CFACT presents four inconvenient facts about global warming at COP 21 display

By |2015-12-04T17:16:57+00:00December 4th, 2015|Climate|254 Comments

CFACT has participated in the UN climate process going back to the original Rio Earth summit.  We are an officially recognized NGO observer at COP 21.

CFACT’s display is in the NGO pavilion at booth 37c.

We used our space to inject four “inconvenient facts” into the COP.  They are the kind of rock solid, 100% scientifically valid points that leave the warming-indoctrinated spluttering.

Here they are:

COP 21 slides temperature models v reality


“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade” – University of Alabama, Huntsville

“The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.” “After 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.” – Remote Sensing Systems

“Satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change.” – NASA, April, 1990

There is a “robust” cosmic ray-global temperature relationship… and thus provide further corroboration of the solar/cosmic ray theory of climate of Svensmark et al.  – National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Aug 2015

“Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates. – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Energy and Climate Outlook, 2015

“Using the peer-reviewed climate model MAGICC, I estimate the marginal impact of carbon reduction promises called INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) from the EU, USA, China and the rest of the world, along with the likely global policy output. My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.”  – Global Policy, Nov. 2015

All countries’ commitments from Paris = less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.

 Cop 21 slides sea level

“Absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.”   – NOAA

“Tide gauge records along coastlines provide evidence that mean sea levels (MSLs) have risen since the late nineteenth century with globally averaged rates of 1.33–1.98 mm per year… There has been “underestimation of possible natural trends of up to ~1 mm per year erroneously enhancing the significance of anthropogenic footprints.”
– University of Siegen, Nature Communications, July, 2015

“According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”

“Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,”

      – NASA

“Global sea level is less sensitive to high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought.”

Stanford, Geology, August, 2015

Island nations not sinking<

“No islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations.”

Geology, March, 2015

COP 21 slides polar bears

“The global population of polar bears is about 26,000 bears. This is up 1,000 bears from 2014.  Estimations are between 25,000- 30,000 bears globally.”  – International Union for Conservation of Nature

“Arctic sea ice is increasing, with the extent of ice at the highest it has been since 2004.

Denmark Ocean and Ice Services

“Arctic sea ice persisted in the James and Hudson bays well into August of 2015. it was reported that the worst mid-summer ice conditions in 20 years was preventing the routine delivery of supplies by ship.” – NASA

“Sea ice in at least three Eastern Canadian polar bear subpopulations was well above normal for 2015.” – Canadian Ice Services

Arctic sea ice is up by at least a third after a cool summer in 2013. “It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps,” says Rachel Tilling, University College London.” – The Guardian, July 2015

COP 21 slids extreme weathe

“We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls,” the authors state, “but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.”

     – Journal of the American Meteorological Society, July 2012

“There is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.

IPCC 5th Assessment Report

“There is low confidence in any long term increases in tropical cyclone activity … and low confidence in attributing global changes to any particular cause.” Any increased hurricane damages “have not been conclusively attributed to anthropogenic climate change; most such claims are not based on scientific attribution methods.” There is “low confidence” for trends on tornadoes, and “the evidence for climate driven changes in river floods is not compelling.”

IPCC 5th Assessment Report

“When closely examined there appears to be no increase in extreme weather events in recent years compared to the period 1945–77, when the Earth’s mean temperature was declining. The global warming/extreme weather link is more a perception than reality (Khandekar et al. 2005). The purported warming/extreme weather link has been fostered by increased and uncritical media attention to recent extreme weather events. The latest IPCC documents appear to de-emphasize the warming/extreme weather link by suggesting ‘low confidence’ in linking some of the events to recent warming of the climate.”<
The Global Warming Extreme Weather Link, GWPF, 2013

Extreme weather report cover CFACT angle


  1. Chemist December 4, 2015 at 10:25 AM

    This is an awesome compilation of facts that anyone who wishes to defend sanity and good science should keep in his or her back pocket. These facts will instantly smash down the climate change zealots into the muck from whence they emerged.

    • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM

      Anyone with any sense will see those are NotFacts, so it won’t be worth keeping in your back pocket.




      • Chemist December 4, 2015 at 1:04 PM

        Choose one of the items and let’s discuss the merits either way.

        • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:24 PM

          Already done, thanks!



      • GogogoStopSTOP December 4, 2015 at 1:20 PM

        These are the UNINTELLAGIBLE charts that put American’s to sleep… and lead them to proclaim that climate change isn’t an issue.

        Try: “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” We’re in a struggle for hearts and minds and you climate fanatics are losing.

        • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:24 PM

          Right – facts are not compelling arguments for a segment of society.



          • GogogoStopSTOP December 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM

            Only your convoluted attempts to convince people of the nonsense you regurgitate ad nausea.

            American’s are not believing or following your arguments.

            • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:34 PM

              No evidence to argue with, thanks!



          • GogogoStopSTOP December 4, 2015 at 1:27 PM

            I accept the facts. I reject the projections and hypothesis… as do all American’s in survey after survey.

            • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:34 PM

              Most surveys, the vast majority calls for taking action, so no idea what it is you think you are arguing.



              • Pam Dunn December 4, 2015 at 4:03 PM

                Hey dano; That’s a giant load of idiocy between your ears; Climate rates down about the very bottom of ANY survey about concerns.

                • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:34 PM

                  Unable to refute my claims, thanks!



              • Brin Jenkins December 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM

                You most certainly have no clue, its about time you examined the facts and stopped being a pedantic consensus follower.

                • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 5:55 PM

                  You are utterly incapable of showing I have no clue.



          • John Wesson December 4, 2015 at 2:54 PM

            As you have well demonstrated; and your charts say mm per year estimates.

            • Brin Jenkins December 4, 2015 at 5:51 PM

              He is unable to explain how CO2 cause any heating, just regurgitates a one sided opinion which is not science at all.

              • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 6:07 PM

                Dishonest – as you know, I did it here as well as many other times as well, so you are being purposely dishonest. Why the purposely dishonest?



                • Brin Jenkins December 7, 2015 at 1:25 AM

                  Looking back at that link it was an occasion that you cut and pasted a not very likely cause, I have seen better explanations than yours, try it slows down radiated heat loss by absorption and molecular transfer for a very short time, this retains an infinitesimal amount of heat possibly causing a temp rise. Next try and quantify this theoretical effect with observed data?

                  It is still not explained how it’s possible to reverse the heat/cause and its effect/released CO2. This should have destroyed the balanced system millions of years ago.

                  All of our energy is from the Sun, eventually it is all transferred by radiation into Space. What we argue over the mechanism for this supported by observation. Warmists bend the facts by simulations.

                  • Dano2 December 7, 2015 at 9:10 AM

                    Fairies flying around with blankets to keep us warm it is then, if that gives you a good feels.



      • Go#Sand December 4, 2015 at 1:33 PM

        this is silly – since when is someone’s fantasy prediction a fact?
        and did you notice your tide gage graph ended in 1990 – ever wonder why?

        • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:36 PM

          Aside from the fact satellites cover the entire planet and are therefore more complete than a small section of the planet, your comedy line fantasy prediction gave me a giggle, thanks!



          • Go#Sand December 4, 2015 at 1:45 PM

            Or, more accurately, because some dishonest person would prefer not to show that the continuation of the graph shows a continuing constant rate of sea level rise. An inconvenient fact that’s better not to show..
            Your own evidence contradicts you – see ‘Best Estimate’ in your second graph below.

            • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:50 PM

              a continuing constant rate of sea level rise.

              This exercise is in my top twenty. Let’s have you refute yourself. Ready to refute yourself? OK, goody!

              Take the CU Sea Level chart. Right click on it and use the command “Search Google for this image”. Reply with a chart from 2012, 2010 and similar charts from the source for 2008 and any year you choose that’s earlier.

              Let us know what you find, TIA!



              • Go#Sand December 4, 2015 at 2:23 PM

                How about we not change the subject

                • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:29 PM

                  Oh, whoops! Did I state refute yourself?!

                  I meant “show that durn ol’ Dano a thing or two”.

                  Please proceed. Let us know what you find.



                  • Go#Sand December 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM

                    okay, Dano, you did state refute yourself, twice now, but what you did not explain is why you would cut off one long-term data set that overlaps another short-term data set rather than show the entirety of both and compare / contrast / correlate between the two.

                    The answer is as simple as it is obvious – the AGW movement is not about an honest and open discussion of the facts.

                    And again, you contradict yourself with your 2nd graph below. See, I can repeat myself, too!

                    • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:53 PM

                      Sea level rise is accelerating. You can’t refute it.

                      And if you can’t figure out that satellites were launched and they do a better job, I can’t fix that.



                    • Go#Sand December 4, 2015 at 3:36 PM

                      What I see is a graph you can fit a straight line to.
                      Not only that, but a sea level rise rate that remains relatively constant despite the fluctuation in temperature over the same time period. Suggest you do a fun little ‘refute yourself’ exercise yourself and compare those two graphs. The ‘fact’ is, sea level rise has little to do with temperature effects and is mostly the result of gross geologic processes, such as sediment subsidence, erosion, and sedimentation.
                      Too bad NOAA doesn’t agree with you about satellite data for atmospheric temperatures. Then they wouldn’t have to go through those spurious exercises to ‘adjust’ land-based temperature data and we’d all be able to agree that there’s been no warming over the last 15 to 18 years.

                    • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:36 PM

                      Go ahead and get us those charts like I showed you, thanks!



                    • Go#Sand December 5, 2015 at 9:05 AM

                      Why don’t you go. .. get them… yourself… D

                    • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 9:41 AM

                      I have them already, thanks! They are for you to see how your assertion is false.



                    • Pam Dunn December 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM

                      How do you refute a LIE and the moron doing the lying refuses to admit it IS A LIE; Of course the reason the morons wont admit to a lie is because it would END all their government handouts from the socialist governments of the world looking for MORE control and power.
                      How sad morons like dano with their heads up their rears suck up the stupidity.

                    • Brin Jenkins December 4, 2015 at 5:47 PM

                      40.000 repetitions = ! truth? Show how it happens, the cause and not just association.

                    • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 5:55 PM

                      Thanks, SLR is accelerating, as I showed. The cause is warming & thermal expansion/glacier melt.




                    • Brin Jenkins December 5, 2015 at 11:54 AM

                      The SLR is a camera to most people Dano. Try explaining what you mean for a change. It seems Nasa have confirmed a massive 2 mm per year rise, as it has been for a very long time. Nothing at all to do with CO2 as it remains a constant.

                      An interesting letter to Climatologists in the 1970’s on the predicted ice age threat. Of course one never happened but these guys had some interesting views on Climate variations. Probably a more honest bunch not bought with remuneration that promoted an agenda.

                    • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM

                      It seems Nasa have confirmed a massive 2 mm per year rise


                      And I’ll take the points on offer:

                      o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]




                    • Brin Jenkins December 5, 2015 at 9:38 PM


                      The letter from the Australian Prime Minister is published here with the response to the predicted Ice Age.

                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 5, 2015 at 11:15 PM

                      1974 report prepared by the CIA on national security issues related to “global cooling:”


                      I suspect you weren’t yet a twinkle in your daddy’s eyes in 1974. Yet, you deem it appropriate to tell people who lived through that period that it never happened. We didn’t have the internet, yet, but we did have TV, radio, newspapers … and, yes, various magazines … which all quoted scientists who claimed we were entering an ice age.

                      Many of those same ‘scientists’ are the same ones who, today, claim “global warming.” And they are the same ones who, today, claim they never predicted “global cooling.” Funny thing, that.

                      “Climate scientists” lost their credibility some 40 years ago. Back then, they were simply wrong. Today, they have proven themselves corrupt.



                    • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:29 PM

                      Deflection from false assertion aside, I can take these points again, cuz different commenter:

                      o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]




                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 5, 2015 at 11:35 PM

                      Continue to play your prepubescent games. Shows how unserious you are.



                      PS: Are YOU corrupt … or just incredibly naive and gullible?

                    • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:42 PM

                      I am pointing out that your talking point has been refuted soooooooooo many times it is a comedy skit now.

                      Try to think it through.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM

                      I thought it through. Decades ago.

                      Your turn.



                    • 4TimesAYear December 9, 2015 at 9:07 PM

                      More than that – we were there when it happened.

                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 1:39 AM

                      So … you decided to brush off the CIA report, huh? Another Inconvenient Truth?


                      Don’t blame you. It’s a lot easier to mock people, and play doltish games, than to deal with reality.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 1:47 AM

                      The vast majority of scientists weren’t no ding-dang coolin, as I already pointed out. And you thought through with your big thinks.

                      Interesting that this hokum is recycled at this time, the warmest year on record.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 1:52 AM

                      Brush-off, it is, then.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 1:53 AM

                      I already provided you the evidence for my assertion. Try to…..erm……………………”think” it thru. The scientific community was not no ding-dang coolin’.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 2:13 AM

                      You provided no such “evidence” … just assertions and prepubescent games. And if your “evidence” is that ridiculous paper that William Connelly was involved in … don’t even. I’ve already been through that one … it’s just another example of him trying to rewrite history, as he is notorious for doing.

                      “Not no ding-dang coolin’?” Is this you demonstrating your scientific prowess? If your ‘published’ paper(s) includes phrases like that, I can see why you can’t provide a link to anything.

                      Just because you’re a fool, doesn’t mean you need to work so hard at it.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 2:16 AM

                      I gave you a link to the scholarship.

                      Do you know how to read? Do you know what hyperlinks are and how to spot them?



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 2:28 AM

                      You can lie and obfuscate all you want … you’re not fooling anybody.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 12:56 PM

                      You too are unable to show any lie or obfuscation.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 1:59 AM

                      Vast majority no ding-dang coolin.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 2:16 AM

                      Don’t look now, but you seem to be losing it.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 2:18 AM

                      Educated peepul know the vast majority of scientist said no coolin’.

                      Can you grasp it? Do you have the ability?



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 3:15 AM

                      I ‘grasp’ that scientists were trying to scare the world with global cooling and horror stories of coming ice ages.

                      I ‘grasp’ that when the climate reversed course, the same scientists decided to do the same … and scare us with horror stories of global warming run amok.

                      If the ‘majority’ of scientists thought the world was going to warm, then maybe they should have said something when the news agencies all claimed that ‘scientists say’ we are all going to die in the coming ice age.

                      There’s a saying … ‘Fool me once, shame on you … fool me twice, shame on me.’

                      The climate changes. It has done so for 4.5 billion years. It will continue to do so until the sun goes nova, or we’re hit with a giant meteor that ends us.

                      In spite of you putting on an air of scientific superiority, and attempting to browbeat people who don’t agree you, most people require more than that to convince them. I look for solid evidence … and so far, it’s just not there.

                      Trolling, and hi-jacking threads is neither impressive, nor amusing … just annoying. It’s obvious that you, and others like you, have no interest in convincing anybody of your case. You just get off on insulting people … it puffs you up and makes you feel all smart and stuff. How tiresome you are.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 12:55 PM

                      scientists were trying to scare the world with global cooling and horror stories of coming ice ages

                      You were refuted already, thanks! But comedy skit still good!



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 3:29 PM

                      You’re a stubborn little Denier … not particularly skillful, but pigheaded and arrogant nonetheless.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM

                      It utterly fails to acknowledge the science the President shared with the nation decade prior, so no wonder it was buried, it is useless. Which you’d know if you had an education in the sciences.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 2:22 AM

                      Yup, you’ve completely gone off the rails, now.

                      Which president are you referring to? A decade prior to 1974 would Lyndon Johnson.

                      Do you mean to tell me that you think Johnson believed in global warming … in the 1960’s? And that I should have learned that little tidbit in a science class?




                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 1:00 PM

                      <a href="; title="TeaPurty shows us his ignorance over and over and over and over and over and over for our amusement!!!!!! Educate yourself.




                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 2:56 PM

                      More misdirection and obfuscation.

                      Not one word about global warming … indeed, not one word about CLIMATE, period.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 3:17 PM

                      Or don’t educate yourself and stay blissful.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 3:50 PM

                      Seventy pages of blah-blah-blah … but still nothing about climate or global warming!

                      The longer you spout off, the more evidence you provide that you are clueless, ill-informed, and frankly unqualified to address issues of science … or logic.

                      Very teenagerish.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 4:04 PM

                      Stay blissful.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 4:35 PM

                      Stay teenagerish.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 4:56 PM

                      Stay refuted.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 5:15 PM

                      Stay …



                    • Milty December 5, 2015 at 12:21 AM

                      Funny you mention satellites, sport. Since being launched in 2002, Envisat data shows a sea level rise of +/- 0.323mm/yr. or around 1.3in/century. Ooohhh so scary I don’t know how we’ll survive it.

      • Chemist December 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM

        How do you explain that from 8,000 to 15,000 years ago sea level rose about 14mm/year, or more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year? That info comes from the University of Colorado ( I think you are either cherry-picking your time segments, or following some alarmist talking points meant to frighten simple people into believing the “anthropogenic
        climate change” hoax. Your second graph with the delta T on the Y-axis seems to ignore the recent pause in temperature change, one that’s coming up on 20 years.

        I just wish you would realize that this whole “climate change” Big Lie does have a purpose, and that purpose is 3-fold: 1) frighten people into allowing further expansion of an already fantastically bloated government; 2) allow for the generation of new fraudulent taxes that addresses this non-issue; and 3) allow for unquestioned wealth transfer from what’s left of the middle class to the elites, and to a lesser extent to the 3rd world nations who are lining up with their hands out. So infuriating people are even giving this nonsense any consideration, and not realizing this for what it is – a HUGE scam.

      • rwhawk December 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM

        You’re correct, they are not all facts put rather correct interpretations of the facts along with facts. The real question to be answered is: Are the AGW alarmists liars with the facts (per the old nostrum ‘figures don’t lie liars figure’)? The answer is yes, both by commission as well as omission.

        • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:29 PM

          Feel free to produce the ideologically pure, free market refutations to the charts I’ve presented – throughout this thread – that point out the NotFacts of CFACT. Use the data collected from the NewScience that show that the regular ol’ science is wrong.




          • rwhawk December 4, 2015 at 4:12 PM

            the charts you’ve shown are cherry picked. Show a chart that reflects the cycles over many eons, not just the convenient recent past. The cherry picked recent past is lying by omission,

            • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:33 PM

              You can’t show a chart that is cherry-picked, not a single one.



              • rwhawk December 4, 2015 at 4:53 PM

                Like I said, the liars are the alarmists that omit essential data.

                “The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere, modern humans didn’t exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.”

                Jonathan Swift wrote of the AGW alarmists and called them Lilliputans

                • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 5:12 PM

                  You can’t show a chart that is cherry-picked, like I said.

                  But I’m glad you are showing that having this much CO2 in the atmosphere results in a much warmer world, with real-world consequences – good job!


                  • rwhawk December 5, 2015 at 9:53 AM

                    I presented the results from the chart. You can google for the chart yourself. Actually, you are using junk science with your temperature/CO2 consequence. True science concludes that higher temperatures increase CO2.
                    What you concluded with is the commission of an AGW alarmist lie.

                    • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM

                      Still unable to show how any chart was cherry-picked aside, this was entertaining:

                      True science concludes that higher temperatures increase CO2.

                      You were duped. There is no NewScience or NewPhysics working on earth – a NewPhysics that states earth is the only place in the universe where an increase in concentration of a GHG by 40% will have no effect on the surface temperature of the planet.




                    • rwhawk December 5, 2015 at 11:25 AM

                      Actually, the NewScience is AGW built upon lies.

                    • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:38 AM

                      Continuing to be unable to show how any chart was cherry-picked aside, you are unable to show a single lie. That’s entertaining too.



                    • Go#Sand December 6, 2015 at 8:51 AM

                      Sorry, D, but ‘regular old science’ does show CO2 increases in the atmosphere with increasing temperature. Just Google CO2 solubility in water Doesn’t take a ‘climate scientist’ to figure out what this means to many of the most ridiculous claims of climate alarmism. Understand you have to try to deny it, but good luck refuting high school chemistry.

                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 12:49 PM

                      Thanks! Putting CO2 into the atmosphere warms the planet! We know!



                    • Go#Sand December 6, 2015 at 7:16 PM

                      You do realize that those graphs show…more like prove…that warming water, like what happens when the climate warms, releases CO2 into the atmosphere. In other words, a warming planet results in, rather than from, CO2 in the atmosphere. No one could be that dumb; you know, you are just incapable of admitting it. Amazingly dishonest! Dingbat!

                  • Go#Sand December 6, 2015 at 8:01 PM

                    Dingo, your 1st post was a side-by-side comparison of two graphs using different measurement methods, omitting part of a data-set that overlapped the other. The definition of cherrypicking, Dimbulb.

                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 8:13 PM

                      Wow. That’s not actually what these two charts depict. But whatever gives you the good feels.

                      But here it is in a single chart for you. It makes it harder to see the change in rate and measurement method, but hey, it can’t be cuzed of cherrypickin!




                    • Go#Sand December 6, 2015 at 8:56 PM

                      “That’s not what these 2 charts depict”
                      Dorcus, as I said your 1st 2 charts above show tide gage data ending in 1993 next to satellite data starting in 1993. Clearly, we still have tide gage data, yet the tide gage chart ends in 1993. Now you’re posting 2 more charts that again show a relatively constant rate of sea level rise. Are you deliberately trying to undermine yourself, Dillweed?

                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 9:00 PM

                      Thanks, smartie, the purpose was to separate out tide gauge from satellite data to highlight change. Very, very, very simple to grasp.

                      As far as this comedy: that again show a relatively constant rate of sea level rise. apparently you lack the ability to read charts, yet call me namie-names and stomp your widdle foots, Aren’t you precious?

                      Or maybe you;re just pouting because the data are similar? Could be, makes as much sense as the rest of your comedy skits.



                    • Go#Sand December 7, 2015 at 9:14 AM

                      Thanks for showing us 2 more charts, which unwittingly display another example of data manipulation. Notice the difference between the 2? Dipwad.

                    • Dano2 December 7, 2015 at 9:29 AM

                      You can not explain a single detail about how the data are manipulated.

                      You made that up.



                    • Go#Sand December 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM

                      I’ll admit that’s speculation, however reasonable considering the differences between the charts… I’m not going to spend the time to research it, though such an exercise is likely to be fruitful. Either way, you have failed to show how 3 mm/yr of sea level rise (around a foot per century) is supposed to be so scary or justifies the dire predictions. Both charts show no reaction to the Dust Bowl heat wave of the ’30’s and 40’s or the record cold spell of the ’70s, which makes me want to repeat my earlier point regarding the lack of correlation with temperature.
                      It’s equally clear that you’ll never admit that CO2 in the atmosphere is a ‘result’ of a warming climate rather than the cause, despite the clear laboratory evidence – too devastating to your phony arguments. Release of excess CO2 by the oceans is such a clear consequence of a warming climate and the only phenomenon that can explain the historical correlation between CO2 and Temperature (did you really think it was caveman campfires?) that it’s not worth arguing over. I’m also feeling the need to be productive at work and running out of insulting PG-rated names beginning with D, Dorko, so I’ll just sign off with…Go#Sand

                    • Dano2 December 7, 2015 at 10:19 AM

                      Thanks lad, you made up a little fib about data manipulation.



          • Brin Jenkins December 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM

            Show the mechanism Dano, explain the Science.

      • John Wesson December 4, 2015 at 2:32 PM

        Sorry Dano, estimates are not facts and if the Earth begins to cool and ice sheets expand we will see the real problem as so much of the farmland will be covered again. Everyone of the warmers uses a short cherry-picked data set and ignores the Earth’s past 50,000 year changes, much less the geologic history over several 100 millions of years. That is like measuring 1 minute of a day and predicting what will happen over the remainder of the year.

        • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM

          estimates are not facts

          I’ve given no estimates. As for the rest of this typing episode, all I can say is ‘take a science class’.



          • John Wesson December 4, 2015 at 2:51 PM

            Sorry Dano, I am a scientist with over 300 college hours and an advanced degree, so maybe you should become a little more informed.

            • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:53 PM

              Yes, and? How does that excuse your ludicrous gibberish?



              • John Wesson December 4, 2015 at 2:57 PM

                Wow, you really a delusional denier. Please tell me how long each glacial and interglacial periods lasted and where the seal level was during those periods of time since you so to be so sure of yourself.

                • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:59 PM

                  you really a delusional denier.

                  I made an eagle shadow puppet from that projection.

                  How does typing that you claim to have an advanced degree excuse that laughable comment?



                  • John Wesson December 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM

                    That is okay that you only know how to dismiss you obvious ignorance by being flip. You can and will believe what you want with no regard of the validity of your comments other than meaningless smug remarks like a 5th grader on the playground calming you daddy can whip my daddy. Good bye, no intelligent life on your planet.

                • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:42 PM

                  How does that excuse your ludicrous gibberish?



                  • gillardgone December 5, 2015 at 8:06 AM

                    Troll tetrodotoxin, good word for dimmo.

          • Pam Dunn December 4, 2015 at 4:05 PM

            You mean the type where you learn to BASE your ENTIRE WORLD temperature claims for a century BASED on the tree core drillings from TWO TREES in Canada ?

            • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:34 PM




          • Brin Jenkins December 4, 2015 at 5:56 PM

            Hey you generally get around to that insult earlier, did you lose count? Numbers is probably not your strong point.

          • Milty December 4, 2015 at 11:52 PM

            Then what is the 1981 Hansen (laughable in and of itself) chart if not estimates. Oh, that’s right. In that delusional little world that exists between your ears the year is 2100.

            • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:37 AM

              what is the 1981 Hansen (laughable in and of itself) chart if not estimates

              The chart is a ‘projection’. Corporations and militaries do them all the time.



          • gillardgone December 5, 2015 at 8:05 AM

            go and play get some air, stop boring us with your lies.

          • Fritz December 9, 2015 at 6:04 AM

            I have taught many science classes.
            You are the one who does know anything about the scientific method.
            You are 500 years behind the times. I bet you haven’t even read Karl Popper.

            • Dano2 December 9, 2015 at 8:54 AM

              Scientific method!




      • Albert Stienstra December 4, 2015 at 4:21 PM


      • CFACT Ed December 5, 2015 at 1:04 AM

        So Dano, we can discuss which estimate is more accurate, and how much man vs. nature drive sea level, however, you agree that we have no years more than around 3mm in rise. You therefore will further agree that this shows that stories that Miami or island nations are currently experiencing extreme events from sea level, rather than local conditions are FALSE. The paper clip to two penny rate of sea level rise is not currently inundating anyone. What does that mean for the future? Well, there are the computer models, and they’re track records are miserable. So far no extreme scenarios show any signs of likelihood. Anyone terrified by the hype who would like to sell us their beachfront property at a discount, come on down!

      • 4TimesAYear December 5, 2015 at 5:11 AM

        There were a couple of years in there that the sea level actually fell (around 20011 or so). Actually, I think photos are a better sign of whether or not the sea level is rising or falling so I will bow to this one:

        • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 10:24 AM

          Measurements are actually a better sign of whether or not the sea level is rising or falling.



          • 4TimesAYear December 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM

            There’s also a consideration that it’s not sea level rising or it would be uniform worldwide. Some of it is subsidence. Another shows pretty stable sea level

            • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:23 PM

              Wow. John Daly. Where’d you haul out that old hokumer?

              Nevertheless, satellites and buoys show increasing rate of sea level rise.



              • 4TimesAYear December 6, 2015 at 1:00 AM

                Perhaps you can explain why aren’t they evacuating those Pacific islands that they say are sinking? Why are they still building on them? Why aren’t people moving out of lower Manhattan, Florida, New Orleans, etc.? If the rise is so significant, people should be moving out in droves. Regards.

                • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 1:05 AM

                  They are spending millions – soon to be hundreds of millions – just in Miami to keep the saltwater out.

                  Why aren’t people moving out? No idea. Ask them.



                  • 4TimesAYear December 6, 2015 at 3:09 PM

                    Infiltration of saltwater is not the same as rising sea levels. What’s under water now that wasn’t before?

      • gillardgone December 5, 2015 at 7:59 AM

        Dano….you are a fibber of the first order. Zealot.

        • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM

          You are unable to show any fibbin.



      • Duane L Petersen December 7, 2015 at 6:52 PM

        I am willing to make a bet with you for 1 month’s income from me and from you. The models that are used to predict climate change use the same algorithms models as the weather models so the bet is that the weather reports for the next 20 days will be perfect for that time period. If they are not then you not only owe me 1 months wages but you have to keep your mouth shut and quit spewing your nonsense.

        • Dano2 December 7, 2015 at 7:07 PM

          The climate and weather models are not the same. As you know weather forecasts are rarely perfect. So inane proposition.

          Thanks though.



          • Duane L Petersen December 7, 2015 at 7:39 PM

            The same goes for the climate change models in spades as there are hundreds of things that can influence tree rings which is where the baseline for the GW BS came from until 1850. But then they graphed the extirpated AKA guessed at temperature from the thermometers. You should also remember that if you do the same tree ring data from 1850 they do not match the thermometers.

            • Dano2 December 7, 2015 at 9:37 PM

              I LOLzed!



      • jreb57 December 9, 2015 at 8:37 PM

        You obviously don’t even suspect what you are talking about.

      • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 7:27 AM

        Everyone with some sense, realized when the data scammer in chief over the WORLD DATA COLLECTION center at MetOffice Climate Research Unit

        PHIL JONES said ” The scientific communty would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8.

        OK IT HAS but it’s only seven years of data

        Everyone looks around at WHAT RECORD in 2005 had
        STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8 and
        WAS COOLER but ONLY JUST: NOT statistically SIGNFICANTLY?

        Oh that’s right that was the RAW DATA without ADJUSTMENT at ALL
        ONLINE that way by LAW to stop – ADJUSTMENTS FRAUD like PHIL got caught and admitted he had been doing 12 years –

        EVERYONE with some SENSE realized when they saw him saying that in 2 0 0 5
        then in his DON’T GO TO JAIL FEB 2010 BBC INTERVIEW:

        when he got CAUGHT being SEEN what he SAID above and in order to not go to JAIL

        fessed up – EVERYONE knew when they saw the BBC and HIM in the interview saying :

        BBC: Is it TRUE that THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING since 1 9 9 8
        and that there has ben in face slight COOLING?

        JONES: YES. I did the calculations and find THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING since 1 9 9 8 and in fact there has been some SLIGHT but not SIGNIFICANT…

        Hmm. Look around then: WHAT’S the raw data say that’s placed there by LAW to stop FIDDLING PHIL and YOUR CHURCH?
        It says
        no warming since 1 9 9 8 and slight but not statistically significant
        C* O* O* L* I* N* G*,

        Wow. Then AFTER THEY STILL FIRED his a&^ what did the
        ORGANIZATION the MET OFFICE say in 2 0 1 3?

        Here ya go stupid I’ll let you read it: Here’s a hint: There’s been no warming since ’98 ACCORDING to THEM: THE ONES who FIRED him for HIDING that there’s BEEN no WARMING since ’98
        just a little
        statistically insignificant,
        C O O L I N G,

        You ignorant hick. You can’t put more coolant in the air and make a magic heater so if you use fire it makes the sky hot.

        You’re just educated in the same public schools where they taught you pot’s like heroin.

        Go figure, you’re too stupid to properly analyze what happens when light shines on a thermometer.

      • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 7:37 AM

        Everybody with any sense knew the church was fake when they told you a freezing gas bath was magically a giant heater in the sky because you put more magic gas in the sky that originally defined that gas as THE ATMOSPHERIC COOLANT.


    • maltow December 13, 2015 at 5:47 PM

      Awesome Yes. Exactly that. They have no argument and the evidence that destroys their entire theoretical and subsequently modelled contentions are both the product of their OWN studies and conclusive, and the IPCC itself admits as much.

  2. cardigan December 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM

    Excellent statements of things I knew but didn’t have in one place. Thanks

  3. fedupMan December 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM

    I shall stuff this info down certain peoples throat. Not that it will make a difference b/c certain ppl are willfully blind to the truth.

  4. Brin Jenkins December 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM

    Well done.

    • David Bartholomew December 4, 2015 at 1:51 PM

      For some inconvenient reason, nobody wants to discuss the fact that our star is descending into a Solar Grand Minimum? Why? Because if we did, all of the patterns would easily be seen that accompany this natural solar cycle, extreme weather events such as historic droughts and flooding events, 2-3ft of hail last March in Bogota Columbia at just about zero on the equator, rise in volcanic eruptions, rise in earthquakes ect. There’s lots of historical data to look back on and compare like the fact that Solar Grand Minimums are preceded by WARMING PERIODS! All these frauds pushing the CO2 hoax also might want to look at what was going on throughout our solar system when it was warming on earth, the weather changed on all the planets in our solar system not just here on earth! The polar ice caps on Mars melted when we were going through the last warming period that ended over 18yrs ago! If any educated person studied the effects of the coming Grand Minimum in conjunction with the fact that our planet is in the midst of a magnetic reversal, one would see that everything that is happening on our planet coincides with these two natural cycles.All the CO2 that we have contributed to our atmosphere, has be BENEFICIAL TO OUR PLANET PERIOD! We have enough “REAL” problems to deal with, we don’t need fools creating a crisis that will do nothing more than extract what little wealth we have left in this country and redistribute it to some 3rd world country that wants to blame us for every severe thunderstorm or drought. How ’bout we all choose to come together and eliminate the “Political Class” in this country so we can get our country on a path of prosperity. The “HIPICRITICRATS” want to distribute division, hate, fear, anger ect. As long as they can keep us divided, they retain power! History repeating itself because of blind faith fools who don’t want to put forth the energy to be an INDIVIDUAL! WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE!

      • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:30 PM

        So much wrong, so little time. I’ll take the easy points on offer, though:

        o Based on solar activity, we’re now entering global cooling (without good evidence) [15 points]

        o Reference, or citation to something which uses the words, “hoax,” “scam,” “swindle,” “fraud”, etc [10 points]

        o Objects in solar system are X, so Y on earth is impossible [15 points]

        o Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points]

        o CO2 means more plants/food/is good/is life [10 points]

        o AGW believers want a world government/socialist/whatever [15 points]

        That comment had a high words : points density.



        • David Bartholomew December 4, 2015 at 7:25 PM

          Dano, please enlighten me……..

          • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 8:03 PM

            The bulleted items are long-refuted talking points. The charts show any Grand Minimum will be de minimus globally, albeit locally may have stronger effects.




  5. Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 12:48 PM

    Facts are facts. You don’t get your own facts. That display is not facts.




    • Frank W Brown December 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM

      Hey Troll, full of shit , as usual!

      • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM

        You cannot refute a single word or graph i have presented, as usual!



        • Frank W Brown December 4, 2015 at 2:54 PM

          Because your graph is total BULLSHIT! IDIOT!

          • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:57 PM

            Still not refuting.



            • Frank W Brown December 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM

              It HAS been proven that climate idiots have used “FUDGED” numbers to “PROVE” their science, RIDICULOUS! Just like YOU!

              • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:35 PM

                You can’t show how any of my numbers are FUDGED, thanks!



              • Joe December 7, 2015 at 7:37 PM

                Really? You have *proof* that climate scientists have fudged the numbers to show a non-existent global warming!? Do tell! Please, show me your “proof”. I’ve only been following climate science for about 35 years, so I might have missed something. Enlighten me.

                • Frank W Brown December 9, 2015 at 12:36 AM

                  Take a Hard look at John Caseys work, and Yes it is still GARBAGE IN=Garbage OUT when it comes to computer models of the climate, Whoops, NO WARMING for the last 18+ years when you use TRUE temp readings from NASA, hope it doesn’t take another 35 years for you to GET IT!

                  • Joe December 9, 2015 at 7:52 PM

                    Apparently you and I have very different notions of what “true” means. So tell me what the “TRUE temp readings from NASA” are, and why the current NASA numbers are showing a temperature increase. Enlighten me. Ya see, I thought that is has been quite obvious – EVEN FROM THE RAW NUMBERS WITH NO ADJUSTMENTS AT ALL – the decade of the 70’s was warmer on average than the decade of the 60s. the decade of the 80’s was warmer than the 70’s, the 90s warmer than the 80s, the 00s warmer than the 90s, and this decade, although not quite half over, is on average warmer than the 00s. Those are measured values, btw, so you, hand-waving, won’t make them go away. The decadal average temps say you are wrong.

                    Now, tell me your reasons for claiming NASA doesn’t use actual numbers. And then tell me why every other country’s science organizations don’t use the numbers they have to refute NASA’s lying numbers. You do know that all the temp data in the world is freely available online, don’t you? WHOOPS, science talks, bs walks. Show me the science – peer-reviewed, published in reputable science journals – and I’ll take back my comments publicly.

                    • Frank W Brown December 10, 2015 at 10:35 AM

                      You might try watching “Climate Hustle”, maybe you won’t be so quick to HUSTLE US!!!

                    • Joe December 13, 2015 at 6:11 PM

                      You might try reading an actual climate science textbook or two, and reading *why* you deniers exist, like Merchants of Doubt, Conway and Oreskes, Sierra Club Press, 2010, or Climate Cover-up, J Hoggan, Greystone, 2009, or even Mike Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate wars, Columbia University Press, 2012.

          • Chemist December 4, 2015 at 4:33 PM

            You mean this kind of BS?

        • Frank W Brown December 4, 2015 at 3:50 PM

          “FUDGED NUMBERS, GARBAGE IN= GARBAGE OUT”, take YOUR garbage elsewhere!

          • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:35 PM

            You can’t show how any of my numbers are FUDGED, thanks!



    • GogogoStopSTOP December 4, 2015 at 1:35 PM

      Your first two charts on sea level had different axis’s and different data sources… So I say again: With these sets of crap, you have lost the argument, American’s don’t get your data and don’t believe your drivel.

      As I said before, you might as well try: “The sky is falling…”

      • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 1:36 PM

        With the crap you have lost the argument

        Huh. Who knew that providing a wide range of reinforcing data made me lose an argument?

        Tarnation, Martha!



        • royboy December 4, 2015 at 2:30 PM

          Lots of graphs and to be honest I don’t really have the expertise to understand it all but doesn’t the global mean surface one at the top show no substantial increase since about 1998? Is that relating to actual temperature or does anomalies mean it is measuring something altogether different? Not looking for an online war just want to understand what you are saying.

          • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 2:40 PM

            doesn’t the global mean surface one at the top show no substantial increase since about 1998?

            No, but even so, what about starting at 1997? 1996? 1995? 1999? 2000? Why 1998 only? How strong is an argument that depends on such a narrow start point (biased statistics aside)? that is why I have some charts with many different start points – to illustrate this point.

            Anomalies are not a measure, they are a depiction of a change in data, typically from some baseline; for temperature, a climatically-relevant period of time, often chosen to capture something (climate = 30 years).




            • Pam Dunn December 4, 2015 at 4:09 PM

              Strange even the “global warming” scammers admit that their temperature increase claims are SMALLER than the PROVEN SCIENTIFIC DEVIATION in such data. That means the “claims are completely worthless.

              • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:34 PM




    • gitredy December 4, 2015 at 1:43 PM

      You’re right, the earth IS flat!

  6. David Islay December 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM

    Wow. Arguing scientists, pseudo scientists and folks who can only swear and call names gives me a headache…Wait a minute…. I haven’t had a headache since the last time Global Warming/ Global Cooling/ ummm CLIMATE change was discussed by that assembly of nerds and pseudo nerds. EUREKA!!!! Scientists arguing causes non-scientists to have headaches!!! I need a UN group to hold meetings in places that really can assist — like Tahiti! yes! Sun, Sand, tropical paradise…..oh….wait….last time i was in Tahiti I was sexually assaulted by a brown skinned beautiful young woman who cited a scientific study that proved my headaches were from lack of ….oh….no…..wait….that never happened. EUREKA!!! CLIMATE change discussions put me at risk for early dreaming of browned skinned young women who want……zzzzzzzzzzz

  7. wally12 December 4, 2015 at 3:17 PM

    Great presentation of inconvenient facts. It was especially forceful since it used data from a variety of sources which both believers and skeptics can appreciate. Of course, there are believers who are so locked into their beliefs that no amount of data will convince them or turn them from their agenda. I was pleased to see that the influence of sun and solar activity which Svensmark proposed and proved has been found favorable to CFACT and many of us skeptics. Keep up the good fight.

  8. MarcJ December 4, 2015 at 4:32 PM

    B. Hussein Obama’s intention expressed in his second
    inaugural speech is to enforce the Cap & Trade regime by executive orders
    through his EPA group of Eco-Nazis. The Cap & Trade program is designed to
    impose heavy penalties on oil & gas companies, coal mines, electricity
    companies, and on transportation (both trucking and private cars); all aimed to
    favor green and renewable energies – solar, wind, biofuels. In his energy
    program he completely ignored nuclear power plants – the only kind that
    produces ZERO greenhouse gasses. The final aim of this program is to
    nationalize all our energy industries. That low-IQ bloviating gasbag Kerry (who
    voted for the war before he voted against it), our new Secretary of State, was
    one of the two torch bearers (the other was Congressman Waxman) for the first
    attempt to impose the Cap & Trade monstrosity in Congress, and is now
    formally charged by Obama to spread it domestically and internationally
    (“Global Warming = the New Weapon of Mass Destruction”- the idiot declared).
    Obama just made an agreement with the Chinese communists to destroy our economy
    while waiting for the Chinese to do the same in about 20 years from now.

    It is useful to remind ourselves of the 40-year old history
    of that UN-led conspiracy. It started in the 1970’s by the announcement of the
    coming “New Ice Age” scam (remedy = our unilateral disarmament; the big guru of
    Global warming hoax is Dr. Hansen who started his young career by that New Ice
    Age scam); when that panic petered out in the 1990’s (after Reagan destroyed
    the Soviet Union) it continued by the announcement of
    the man-made catastrophic “Global Warming” hoax (remedy = UN-sponsored world
    socialist government to “spread the wealth around” and “reduce” the world
    population from the existing 6.5 billion down to the “sustainable” level of 1.5
    billion); after 20 consecutive years of considerable global cooling
    that panic was replaced by the “Climate Change” flimflam (so whatever happens
    with our climate – do “something”!) and now by the “Cap & Trade” power grab
    with the purpose of nationalizing our energy companies. Whatever that coterie
    of government-paid drones controlled by the far-left UN Panel “specialists” is
    cooking up by means of faked data, reverse graphs (another guru of that
    conspiracy Dr. Mann “confused” cause and effect in his “hockey stick” graphs),
    and erroneous calculations – the final aim is to empower a new UN-sponsored
    world socialist government authorized to “spread the wealth around” and so save
    the planet from a sure annihilation caused by “the rapacious and irresponsible
    criminal capitalists”. Note: for that Paris meeting on Climate Change dangers
    those government-paid drones “recalculated” their results and “recalibrated”
    their instruments to “demonstrate” that the Earth temperature did increase!

    Those green and renewable energies – solar, wind, biofuels
    – are all energy balance-negative (they require more conventional energy to
    produce than they can generate), unreliable, extremely expensive, and
    environmentally destructive. Also, there is now a wealth of contrary literature
    debunking that gigantic conspiracy, written by investigative reporters and
    politicians Christopher Horner, Robert Carter, Senator Inhofe, Rupert Darwall,
    AW Montford, and David Archibald among other investigative journalists and
    politicians describing the lies, fakes, phony data, opposite conclusions,
    redacting by UN political hacks, reverse graphs, destruction of negative data,
    etc., that have exposed this far-left propaganda in painful detail. Also,
    the Oregon Petition (see Internet) signed by 31,487 independent US scientists
    (including 9,029 with PhD degrees), disputes the false “science” of the UN
    panel and its “scientists”. Several Eco-Nazis submitted false names and
    credentials in an attempt to compromise that effort started by the Nobel Prize
    in Physics Edward Teller (now deceased); it took us a lot of private money to
    clean up the list. To prevent further attempts at sabotage the Petition was
    closed out in late 1990’s. Another such document named The Manhattan
    Declaration lists some 720 scientists, including 120 pure climatologists, and states
    the same. We note that the name of that gigantic scam was changed to “Climate
    Change” – after 20 consecutive years of global cooling. Former Vice-President
    Al “Jazeera” Gore, another low IQ bloviating gasbag, has ridden that “global
    warming” horse to a personal wealth estimated to reach a billion dollars, while
    being entertained by elegant and expensive hookers in luxury hotel suites. And
    now that Marxist Pope from Argentina has joined his voice to that world-wide
    criminal conspiracy.

    • Chemist December 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM

      Excellent summary. The only wingnut you forgot to mention is Obama’s science adviser, “Dr.” John Holdren. He was part of the global cooling doomsday crowd back in the ’70’s and is currently one of the handlers brainwashing POTUS with nonsense scientific fraud:

      • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM

        You unable to show a single solitary scrap of fraud, BTW.



          • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 5:00 PM

            Booker’s newspaper column full of speculation and innuendo has not resulted in a single scrap of evidence since it was published.



            • Chemist December 4, 2015 at 5:07 PM

              I disagree. It is neither speculation or innuendo, here is the evidence:

              • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 5:09 PM

                The not a climate & never published a climate paper guy and the Heritage guy, unpublished paper. Aren’t you precious?



                • Chemist December 4, 2015 at 5:11 PM

                  I’m sorry, your reply was grammatically garbled and tapered off with an ad hominem attack. Can you please clarify?

                  • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 5:16 PM

                    Another con who can’t use ad hom properly. It’s a plague, I tell you.

                    That paper, from a fossil fuel-funded think tank and written by two employees of fossil fuel-funded think tanks and never published in the scholarly literature?

                    The last thing it would be is credible. LoWatts couldn’t even get his SurfaceStations project published, despite promising a blockbuster.




                • TeaPartyGeezer December 5, 2015 at 10:04 PM

                  You have never published. Aren’t you worthless?



                  • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:15 PM

                    You missed the part about the reliance on the use of a fake expert. And yes, I have published.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 5, 2015 at 11:24 PM

                      Who are you trying to fool?

                    • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:45 PM

                      Whatever gives you the good feels.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 12:13 AM

                      Should be easy enough to prove me wrong. Link to your published scholastic endeavors.



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM

                      There are several lawyers, a couple prominent chemical shills and who knows how many lobbying firms who have tried that.



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 12:32 AM


                      Credibility = ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.

                      Self-important little twit. Much like Michael E. Mann, a hero in your own mind.



            • TeaPartyGeezer December 5, 2015 at 9:57 PM

              Dano2’s tiresome rantings full of hyperbole and disinformation has not resulted in a single scrap of evidence since it first started trolling.



              • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:17 PM

                Purposely false assertion.



            • TeaPartyGeezer December 5, 2015 at 11:26 PM

              Purposely false assertion.



              • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 11:43 PM

                You are incapable of showing the assertion is false.



                • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 12:07 AM

                  Not my responsibility to prove a negative.

                  You made an assertion … which you can’t, or won’t, prove.

                  All your silly, childish gibberish while pretending you know something about ‘science’ … is still nothing more than that … silly, childish gibberish.

                  Hint: Spamming a comment thread with dozens of cherry-picked graphs … while demonstrating not on whit of understanding … is not science. Copying and Pasting crap graphics from your little collection, in lieu of thoughtful discourse, is … once again … silly, childish gibberish.



                  • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 12:24 AM

                    Yer a hoot. Tell me all the evidence that has come to light – credible evidence in the literature – that a single scrap of evidence since it was published.

                    There is none. Therefore your comedy skit entertains us. Your continued flailing about entertains us too.

                    And, lastly, you are the latest to entertain us with this comedy dozens of cherry-picked graphs – you are merely the latest to be unable to show they are cherry-picked.

                    I should count how many on this thread failed to show cherry-picked. A dozen? 15 failures? Twenty failures?



                    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 12:37 AM

                      Do you realize you are talking about yourself in the plural? Are you schizophrenic, in addition to being paranoid about weather?

                      BTW, earlier in the thread, you stated that ALL graphs are cherry-picked. I took that to be an admission. Are you now reversing yourself?



                    • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM

                      Aside from the fact everyone is chuckling at your flailing about,

                      More flailing about to entertain everybody: you stated that ALL graphs are cherry-picked. You can’t make that up, folks.



  9. jameshrust December 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM

    Great work on compiling facts that show a negligible affect of increasing carbon dioxide on climate. When the December University of Alabama Huntsville December 2015 global temperature data is out publish it. It will show that we are not heading toward the warmest year since 1880 in spite of a Super El Nino.

    • Dano2 December 4, 2015 at 5:41 PM

      We are on the surface of the planet, where people live.



  10. Martha Ball December 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM

    I would like to tell you of my latest book and documentary.

    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
    My website is
    Thank you.

    Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
    Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1

  11. Leigh December 4, 2015 at 11:54 PM

    Note that “Dano2” is one of those being paid to troll these sites. Just follow the money!

    • Go#Sand December 5, 2015 at 9:00 AM

      If Dano2 is getting paid, it should be by CFACT. This person exemplifies all that is wrong with climate `science.` They cherry pick data sets then demand others not do so and insist their own cherry picking is the only ‘valid’ kind; present their opinions as facts and inconvenient facts as opinions or invalid because of the source; etc., etc. There seems to be no ability to self examine.

      • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 9:41 AM

        They cherry pick data sets

        You are unable to show that I’ve done so. No one on this board has, nor can. But I made a dog shadow puppet from that projection, so there’s that.



        • Chemist December 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM

          No Dano, go back and read through again. There are plenty of points you left unaddressed. Relatively recent sea level rates of increase spanning thousands of years that were far greater than today; the second derivative plot for sea level increase trend has been decreasing ever since the last ice age; Mann’s silly hockystick projection based on cherry-picked data; as well as other points from other good commenters.

          What is known is there were times in eons past when CO2 was higher but temperatures were lower. Times in eons past when CO2 was lower but temperatures were higher, even in the last 2000 years. Finally, all this prognostication is costing our society dearly in the form of missed opportunities to raise more 3rd world people out of squalor. Instead Obama tells an African audience they can’t have cars or air conditioning because of this global warming nonsense (

          Even with the most draconian proposals there will be virtually no impact on global temperature ( What is possibly the most tragic is how vastly more important ecological issues (deforestation, islands of trash in the Pacific, Fukushima, etc.) are being sidelined by all this AGW hot air. And if you want to find out who is behind “carbon taxes” look no further than Goldman Sachs:

          • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 4:06 PM

            You are unable to show I’ve cherry-picked datasets. No one can.

            And this is false: the second derivative plot for sea level increase trend has been decreasing ever since the last ice age as I’ve shown already, and this as well: CO2 was lower but temperatures were higher, even in the last 2000 years



            • Chemist December 5, 2015 at 4:31 PM

              Well you’re presenting cherry-picked data since that graph from Marcott is hogwash: I mean WTF, they left out the Medieval Warming period! Among other warming events that don’t fit into the narrative.

              And the sea level rise has been decreasing since the last ice age ( with the exception for the tiny blip we’re in now, which began before the Industrial Revolution; I don’t see how or where you have disproven that in any meaningful way. The general trend is decreasing rate of sea level rise. So if nothing else it shows that sea level rise is a function of much larger causes than our scratchings on the face of this planet.

              • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 4:41 PM

                Speaking of cherry-picking, sorry, LoWatts is not a peer-reviewed journal. The scientific community has spoken with two dozen papers, that you can’t address.

                And who knows where you get this from (not from the literature): sea level rise has been decreasing since the last ice age and certainly not from that paper you were duped into believing supports your italicized.



                • Chemist December 5, 2015 at 5:31 PM

                  Oh, so when Dano says “certainly not from that paper you were duped into believing…” then it must be the truth, unbiased, and well-reasoned. Who cares if it was vetted by the National Academy of Sciences? /sarcasm

                  The whole Medieval warming period, conveniently deleted by Mann et al to make the hockey stick work, has been proven to be planet-wide by many studies including this one:

                  I’m amazed nobody on here has pointed out that the Antarctic has record amounts of ice coverage! Imagine that. Maybe we are cooling down, and not warming up.

                  Here is where my skepticism comes from: The government lies about unemployment (it’s not 5% but closer to 25%), lies about foreign policy (for example we created and have been financially and militarily supporting ISIS), lies about the meaning of bills and acts such that they are labeled in a manner opposite of their content (Patriot act, Affordable Care act, Safe and Accurate Food Labeling act, etc. etc.), the list goes on. So when the government throws its weight behind something as tenaciously as this we must step back and look at all the lies and deceit, and accept it’s just part of a recurring pattern. This whole thing is just another way the federal government is lying to us, a means to justify their further expansion and disgusting intervention into our lives. I wish you could see this, Dano.

                  • Dano2 December 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM

                    You are deflecting away from the fact the paper doesn’t support your assertion. You were duped.



                  • Joe December 6, 2015 at 7:08 PM

                    Why do you call yourself “Chemist”? I’ve only got a bachelor’s in chemistry, yet I learned enough science and enough about science to be able to understand for myself that the climate scientists are right – after much study – and that you deniers are wrong. If you are truly a chemist, why didn’t you learn that much, too? I find it almost incomprehensible that a chemist would deny basic science. But you bring up politics to deny science. I question your scientific credentials. I do not see that you understand what science is. The consensus was fully formed a generation ago, a full 25 years, by 1990. Every single scientific objection brought up by scientists paid to object by right-wing energy interests was shot down by 2000, advancing the science. Since 2000, all I have seen from science deniers are re-hashed arguments that were shot down in the 1990s or earlier. And you do not use the best of these, but push any denier lie indiscriminately, regardless of how many times it has been debunked.

                    • Chemist December 6, 2015 at 8:05 PM

                      Joe, I have an M.S. in chemistry, and dozens of patents and trade secrets. My specialty is cross-disciplinary integration and the synthesis of new ideas and products that stem from that synergy.

                      I’ve written a few thousand words among these 201 comments over the past few days. You can check them out yourself, perhaps it will convince you to question your belief system.

                      Indeed, Dano has caused me to push the envelope of my research into this even further, and I can say quite emphatically that the finest gem that I’ve found (although it’s a couple years old) is this link: If you are a chemist it should resonate with you.

                      So in summary, that link makes a whole lot of sense, and it makes everything crystal clear – and that CO2 is an *indicator* of temperature change, not a *cause* of temperature change. If you can read through what that old IR astronomer has to say I think you will agree – especially if you are a chemist.


                    • Joe December 7, 2015 at 3:17 PM

                      Question my belief system? After you have given me Steve Goddard as a reference!? And then added the old, long-discredited saw about CO2 only lagging! Did you not believe me when I said I had a degree and have studied climate? Is that what you wish me to question? Ya see, I’ve been interested in science and climate since I was 10, near the end of the International Geophysical Year. By 1980 I was aware of human-caused global warming – because I decided to study climate science. Bought my first textbook from the Library of Science – Climatic Change, J Gribbon, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1978. I point out that was published a decade before the first of the deniers came along.

                      I will actually look at the Steve Goddard piece later, but for now, let me ask just how many peer-reviewed papers he has in climatology, and how many cites from those papers. If you are a scientist, you know *exactly* what I mean.

                      Now, for CO2. I see you are totally ignoring all the evidence that the end-Permian extinction was at least partially powered by a spike in greenhouse gases (possibly caused by the eruption of the Siberian Traps through massive coal beds to start the atmospheric carbon spike) but don’t take my word for it, here’s a reference: Do you accept MIT as a legitimate educational institution?

                      But that isn’t the main thrust of my discussion on CO2. As a chemist you must, like I did, have had to learn quantum mechanics. Interestingly, one of the things we studied was the IR spectra of CO2. Now, since you have clearly stated above that CO2 *always* lags temperature, please explain to me just what you are replacing quantum mechanics with? Because that theory – the most accurate scientific theory we have, even more accurate than the theory of gravity – clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases ALWAYS affect temperature. Because if the atmosphere was totally transparent to radiation, our planet’s surface would have the same temperatures and temperature ranges as the Moon, which is at the same distance from the Sun as Earth. 😉 So clearly there is something in the atmosphere which prevents this. Without CO2 in atmosphere, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be about 0F/-17C.

                      If you understand quantum mechanics, you MUST repudiate your earlier comment. And any chemist with a post-grad degree really should be conversant with QM.

                      Happy Holidays.

                    • Chemist December 7, 2015 at 4:16 PM

                      Steve Goddard didn’t write that piece I want you to read, and it brings up the points you make about what are effective greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It should make perfect sense to you.

                      Merry Christmas!

                    • Joe December 7, 2015 at 7:14 PM

                      I realize Steve didn’t personally write the article. I have to admit I only got a few lines into it on my first try. I got to where the author says there is no CO2 Ir backscatter. I find hat totally unbelievable. (Notice I’m being polite here.) How about this paper, which refutes your IR astronomer’s contention:

                      Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

                      W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

                      Go to the expanded abstract and on page 4 chart 3 you will find the measured CO2 radiative backscatter at 26 watts/square meter. This with CO2 pegged at 360 ppm, because it was done some years ago (2008, iirc.) In fact, at the beginning of this year I read about 2 5 year experiments that measured he CO2 IR backscatter, one near the pole, one near the equator. These were just the last 2 in a series of actual measurtements, not empty words in a blog post. Hell, I’ll use RealClimate from now on then!

                      Nothing I’ve seen from you has been convincing; quite the contrary. I will go back and *try* to read past the initial drivel to see if there is anything at all of merit in the rest of the post, though I actually know better from decades of past experience. I have been following and arguing this for a long time – even before the professional deniers appeared just before ’90. My brother with the physics degree was a skeptic, until I pointed him to the vast *scientific* literature on climate.

                      Finally, first, why would you expect I would take the word of 1 astronomer (who, if any good at all, would deliberately look for the open IR wavelengths – hello!) over every climate scientist in the world – because they all admit the Earth has gotten warmer, even Lindzen and Spencer. Second, and more importantly, why have you dodged the main issue, “Chemist”? What would you replace quantum mechanics with?

                    • Chemist December 7, 2015 at 7:55 PM

                      That old astronomer is just bringing to light some facts that I thought you might not be considering; those being that there is no significant IR greenhouse effects at the frequencies that matter. The significant (i.e. 97%) greenhouse effect is from H2O. Water vapor is something they can’t control with regulations and taxes. CO2 is. So the “enlightened leadership” is making policy decisions based on a tiny nuance of effect that comes from the only component of the atmosphere they can control, tax, and legislate.

                      I hear you on some past event where there was a sudden melting event that triggered things to happen catastrophically, but we’re not there. What we’re doing is not catastrophic, and certainly not a far departure from older times when the CO2 levels were much higher. Hell, the only way Mann’s hockey stick works is if they “erase” the Medieval Warming Period, and that’s been vindicated as a deliberate error on Mann’s part – all to make the curve fit work. There have been warmer times in relatively recent history where the temps have been warmer with less CO2. CO2 is an indicator, not a cause – at least not to the extent the alarmists claim. 1°C per century tops with the feeble trails of absorption that CO2 does impart to the atmosphere.

                      If you can understand quantum physics (which I admit isn’t my strong point) then you should at least be able to understand IR spectroscopy, and where frequencies are absorbed or not. Try re-reading that difficult section in the old IR astronomer’s piece. I doubt he’s fibbing, these are just atmospheric windows under any other name.

                    • Joe December 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM

                      You know, I’ve been arguing climate science for decades. This is not the first time, or even the hundred and first time, I’ve seen this argument. It is as wrong now as it was every other time. And while I truly think nobody fully understands quantum mechanics, aspects of it, like the vibrational states of CO2 and their effects are reasonably clear to anyone who has studied science. CO2 by its very nature absorbs and emits IR radiation, courtesy of the O=C=O bonds. I ask you again, what do you replace quantum mechanics with, that some CO2 does interact with IR and some apparently doesn’t, based on your claims. Claiming an MS in chemistry and simultaneously claiming QM isn’t your strong point is a straight cop-out. Once again, I point out that at about 360 ppmv CO2, the reflected IR in the CO2 bands amounted to 26 watts/meter – measured! And we are now at 400 ppmv. How does the temperature NOT go up in response to the additional CO2 acting as the greenhouse gas it is?

                      The bit about H2O is misleading. H2O is NOT “well-mixed”, and falls out of atmosphere at all temperatures. As such, it cannot possibly have the effect claimed. As a matter of fact, CO2 accounts for 9% to 26% of warming, depending on the actual amount of water vapor in the air.

                      If you wish me to be kind, I will just say that since out old IR astronomer is contradicting well over a century of climate science, he must be deluded. It’s either that, or he is lying through his teeth. I don’t care which you pick, he’s wrong either way. His “windows” are a crock. He ignores pressure broadening, he ignores The fact that there are more CO2 bands than we originally realized, he ignores that water vapor is not well mixed, and so do you. As you ignore the evidence – overwhelming evidence – that you are wrong, and you ignore the fact that you have NO evidence whatsoever to back up your position. But I’m not ignoring that. Instead, I’m calling you out to show *evidence* – scientific, peer-reviewed, published in a legitimate science journal evidence, that you are right. You cannot.

                      As for being a scientist, you have 1 degree higher than I, but that does not make you a scientist. In your case, it only makes you an educated denier. Try going back to school for climate science, and learn something yourself. You need it.

                    • Chemist December 9, 2015 at 10:47 AM

                      Thanks for trying to educate me, Joe.

                      i’m aware that CO2 is about 2-3% of the total heat trapping of the atmosphere, which far outweighs it’s trace percentage. I’m of the belief, along with many other scientists (oh wait! I guess you don’t think I”m a scientist), that CO2 is not a strong knob. But one thing is for sure, its about the only gas they think they can grab ahold of. This is because they (and I guess you as well) are looking for the sources of anthropogenic global warming whether it exists or not. And if you can’t find it, then dammit y’all will make sure it’s there.

                      According to a large body of research, however, CO2’s influence at these trace levels is a tiny effect. Most of the reason the predictions are so uncertain (if you listen to someone who really understands like Judith Curry, see below) is that the CO2 levels are such a small effect on top of a HUGE pattern of solar and volcanic and etc driven warming (and cooling) effects. Its a small effect, thats the reason so many people think the models are not a slam dunk, certainly not robust enough to determine public and economic policy on; nor to create and stir up the masses of frightened individuals who think their coastal city is about to go underwater.

                      People can have graduate degrees in chemistry that were accomplished in spite of the horrible P-Chem curriculum, not because of it. That was a horrible year for me, but I passed by the skin of my teeth. The only part of it I did well on was molecular symmetry. I’m rather disappointed that in your last post, as well as several other posts in response to me, you always mention that I “claim” to have a graduate degree in chemistry, and other such slights and mild disrespects. In that same vein I could say that, given the length of time you’ve spent submerged in climate alarmism and activism, that you are incapable of seeing outside your narrow box. As I mentioned a while back, I do most of my work in cross-displinary venues, currently combining fiber optic sensing technology, sensor packaging, and catalysis of internal combustion exhaust gases (which CO2 is a byproduct of said catalysis). I don’t have to worry about quantum mechanics for that, so more power to you. But I do have the power to look at things with a critical eye, from a multi-displinary and common sense perspective. And that also includes history. Why did Mann erase the Medieval Warming period to make his hockey stick work? More history: Obama’s Science Advisor Holdren thought we were about to enter an ice age back in the 70’s. So did quite a few other “trusted” authorities. See where that went. Maybe they were just 50 years too early.

                      Meanwhile, I defer to a woman who I consider to be a true and unbiased climate scientist with degrees higher than either of us. She doesn’t get any grant money from the bloated government, and isn’t part of the trillion-dollar-per-year climate alarmism industry. She says the CO2 warming models don’t work because these models don’t properly factor the inputs which we still only have an incomplete or incorrect understanding of:

                      Cheers! I’m sure we can go back and forth on this into perpetuity. I believe the benefits of any extra CO2 we put into the atmosphere far outweigh the penalties. I believe the facts are on my side, and even the psychology of your side suggests y’all are scrambling with adjusted data, increasingly esoteric theories, and control knobs that exaggerate reality. I’m sure you will never see things this way, but such is life. I wish you well in the coming New Year.

                    • Joe December 13, 2015 at 6:02 PM

                      Judith Curry… now you offer me Judith Curry. And you claim Mike Mann cheated. Well, first, there are at least 13 other independent reconstructions of the “hockey stick” from groups as diverse and independent as the Japan Meteorological society, including one for the Southern Hemisphere. All show the “hockey stick” curve. It’s not a hockey stick, it’s not even a hockey team, it’s an entire hockey league. Do the reconstructions match exactly? No. Should they? Now you are claiming that not only Mann but other scientists around the world all cheated. I find that running way too far into conspiracy theories for me. I also question why you would think all these people are lying and why you think no one has demonstrated the lies.

                      You give me Curry, and knock Mann. Okay, Jim Hansen, Phil Jones, Bill Ruddiman, Ben Santer, Eric Steig, Rasmus Benestad… all say Ms. Curry is wrong in soft-pedaling the actual scientific findings.The so-called Medieval Warm Period is apparently nothing more than occasional unusually high temps in small areas of the world scattered over 5 centuries of time. There is a *very* instructive map of the MWP on the ScienceSkeptical website, a denier site. Here’s the link: It claims to demonstrate the reality of the MWP but in actual fact, it does just the opposite. Look closely at all the graphs given – see the range of dates they cover. See that most show 1 or 2 spikes in temp at some one point in that 5 century span, from about 900 AD to 1400 AD. Anyone with a working knowledge of science or statistics will see that there is no evidence for anything more than various high temp spikes here and there across the time span, such as can be found in any 500-year period of Earth’s temp history that we can resolve with reasonable accuracy. The MWP is *not* on solid scientific footing. Quite the contrary, recent studies question its existence more and more – see ScienceDaily.

                      As for the 70s “ice age coming” claims, a close examination of the work done shows that even earlier than the 70’s many doubted. In fact, the first college climate science text I bought< Climatic Change, J Gribbon, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1978, clearly shows the claim is *not* true. Even Steve Schneider didn't think we were going into an ice age in the bulk of the 70's, one of the chapters in the text was written by him. You don't have to believe me, because last time I looked, there were a fair number of copies available from online used book sellers. Buy your own and see for yourself. That's called "evidence". 😉 Scientists use evidence to back up their claims, no?

                      The reason why some scientists thought we might be headed toward an ice age is found in the temperature profile of the 40s, 50s, and 60s, but even then the warming signal was beginning to come out of the noise. The bulk of the work done that the text was written from was done in the 50s, 60s and early – mid-70s, and it's fairly obvious from reading the text that we were seeing a warming from CO2. It was that book, which I bought from the Library of Science, that made me aware of human-caused global warming. There are no references earlier than 1976 in the voluminous list of references given in the textbook. And we both know what that means – the actual work was done not later than the very early 70s, to give time for the papers to make their way through the peer-review process, get published, and get into general circulation – that takes about 3 years or so. And then the textbook has to be written, proofed, printed and distributed. The claim that science said "ice age" in the 70s is thus refuted by a book from the 70s.

                      I'm not trying to teach you anything; rather I'm trying to reach you. As a scientist, you understand what science is, how it works and how it builds upon itself. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical and use evidence – all the evidence – to make judgments. You are not looking at all the evidence, and this is made plain by your refusal to look at the quantum mechanics of the situation. Saying QM isn't your forte' doesn't absolve you from considering the evidence, does it?

                      Took me a while to write past the first sentence about Judith Curry – if you'd like refutations of her claims, go to RealClimate and search for her name. But I am challenging you to use your training and look honestly at *all* the evidence for and against human-caused global warming. The vast preponderance of it falls on the side of AGW, not on the denier side. I argue with scientists differently than non-scientists because scientists have been taught better. Use what you learned and see the truth. It's rather simple. We're warming, we measure it. Even the satellites show an increasing temp – there is not now and never was a "pause". All the instrumental records tell us that. So do the rising seas and the receding glaciers.

                      Finally, what does it mean to a chemist when the oceans are both warming *and* absorbing more CO2, other than a climate that is far from equilibrium?

                      ps: I spent the time I was "missing" here putting up Christmas decorations and putting down those urges to be less friendly and more forceful in my comments here. And while I have taken the occasional potshot at your credentials, I will point out that you have studiously ignored the QM evidence and my repeated requests for solid peer-reviewed science. Instead, you've given me an astronomer's anecdote and a poor example of 1 climate scientist to set against generations of demonstrated science. I wanted to get into a proper Christmas spirit before I commented that one might take your refusal to provide any actual evidence for your position as an insult to my intelligence, which would make us even. 😉 Happy Holidays, and may the new year bring you enlightenment.

                    • Chemist December 13, 2015 at 6:33 PM

                      Oh listen to you, you’re a big kind softie. So am I. That’s a picture of my dog and athletic partner. But so many nasty people out there, and so refreshing to hear a good heart and a good soul at the other end of this conversation.

                      So where you and I disagree at the most fundamental level, so it seems, is whether this whole thing is a “conspiracy.” I believe it is, one that is integral to the dissolution of nation-states, and the elimination of this particular Republic and the accompanying Constitution. Fortunately that acknowledgement was at the beginning of your reply! Otherwise I’d feel remiss for not having already performed the rest of your remedies for my “lack of understanding” 😉

                      Merry Christmas!
                      – Christian

                    • Joe December 13, 2015 at 10:00 PM

                      Nice dog. We currently have 3 (a typical number of dogs in the house), but the older we get, the smaller the dogs get. There’s probably a moral in there somewhere.

                      Physical chemistry was a bear and a half. We used Walter Moore’s 3rd edition of (what else?) Physical Chemistry, and the next year went into Concepts and Models of Inorganic Chemistry. My lab technique was not always the best; I even managed to implode one experiment. I was not my teachers’ favorite. But that was long ago and far away.

                      I don’t see that we *need* a world government to get greenhouse gas emissions under control. It might even be counterproductive, as the immediate, “right NOW” problems of a world government would likely swamp any ability to even attempt to deal with the problems of an hour from now, much less a day or a week from now. It would be more beneficial for national governments to get most of their local problems under control before any sort of government consolidation took place, I suspect. But I think ultimately we need some sort of effective world organization to prevent the kinds of wars we will be capable of fighting in the future.

                      What we can do to each other now is bad enough. The Cuban Missile Crisis gave me nightmares. A Putin in the future, coupled with a new Mao in a first-world China, would very likely overwhelm a US that has the resources but not the necessary amount of citizenry to fight all around the world at once. And ceding space to the Chinese, as we seem to be doing, is a guaranteed loser. Among other things, I design games, and I answered a request for help from an author in England to design a game where humanity is fighting an alien invasion which first knocks all human space installations out. Humanity loses such a game, always. The author “cheated” and used a gimmick to take out the command/interstellar ship of the aliens to “win”, although the aliens gave up rather than just devastate Earth. As far as I can see, the Chinese won’t be so restrained. Does the future US arm India as a counterweight? And then why doesn’t India split the world with China, and then fight it out for supremacy?

                      I am definitely a one-worlder. But the one world I envision has state papers that start with “When in the course of human events…. ” and “We the people…” A United States of Earth would likely be very different than our USA, but it needn’t be worse.

                      Merry Christmas to you and yours!
                      – agnostic 😉

  12. Chemist December 5, 2015 at 2:50 PM

    The facts presented in this discussion could be added to CFACT’s list of inconvenient truths:

  13. TheEnergyGuy December 6, 2015 at 1:30 AM

    Dano 2 is correct folks.

    • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 4:55 PM

      Dano2 has delusions of adequacy.

      • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 5:18 PM

        And yet you haven’t refuted a single assertion or argument I made. Nor can you.



        • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 7:43 PM

          You are deluded …

          About history.
          About climate.
          About reality.
          About the meaning of ‘refute.’
          About critical thinking.
          About your own adequacy.



          • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 7:57 PM

            Oh, look: still haven’t refuted a single assertion or argument I made. Nor will you.



            • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 8:00 PM

              Oh, look: still deluded.



              • Dano2 December 6, 2015 at 8:14 PM

                Still haven’t refuted a single thing…check.



                • TeaPartyGeezer December 6, 2015 at 8:18 PM

                  Still deluded … check.



  14. informativex December 7, 2015 at 2:01 AM

    Except NASA who is cited in this as a cornerstone “fact” source also did a more comprehensive analysis and said the sea level would actually rise between 3-10 feet by 2100. Both facts cannot be facts because hey are mutually exclusive numbers. The ice is melting at the poles more quickly than thought and less of it has “more ice” underneath but is exposing rocks and unknown land masses. this means yes temperatures are cooler because the rapidly melting poles result in “NEW” anomalies like the ice floes on Cape Cod last year which act as “Ice cubes in our drink” so enjoy the extra cold while it lasts and be sure to feel smug and smart because you are completely WRONG and your children will wish for some cold when all the reserve cold (ice) is gone.

    • informativex December 7, 2015 at 2:06 AM

      bears are closely related to dogs. if you note how quickly both can reproduce then you would understand that 5000 could become 25000 in a single year. it’s like saying my goldfish bowl has 5 fish oh wait it’s 25 oh they all died oh crap nevermind. it is stupid and wrong to cite them via two snapshots. you should cite them via how many have been drive south to be forced into crossbreeding with black bears and grizzlies in the yukon which is completely out of their normal range areas. I hate this Koch funded garbage. Why pay people millions to spread crooked spun information just so you can continue strip mining and pillaging mother earth? don’t you have enough billions yet? what assholes!

  15. Gregson14 December 7, 2015 at 7:29 PM

    Planet Earth has spent as much as 25% of its 4.5 Billion year existence with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at levels of 4000 parts per million (ppm) or greater – an order of magnitude (10x) greater than current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere – and guess what?… the Planet survived just fine… all by itself!

    On an existential scale – Planet Earth is today experiencing near-historic low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (400 ppm). The argument can be made that there is a greater chance of Planet Earth becoming a frozen and lifeless planet (much like Mars); simply because we are closer to a CO2 deficiency on the planet than we are to an over-abundance of CO2 – a compound that is essential for the survival of all plant-life on Earth.

    The unfortunate reality is that plant-life begins to shut-down (die) when CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere drop below 150ppm – whereas today’s commercial growing operations pump upwards of 1600ppm into their Greenhouses to facilitate optimum growing conditions. Take a walk in your favourite forest or woodland and you will at times be exposed to CO2 concentrations at levels close to 600ppm… but no worries!… you’ll be just fine. In fact, Princeton Phd Physicist, Freeman Dyson in an April 2015 interview with The Vancouver Sun explains that Planet Earth has greened-up by close to 20% in the last 40 years “… increasing our tillable land, increasing crop yields and feeding more people…” as a direct result of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the interview Dyson states emphatically that: “… in the aggregate, increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are a “net benefit” for our biosphere.”

    I find it comically ironic that an entire movement that calls itself “green” has positioned itself as the greatest demonizer of the very compound (CO2) that is responsible for “greening” our Planet in the last 2 generations.

    Carbon Dioxide also forms the very basis of the food chain in our Oceans!… CO2 is consumed by vast quantities of algae and plankton in our Oceans – these micro-organisms feed the small shrimp and krill that sustain the baitfish, who in turn are prey for the larger ocean predators. Without CO2, our Oceans would be lifeless – our Atmosphere would be toxic and the Planet would be dead!

    All life on Planet Earth originated in our Oceans – it is our Oceans that act as vast storage sinks for CO2; as they absorb CO2 during our prolonged Glacial Eras and release it back into the atmosphere following the centuries-long warming process of our interglacials.

    The UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has CO2’s relationship to climate exactly backwards!… CO2 does not cause warming… it follows warming!… It is a trailing indicator of “warming events” that occurred in the near past (600-1000 years past). The reason; is that our Oceans are so vast… they literally take centuries to warm-up and it is this warming process in our Oceans that releases and emits CO2 back into our atmosphere to complete the cycle during the warmer interglacial periods like our current Holocene Epoch – which reached it’s maximum warming 8,000 years ago of 2-3 degrees centigrade higher than today.

    Mankind with all of his Industry, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Transportation and Land-use needs is responsible for emitting approximately 30 giga-tons of CO2 into our atmosphere per year worldwide. Yes!… that is 30 billion tons… but it is a mere 4% of the 750 giga-ton natural footprint of CO2 that is emitted into our atmosphere every year by our oceans, lakes, deltas, volcanoes, forest fires, dying vegetation, animals of all kinds and microbes with whom we share the planet.

    Why then is CO2 the source of such angst and hysteria from Academia, our bureaucracies and Progressives?… Answer: In today’s world of misinformation, CO2 has been tagged as the prime candidate onto which our Progressive elites can attach a brand new tax, to pay for the entitlements that 1st World Nations have promised to their constituencies. While at the same time, the UN’s IPCC has become a hypocritical advocate for limiting the growth potential of most 3rd World Nations who are desperate to utilize their own carbon-based energy sources in order to develop their new and emerging economies.

    I suppose under the auspices of the United Nations IPCC and alarmists everywhere, we can expect the hype and ramped-up rhetoric to increase during the COP-21 Confab in Paris — soon to be augmented by the Progressive Carbon Tax, the Fresh Water Tax, the Sunshine Tax and last but not least, the Oxygen Tax!

    All of it coming to you via the “lock-step” agenda of a Progressive policy platform near you!…

    Just some of the “inconvenient truths” to buttress the above narrative!…

  16. Redbird December 15, 2015 at 5:56 PM

    Hey Dano (if you’re still trolling this site). Just answer me one question. Here’s a quote from the US Government’s energy website ( under the subject of CO2 production by types of fuel:

    “…About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are
    produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol. If the CO2 emissions from ethanol combustion
    are considered, then about 18.95 pounds of CO2 are produced when a gallon of
    E10 is combusted…”

    Now, since a gallon of gasoline without ethanol weighs 6 pounds, how is it possible to get 19.64 pounds of CO2 out of it when it’s burned?

Comments are closed.