the way, I'm not scientist, but have worked with them for over 20 years, and of course, like most science, they are being supported by the government. GCC science has been around for 30 years, back while Obama was still in high school taking bong rips.

        • Ar'nun

          All you have is a bunch of Leftist Government funded groupthinkers . It is a myth that no scientists that doubt manmade climate change.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Calm down, Ar'nun"

          What an arrogant a-hole you are. There is nothing to justify your disrespect.

        • Western Canadian

          Perhaps you should read the article…. yes, not going away. But not happening for over ten years, and even quotes the grandcrackpot of GW, the shameful clown from NASA.

    • pyeatte

      "On Climate Change there is no such serious counter-evidence". Now that is a real hoot and a sign of terminal desperation. There is that pesky item of the observed facts not fitting the theory as "counter evidence". A real scientist would modify the theory, not try to hide and fabricate data – only a charlatan does that, or a snake oil salesman.
      There is plenty of counter evidence. All one has to do is consider the other natural parameters that could effect climate, and there may be some as yet unknown. The problem is climate science is fiendishly complex and we are nowhere near being able to predict with any degree of precision what the future will be. The only hint is past climate history going back millions of years but that just tells us there is great climate variability possible, and nothing that has happened can be proved to be outside that range.

    • truebearing

      Cleaning the monkey cages in a Behavioral Science lab hardly qualifies you as an expert on science. Shouting out irrational testimonials of faith don't qualify as a rebuttal, either.

      You have learned from the monkeys, however. You saw your glorious liars…er leaders..make fools of themselves with their ridiculous claims, so you promptly aped them. How appropriate on April Fool's Day. If only you Global warming Phrenologists only did this on one day of the year.

    • Mary Sue

      ….Global Climate Change is a meaningless statement. Do you understand what real, actual 'climate change' would actually entail? It would mean, for instance, that I could grow orange trees in my back yard.

      The climate always changes! This is what weather does! You have to adequately define "climate" before "Climate Change" ever has a hope of being a meaningful thing.

    • Western Canadian

      13,950 peer reviewed? More of orestes (spelling??) garbage grade word in that estimate. Benny blew that rubbish away a long long time ago.

  • RUI

    So now what? Installing giant death lasers on the moon in the off chance we may be attacked by aliens?

  • Loyal Achates

    Even if you believe all science is bunk and Climate Change is a hoax, how do the solutions proposed by CC advocates – cleaner, more efficient tech, cultivating renewable energy – not make sense on their own?

    • EarlyBird

      Because it's our God given American right to grind baby harp seals into gasoline to run our V16 powered SUVs and pick up trucks!

      • Drakken

        Well finally you admit you drive a Prius with a COEXIST bumber sticker, how lefty progressive of you.

      • Mary Sue

        baby harp seals have nothing to do with gasoline, unless you've just invented a crazy new biofuel out of seal blubber, in which case adult seals are your best bet, not the pups.

    • tagalog

      They do make sense, but we're not going to sit still for those solutions to impoverish us, or drive us into some authoritarian form of world government.

      We prefer to be persuaded instead of being browbeaten.

      So, is the science settled or what? I bet "or what."

    • pyeatte

      Let the market development technology, at least they will not waste money on stuff that doesn't work and force junk policies that do nothing but generate poverty.
      As for cleaner, things have never been cleaner than they have been for the past decade. trying to get the last 5% at all costs is plain stupid. The best way to keep our environment clean is to have a strong vibrant economy with prosperous citizens enjoying life – they will demand things remain clean. Poverty does just the opposite – "a well fed person has many problems, a hungry person has but one". Poverty and hunger gives not a damn about the environment.

    • Mary Sue

      because it's a waste of money.

  • Ar'nun

    To claim our presence on this planet has an adverse affect is to claim we are not of this Earth. And to claim that our presence on this Earth has an apocalyptic affect or that we could have the ability to reverse this affect is the definition of Hubris.

    • EarlyBird

      Your post is the definition of "denial."

      • Ar'nun

        Your posts are the definition of lack of thought. If the person told you so you would believe string theory is what you tie your sneakers with.

        • Western Canadian

          Also ignorance, brain (both cells) washing, and terminal lack of ability to understand basic science.

      • Mary Sue

        If enough birds poop in the ocean, is it pollution?

  • jerome

    How can the global warming shills get out of the quandary they face and still maintain their dignity?
    they have created the unassailable belief in the people who follow them unquestioningly like dogs and lick their feet that to now turn away from their cherry picked biased data underpinning their wild claims of impending disaster ,they will look really idiotic.
    in days gone by people would admit their mistakes and move on or the fad of the day like global cooling would just fade away quietly, but now with billions of dollars invested and offered for research the willingness to cast aside wrong headed thinking is not only not diminished , it is strengthened with the belief that the more a lie is repeated the more it is believed, and so giving up these notions is not on the cards at all, and the converted sheep and brainwashed masses can be relied upon to carry it forward for years to come …..

    • EarlyBird

      You've used up a lot of hot air without actually telling us WHY global climate change is bunk. You haven't read a single thing about the issue, have you, except for "news" from WhiteChristianRightWingFundamentalistWarrior.com.

      Try again, Jerome. You're in denial of basic science. Like all science, the current theory will change with additional information – facts – but not with silly rants like yours.

      • Mary Sue

        There is no "basic science' in the whole climate change mess. The temperatures themselves are dubious as they are collected in areas where it's not recording the "actual" temperature, or it's relying on stupid inexact proxies.

    • Western Canadian

      What dignity??

  • tagalog

    "…there is some evidence that the natural (ie, non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought."

    Yes, evidence, no doubt.

    It wasn't but a couple of years ago that we were being told that if we didn't lower our CO2 emissions below the 1850 level RIGHT THE HELL NOW, we were GUARANTEED a rise in average worldwide atmospheric temperature of 7 degrees C by 2100 AD. We were told we were approaching, at, or have passed some "tipping point" after which we were doomed to this huge increase in global temperature no matter what.

    So how come there's a lag between the huge increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and rising temperatures? What's the explanation for the lag between increase of CO2 and the forecast temperature increase? Could it be that the CO2/rising temperature relationship is a mere correlation and not a causative thingie?

    "Maybe the rising temperatures of the 1990s were an anomaly." Yeah, maybe. I bet among libbies, the computer models of climate will continue to be the herald angels of disaster, though. They're not done yet.

  • Arno Arrak

    Warmists like Earlybird and Clark Banner attacking the author have just no science to back up their babble. Fact is, there has been no warming for 15 years as Pachauri the railroad engineer has admitted but carbon dioxide is the highest and is still relentlessly increasing. If I were a scientist trying to find out if carbon dioxide can warm the world I would have to but carbon dioxide in the air daily and measure temperature also daily. If after fifteen years nothing happened I would call the experiment a failure: if nothing happens for fifteen years there probably is nothing there. Putting more carbon dioxide in the air simply does not warm the atmosphere. But if fifteen years is not enough for you, cansider the work of Ferenc Miskolczi. Using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 he measured the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere and found that IR absorption had been constant for 61 years. At the same time carbon dioxide went up by 21.6 percent. The addition of this substantial amount of carbon dioxide to air should have shown up as absorption according to the greenhouse theory of warming but nothing happened. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. There is your explanation of why there has been no warming lately. But Miskolczi's observation nullifies all greenhouse warming, not just the present one. It follows that there has been no greenhouse warming at all in our temperature history. Any warming that did exist was due to natural causes or was faked. A case of faked warming is the so-called "late twentieth century warming" in the eighties and nineties. I proved that three years ago in my book What Warming? Satellite temperature measurements show that this was a period of ENSO oscillations, temperatures going up and down for eighteen years while global mean temperature stayed the same. This was followed by the super El Nino of 1998 which caused real warming because of the huge amount of warm water it carried across the ocea. In four years global temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. There has not been any warming since then and there was none before it, back to 1979. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse warming is the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. Hansen points out that nine out of ten warmest years occur in this period. Those years are warm because they sit on the warm platform created in the wake of the super El Nino, not because of any global warming Hansen tries to insinuate. If I were a warmist now I would try to get off that sinking ship called anthropogenic global warming before the lifeboats have left.

    • anor277

      How interesting. In fact longitudinal infrared measurement of the atmosphere shows there is much more longwave absorption by the atmosphere of IR radiation emanating from the Earth now than there was 20-30 years ago (see Harries et al. Nature 2001, 410 355-357). The difference is strong in the absorption bands of the carbon dioxide molecule. These are data proferred honestly and openly; they do not have a political dimension.

      If you have proved to the contrary, you would make your name as a climate scientist. And by the way, all sources that I have consulted confirm that there has been substantial warming since 2002.

    • gerry

      In Cairns Australia the sea water rises due to El Nino,but no one has ever noticed.

  • Edward Cline

    And the Carbon God looked upon his creation, and said it was good, and told the sun to grow hotter or cooler according to its mood, and told the air and the clouds to roil as they pleased, and the oceans to storm and calm as they would wont, working hand in hand with the air and the clouds, to elevate or lower temperatures as suited their purposes, in order to confound men of scientific hubris seeking causes and effects of things. And the Carbon God rested from his labors, and took some time off at the Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas, to commune with the offspring of the God Obama, and left his Prophet, Al Gore, to stew in his energy-hog mansions to scratch his dyed cranium, wondering when the Second Coming of the 12th Carbon God was really, really scheduled to occur……

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Looks like rain but give it ten minutes…………………William

  • http://twitter.com/grant_tb @grant_tb

    Enter text right hereA planet doesn't "recover" from an ice age like we do from hypothermia. The Earth is warming up, and carbon pollution is to blame. http://clmtr.lt/cb/qEK0XD!

    • tagalog

      Prove it.

  • Lillith66
  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    I ask this sincerely, because I've never gotten a straight reply from anyone, from the time I first began questioning my high school teachers about this. Do we have any data regarding an historical increase in the molar concentration of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere? I understand that evidence exists regarding concentrations at ground level. But that's irrelevant to the mechanics of how global warming is supposed to work.

    • anor277

      This is not my field, but here is a 'sincere' answer. There are good data with respect to the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in Earth's history and prehistory. Surface measurement is akin to measurement in the upper atmosphere, because gases are known to uniformly occupy any space or any container (of course there will be a concentration gradient from ground level to the upper atmosphere). Greenhouse gas estimates relies on evidence from a variety of sources (i.e. ice-core data, tree ring data, direct measurement). The evidence is consistent, and an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the past 150 years is pretty incontrovertible.

      (That I mentioned ice-core data will cue someone replying and saying that carbon dioxide is a 'permeable' gas, whatever that might mean. The gas is soluble both in water and in ice, and it can be directly measured in both media.)

    • Mary Sue

      There's not much in the way of absolute evidence. Unfortunately we can't directly measure CO2 levels in the past. The best they can do is extrapolate from proxies. Giant vegetation, in fossil form and in coal bed form, do seem to indicate higher atmospheric CO2 levels. While it's not exact, it's a good indicator.

      The worst proxies are tree rings and ice cores. Tree rings are dependent on knowing the history of the tree to make adequate guesses, and tree rings can be multiplied in a year instead of just laid down as one ring a year. Plus they only record either favorable, or unfavorable conditions. The conditions can't be exactly specified.

      Ice cores are the worst proxies of all because they only record anything at all during the winter. (when fresh snow is laid down). Plus they are not closed systems at all. CO2 leaks out of the bubbles in the ice.

      • anor277

        As a matter of fact, tree ring data are highly accurate means to measure dates up to 11000 years before the present. Why? Because they are consistent with other forms of archaeological dating, and are internally consistent with the tree-ring data of 'historical' trees (the trees used by J. Caesar to cross the Rhine for instance.)

        Ice core data can represent climatic conditions for at least 800000 years BP; the pollen and other detritus that is trapped between the layers enables estimates of the actual climatic conditions. I believe there can be some difference between the ages of the trapped gas and the age of the ice layer. However, you would have to consult the original literature to see how researchers resolve the problem. That they would be aware of the problem and allow for it is guaranteed.

        Whether you accept these data is up to you. As a non-specialist, I am perfectly prepared to accept that these data can represent historical and prehistorical climates.

    • figment

      I suggest reading WattsUpwiththat blog. best info on subject.

  • anor277

    As a matter of fact, tree ring data are a highly accurate means to measure dates up to 11000 years before the present. Why? Because they are consistent with other forms of archaeological dating, and are internally consistent with the tree-ring data of 'historical' trees (the trees used by J. Caesar to cross the Rhine for instance.)

    Ice core data can represent climatic conditions for at least 800000 years BP; the pollen and other detritus that is trapped between the layers enables estimates of the actual climates. I believe there can be some difference between the ages of the trapped gas and the age of the ice layer. However, you would have to consult the original literature to see how researchers resolve the problem.

    Whether you accept these data is up to you. As a non-specialist, I am perfectly prepared to accept that these data can represent historical and prehistorical climates.

    • Ar'nun

      The Earth is 4.5 Billion Years old. Science has proven at least 5 previous extinction events, all of which included catastrophic climate changes. The one thing all 5 of these events had in common was that they all happened before the invention of Coal Power Plants, SUV's and even human existance. Oh, and the planet earth survived and became better because of them. IF we are on the verge of the 6th such event, there is nothing puny little earthlings can do to stop it or even slow it down, and there is similarly nothing they could do to cause it either. We are specs of dust in the big picture.

      Now that you know these simple facts, do you agree the Government should continue to bankrupt the economy in the name of climate change?

      • anor277

        Ah, simple facts of which I am ignorant. Gee, thanks a lot for informing me! I will certainly bear your data in mind. And yet another poster has cast doubt on modern ability to measure palaeoclimates. Also please note that I have never prophesied any apocalypse.

        As regards the bankrupting of the economy (and apparently your govt is doing this, not mine) I have no idea. Do you personally think it might be an idea to reduce the burning of fossil fuels? The stuff is quite expensive; the petrodollars we all pay funds a lot of terrorism; fossil fuels are necessarily limited in quantity. Is there arguably a case for conservation?

    • Mary Sue

      Pollen trapped in ice might indicate what species are around at the time, but depending on the pollen it could have been deposited from so many miles away that you're not reading the "climate" of the area, but of another area far away.

      In order for tree ring data to be meaningful (re: temperature), you have to know what it means. At best you can get a hopeful temperature range, but certainly not an exact measure.

      • anor277

        What is an 'exact measure'? Measurement is never exact; there is always associated error. If you think I am being tedious, I am being no more tedious than you are. If you think there is a problem with tree-ring or ice-core data then quote the original research and criticize.

  • tagalog

    Not so terribly long ago, some crackpot told us that the end of the world was coming on some date.

    That date came and went, and the world continued to turn.

    Then the fellow told us that he had miscalculated and the end of the world was coming a month or two later than originally prophesied. That date came and went, and this vale of tears did not pass away.

    Then the guy shut up.

    If only we could expect the same from the global warming/climate change forecasters.

    • Ar'nun

      Well they have learned to speak in generalities so they can't be pinned down to specific dates.

  • http://namasteuniversity.org Marylin

    fanttasttic!
    wonderfull thanx
    Yes but any real info?
    Great!