Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

By and |2018-01-12T10:22:28+00:00January 12th, 2018|Climate, Op-Ed Articles|107 Comments

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.






This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!


  1. Immortal600 January 12, 2018 at 12:24 PM

    Great article! I wonder what the AGW kooks have to say about this one? LOL

  2. Jack Jackson January 12, 2018 at 1:53 PM

    An excellent article. The point that the effect of adding CO2 becomes smaller as the concentration increases seems to be missed by many.
    (I learned to ‘beg the question’ was to ‘assume the answer before looking’. Does it now mean ‘piques one’s interest’ as well?)

    • Bob Armstrong January 13, 2018 at 11:28 AM

      I do think “… does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?” is poorly stated . It continues to increase , but at a logarithmically smaller rate .

      But the thing that’s generally not understood is that our mean temperature is totally determined by our lumped planet and atmosphere spectrum , color , as seen from outside . It’s not the heat retention by the CO2 within the atmosphere that changes the mean ; it’s its contribution to our spectrum as seen from outside . That can be calculated and measured , but this field is so far away from analytical physics , if it ever has been , I’m not aware of it .

      Further , no spectral phenomenon explains why the bottom of our atmosphere is about 3% hotter than a gray ball in our orbit , 13% hotter than our much colder approximate radiative equilibrium .

      The entire GHG paradigm is without quantitative analytical experimentally demonstrable physical foundation .

      • DavidAppell January 23, 2018 at 11:48 PM

        I’ve looked into Bob Armstrong’s “science” about a colored ball more closely than anyone else, I’m sure, on the planet, even deciphering his ancient and ridiculous method of writing equations and his horrible punctuation.

        It is all junk – and this is very easy to see. Armstrong can’t even get the units right in his equations. He misunderstands and misapplies basic physical principles like Kirchoff’s Law, and he applies blackbody equations to objects that he defines as not being blackbodies.

        As just one bizarre example, on page 23 of his PowerPoint slides for his Heartland Institute talk, he divides A by E and gets a unitless number.

        Unfortunately, higher up on that page he defines A and E and clearly shows that they have different units.

        And, no, his derived numbers aren’t right either, such as for albedos and outgoing longwave spectrums.

        Armstrong is afraid to even try to address any of these problems, or answer a single question. Hasn’t in two years. That’s not how a scientist reacts.

        His PPT slides:

        • RealOldOne2 January 24, 2018 at 10:17 AM

          “It is all junk”
          Then you are claiming that Kirchoff is junk, that orbital geometry is junk, that Stefan & Boltzmann is junk, that the Planck function is junk, because all those things are in Armstrong’s presentation.

          Once again you reveal that you are quite the science denier. But then we know that, since you peddle the false pseudoscience of CatastophicAGW-by-CO2 even though there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, as your climate cult religion claims.

          • DavidAppell January 28, 2018 at 12:12 AM

            Completely wrong.

            I’ve shown in detail how B Armstrong is wrong.

            It’s a shame you could not understand what I wrote here.

            • RealOldOne2 January 28, 2018 at 10:11 AM

              “Completely wrong”
              No, I what I wrote was correct, and you couldn’t refute it, you merely deny it, but that’s what deniers of natural climate change like you do. Sad.

              It’s a shame that you have been so have been so thoroughly duped by the peddlers of your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion, and that you aren’t scientifically literate enough to recognize it.

              The reality is there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate cult claims.

              But there are several that show that natural climate forcing increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m², which was ~10 times more than the increase in CO2 forcing. The empirical evidence shows that climate warming continues to be natural, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

    • DavidAppell January 23, 2018 at 11:49 PM

      Jack: I’ve looked into Bob Armstrong’s “science” about a colored ball more closely than anyone else, I’m sure, on the planet, even deciphering his ancient and ridiculous method of writing equations and his horrible punctuation.

      It is all junk – and this is very easy to see. Armstrong can’t even get the units right in his equations. He misunderstands and misapplies basic physical principles like Kirchoff’s Law, and he applies blackbody equations to objects that he defines as not being blackbodies.

      As just one bizarre example, on page 23 of his PowerPoint slides for his Heartland Institute talk, he divides A by E and gets a unitless number.

      Unfortunately, higher up on that page he defines A and E and clearly shows that they have different units.

      And, no, his derived numbers aren’t right either, such as for albedos and outgoing longwave spectrums.

      Armstrong is afraid to even try to address any of these problems, or answer a single question. Hasn’t in two years. That’s not how a scientist reacts.

      His PPT slides:

  3. Aardvark January 13, 2018 at 10:52 AM

    I think it is important to point out that anyone that doesn’t agree with the left’s “global warming” scare tactics, are labeled “climate change deniers” or “science deniers”. We deny neither, science or climate change. We simply don’t believe that man is the primary cause of the climate changing. The climate has been changing since the earth began. I would argue that someone that believes a man can become a women because they feel like a woman, is a science denier.

  4. tony January 13, 2018 at 11:02 AM

    In Dr. Howard C. Hayden’s little book entitled “A Primer on CO2 and Climate” he provides a physicist’s basic explanation of the CO2 behavior described in the Op Ed. His book also provides a basic understanding of carbon dioxide’s Eco system, including sources, sinks and a brief view of how ocean waters and atmospheric CO2 maintain a balance.

    Dr. Hayden makes the point that CO2 is a “lagging indicator” for global warming. This means CO2 in the atmosphere increases as global temperatures/ocean waters increase and decreases as the temperatures drop. Thus it “lags” temperature changes. He states it is not a “leading indicator” or a cause. I highly recommend this book for laypersons who have an interest in this. Available on Amazon, at least it was when I bought another copy to replace the one I gave a friend.

    • RealOldOne2 January 13, 2018 at 12:24 PM

      Dr. Hayden is a Prof. of Physics Emeritus at Univ. of Connecticut.

      He also wrote a letter to the EPA on the Endangerment Finding which points out that climate alarmism is “a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data”. He also points out the fallaciy of the alarmists’ claim that “it’s just physics”, because if it was just physics there would only be one model, not dozens:

      • tony January 13, 2018 at 1:02 PM

        Thanks. When I first learned of him, he was the head of the Physics Dept there. I wrote to him on how to get his book. Another book I read to get a climatologist or meteorologist perspective was Dr. Roy W. Spencer’s book “Climate Confusion”. It is excellent also in putting weather records in perspective, what affects weather and weather patterns, and how global temperature data is collected and manipulated. Spencer co developed NASA’s global satellite temperature monitoring system, which I understand NASA/NOAA stopped using and went back to the grown level stations because each data entry requires manual adjusting. Dr. Spencer is also the expert witness who testified before a Senate Committee (Boxer’s), in 2008 I believe, that the earth had entered a cooling cycle (sun) and it would become too obvious to ignore. He then asked Senator Boxer if she would be happy to learn this since we didn’t have to worry about “global warming”. She was not.

        Back then we were inundated with “global warming” alarmist information by the media and activists with nothing to rebut it. So having grown up on a farm, I learned to not run behind the herd, lots of manure in the path. So my search for rebuttal info brought me to these books, plus common sense of course.

    • Ian5 January 13, 2018 at 5:04 PM

      Noting that the ‘heartland expert’ and former cfact advisor has suggested AGM is “pure garbage” yet hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science on the topic of climate change. Nothing.

      • tony January 13, 2018 at 5:19 PM

        You do know just about all the ones deemed “peer group” are climate alarmists who get their funding promoting “climate change”. They refuse to peer review and certainly will not publish anything that refutes their narrative.

        • Ian5 January 13, 2018 at 5:30 PM

          That’s a silly talking point that you can’t substantiate. Regardless, tell us what climate science articles Hayden has submitted and which scientific journals have rejected them.

          • tony January 13, 2018 at 5:44 PM

            Not a talking point just fact. You are aware that the last EPA director, Regina McCarthy, made it clear she did not want any “deniers” working in the EPA. This was also true of NASA/NOAA. If there were any “deniers”, they had to remain silent. Same is true in many universities. Deniers have to remain silent to remain on staff. So if you want to learn about rebuttals to the climate change narrative, you have to find the “deniers” willing to speak up. And by the way, there are thousands of scientists, none of whom are political scientists, who are speaking up.

            Say, why not take a chance and read Dr. Hayden’s little book. If you have a background in science, you might find it informative.

  5. Denis Ables January 13, 2018 at 11:23 AM

    By the same token the alarmists DENY (ironic ?) that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now. Why this insistent DENIAL ? Probably because their computer models depend on increasing co2 level was evidently constant for hundreds of thousands of years before the MWP and there was no increase during the MWP. co2 level did not begin increasing until the 1800s. Their problem is further exacerbated by the fact that, with no co2 increase their dubious assumption about water vapor feedback is also inoperative.

    Talking about increases in temperature since the 1800s is dubious. Our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, at the time of the first low temperature experienced during the LIA, which happened around 1630. That implies 200+ years of NATURAL warming because it’s before co2 began to increase. It seems silly to assume that Mother Nature immediately stopped having any influence insofar as increasing temperature just because co2 began to increase. Furthermore, co2 increase at 2 ppmv per year, implies that it would have taken many decades, perhaps a century, before co2 impact on temperature could have registered on our thermometers.

    Since there was a global cooling from the 1940s to about 1975, the actual duration of our CURRENT global warming has involved little more than a couple of decades (1975 to 1998). There was no further increase in temperature until about 2014 or 2015 (Monckton’s analysis). Following that was another el Nino, a natural periodic warming. Unraveling how much, if any, impact was due to human activity since 2014 is impossible.

    Alarmists argue that the MWP trend had to be “synchronous” everywhere on earth in order to have been a global warming. Applying that same definition to the more current period eliminates any concern about earlier global warming durations.

    • Li D January 13, 2018 at 5:09 PM

      Monkton wouldn’t know his arse from a hole in the ground.

      • Denis Ables January 13, 2018 at 5:32 PM

        Monckton used the publicly available data, beginning in 1998 and simply calculated how long there had been no additional warming.

        He also had his process checked by others. No alarmist could refute his results. Monckton also warned that the hiatus in temp increase would likely end during the next ell Nino. It did, but so what? Even NASA admits that el Ninos are natural repeating events having nothing to do with Co2 increase. The IPCC also recognized this hiatus.

        Turns out that it is you who has that recognition problem. Perhaps a mirror might help in your case?

        • Li D January 13, 2018 at 5:43 PM

          Whats wrong with people like you? Why cant you see utter crap analysis and statistics?
          Its like a horse with blinders or some such.
          Wheres your natural inclination to strive for competence?

          • Denis Ables January 14, 2018 at 9:22 AM

            LOL. It is YOU who have accepted “crap analysis and statistics”.

            The only “argument” that can be made about Monckton’s analysis is that the start date in his analysis was “cherry-picked”. And there is some credibility to that claim. However, Monckton’s analysis on the period beginning 1998 and going to at least 2014 (perhaps it was part of 2015, I don’t recall) was based on the current date and worked backwards. It was the response to a simple question, namely, for how long has there been no additional increase in the temperature?

            1998 was the high temperature because of a natural periodic warming event, an el Nino. However, that effect was gone by 2001, so there was still a period of more than a decade with no additional warming. (and the only reason the trend didn’t continue was because of the subsequent el Nino which covered the 2015/16/17 period.

            • Li D January 14, 2018 at 6:42 PM

              “However, that effect was gone by 2001, so there was still a period of more than a decade with no additional warming “.
              Er , you might wanna argue that point with commenter David Wojick who seems to think el ninos leave a bit of heat behind each time ( possibly since forever, the Wojick mechanism and timeframe being a bit unclear ).
              Get your crap straight deniers.
              Any comment from you Dr Wojick on this statement from
              Denis Ables?

              • Denis Ables January 14, 2018 at 6:58 PM

                Doesn’t matter much. All of the years from then to 2014 had minimal differences… Do you really believe that the 97/98 el Nino affect was the same across all subsequent years?

                As I recall, the alarmists were doing a lot of speculating about where the missing heat went during most of that period.

        • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 2:45 AM

          Scientists reconstructions if the MWP nowhere show it being as warm globally as it is now. That’s why they don’t accept the assertion.

          Have you not watched the series of videos that demonstrate Monckton to be wrong and dishonest over and over? If not, then I have a treat for you.

          • Denis Ables January 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM

            Videos? How about a simple meta-study which, by its very self, overwhelms Mann’s hockey stick.

            Alarmists only reluctantly admit that the MWP experienced in Europe is valid — warmer than it is now. That’s because they had little choice.

            However, there are 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe, each of which provides temperature data across time. These boreholes show, conclusively, that the MWP was global.

            Google the Greenland Temperature study (gisp2). This study shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now.

            The receding Mendenhll glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a 1,000 year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then. Alaska and Greenland are distant from each other and also distant from Europe.

            There are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies available, some dating before “climate change” became controversial. Back at that time even the IPCC graphs showed that the MWP was global and warmer than now. Isn’t it rather strange that Mann wasn’t concerned enough about this conflict to perhaps reviewed his data, particularly given the controversy about the validity of his process? The MWP studies are all cataloged at A subset of those studies directly address temperature. also has the studies accessible via region.

            Choose a half dozen regions (say) and select one study which addresses temperature, if any happen to be available.
            You will find that each study selected shows the site(s) under investigation to have been warmer than it is now !

            THAT, folks, can be followed by “qed”.

            • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 3:39 PM

              The videos are specifically about Monckton. There is so much that he gets wrong that videos are the best way to demonstrate that. And it takes several to go through his litany of errors and lies… what can I say, that’s not my fault. Go on. Watch them and leave comments to Potholer pointing out his errors.

              Re the MWP I did not say it was not a global event. I said that none of the global average temperature reconstructions show temperatures above current ones. Here is such a reconstruction
              From here

              When you start talking about temperature in Greenland, I have to point out that temperatures in one point on this planet cannot be used as a proxy for global temperatures, so it’s pointless comparing that one location between now and 800 years ago. It’s only worth looking at global average temperatures. These are in the data above and demonstrate that we are above even the highest points in the error bars for the MWP.

              • Denis Ables January 14, 2018 at 3:47 PM

                You “analysis” is lacking logic.

                Matters not whether Monckton deserves the title “Lord”, or has other problems. There is no problem with his mathematical analysis of temperature data from 1998 to 2014/15, apart from the argument that the start date was cherry-picked. (Altho’ the start date was determined by a mathematical “walk” back in time.)

                Average temperature is not the issue. All that can be said from this meta-study is that, since each site was warmer during the MWP than it is now, it was indeed warmer back then than it is now.

                The 6,000 boreholes demonstrate that the trend was global.

          • Denis Ables January 14, 2018 at 7:10 PM

            I forgot to point out that this meta-study does not exclude the possibility that human activity may have had some impact on current temperatures. This study does however show, without much doubt, that all the alarmists who have continued to insist, without justification, that the MWP was merely regional have zero credibility. That includes Mann and his hockey stick graph, a concoction by one guy versus overwhelming conflicting evidence.

            • MichaelR January 15, 2018 at 1:37 AM

              I said in my previous comment that I was not citing anything that suggested that it was not a global event. Did you look at the graph on the NOAA site?
              I said that it’s maximum temperature was well below current temperature even when using the higher irradiance models for the MWP. You therefore can’t just point to the MWP and say that current warming is natural and within the bounds of previous climate variability. It is not.

              • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 3:48 AM

                Nothing special about today’s temperature approximately 0,6 C. colder than 1936, like there’s no emission of CO2 at all ..

                .. or, maybe, just maybe CO2 is just not working. In fact, perhaps the CO2 magic, read: FRAUD – is just to impose “green” taxes on energy ..


                • MichaelR January 15, 2018 at 4:13 AM


                  So firstly, the USHCN is not global data. It’s only for mainland US. So it’s not representative of global temperature whlch should be a pretty obvious error on your part.

                  Second, the data was corrected decades ago due to biasing factors that were recording temperatures in heat islands as explained here.
                  You can challenge this if you like but you need to show a published paper in an academic journal that deiscredits the later methodology if you want to stand up your argument as I am not going to take your opinion over the evidence of published science. I am also not interested in blog posts or articles published in open access online journals and it’s not vetted by anyone. I could publish an article in such online journals if I wanted to pay for it.

                  Third, you are contradicting the author of this article yourself as even he accepts 0.85C warming over the last hundred years, as do most authors on this site.

                  Fourth, multiple independent agencies have been using global datasets and while it is a well known fact that global temperatures did reach a local minimum during the 1940s, that maximum is well below current temperatures. The drop off in the post war period has been shown to be mainly due to vast amounts of aerosols in the atmosphere reflecting a lot of sunlight therefore lowering TSI. Once laws were introduced to reduce aerosols released from dirty fuels in the 70s and 80s, the shielding effect of those aerosols was gradually reduced and CO2 induced warming became dominant.

                  BTW, you might think that the US is the only country in the world where climate change is being researched and discussed, but it turns out that there 194 others, and they all signed up to the Paris Accord because their governments accept climate change is real, man made and a major problem. How does your conspiracy work when countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia an Iran are all signed up? Do you think their governments are all motivated by taxing fossil fuels more?

                  • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 5:28 AM

                    The only reason it’s not global temperature is because there’s no such thing as global temperature. However, the weather stations was rare and far between before 1950, in fact the only real temperature series, the best ones, are from the US.

                    The other data sets available from other parts of the world shows the same thing, for example from Australia, New Zealand and Iceland (the original temperature data sets, of course).

                    Another fact that confirm the world was warmer in the 30’s is the subsequent higher level of CO2 we saw in the first part of the 40’s, measured at up to 440 ppmv at the surface and from planes at around 800 ppmv. proving the temperature must have been higher and it must have been global.

                    Why I Know The (Man Made) Global Warming Scare is FAKE

                    Ice Doesn’t Lie – But NASA And NOAA Scientists Do

                    Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

                    CO2 level in history


                    • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 5:31 AM

                      NOAA/NASA – Destroying Science By Data Tampering

                    • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 5:36 AM

                      Climate Science Bipolar Disorder

                    • MichaelR January 15, 2018 at 6:03 AM

                      I had a feeling this was going to be pointless. When I said point me at academic published papers that was because bloggers are unreliable and frequently misrepresent science.
                      And your assertion that good records don’t exist outside the US is hilarious. The longest running temperature records all come from Europe, and the oldest is from England. There are quite a lot of countries outside the US and a lot of them had been the doing science centuries before the US was even an independent country.
                      Anyway, have a nice day.

                    • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 7:14 AM

                      Academic published paper, you mean PAL-reviewed papers, right?

                      No wait, PAL-reviewed papers don’t get published to advance the knowledge, the science, that only gets published to get more rent and grant money, they do not show the realty, they all shows warming, even when there’s NONE!

                      But what i have posted is videos of the temperature data sets and how it changes over time ..

                      Which alternative data set is correct??

                      Was NASA to be trusted in 1981, then that data set is correct.
                      If NASA’s 2014 data sets are to be trusted then the data set from 1981 is incorrect.

                      If NASA’s data sets from 2016 is the data to be trusted, then the data sets from 1981 and 2014 is incorrect ..

                      .. or, is always the latest versions the ones to trust?

                      If so, why was the previous published data sets wrong, and how?

                      See the problem?

                    • MichaelR January 15, 2018 at 7:47 AM

                      And as usual, the ridiculous conspiracy theory and double standards.
                      So all scientific journals, some decades or even centuries old, ALL decided to get together and ignore papers that had great evidence and great methodology but inconvenient (climate sceptic) conclusions and decided that they must not publish them. And all the national scientific academies got behind this. And all the world’s governments including the US (until Trump and Pruitt, but including both Bushes) got behind it, and there is somehow no evidence of this giant conspiracy in which many 10s of 1000s of scientists are collaborating. Yeah, of course.

                      Then, you go on to cherry pick data that suits your conclusions, which then gets corrected to fixed biases and problems with methodology, and then condemn EVERY OTHER piece of data created by the very same scientists and scientific bodies because it does not agree with your conspiracy theory and ideological conclusions.

                      You don’t get to cherry pick. You don’t get to use the same scientists and hen condemn them as corrupt and you don’t get to claim an impossibly unlikely worldwide conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence.

                    • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 8:35 AM

                      What it is or what it isn’t is not important, what is interesting is every dishonest, “green” activists are using the same ad hom argument, label it as a conspiracy in order to dismiss it ..

                      Yeah, that will change the reality.

                      Fact is, there are many reasons for taking part in this scam, for most it is money, grants, position, prestige etc.

                      You cannot publish data that are 100 years old one year, two years later it has changed ..

                      Why would it change?

                      Late incoming data??


                    • Li D January 15, 2018 at 3:44 PM

                      You dare slander CSIRO!
                      You ignorant piece of shit.

                    • Immortal600 January 15, 2018 at 7:16 PM

                      The only ignorant POS is YOU.

              • Denis Ables January 15, 2018 at 8:32 AM

                “well below current temperature WHEN USING THE HIGHER IRRADIANCE MODELS….”

                Models are NOT evidence. While temperature proxies must be used for periods when good old thermometers were not yet available, there is no choice but to take into consideration the CONSISTENCY of numerous independently performed MWP studies, each of which shows the investigated site to have been warmer during the MWP than it is now.

                As I pointed out the meta-study, also includes various directly observable data available, all of it also consistent with the MWP studies.

                “You therefore can’t just point to the MWP and say that current warming is natural and within the bounds of previous climate variability…”

                You completely mis-read my earlier statement. What I stated is repeated below:
                “…. this meta-study does not exclude the possibility that human activity may have had some impact on current temperatures….”

                Claiming you have not argued that the MWP was not global is not relevant. Almost every alarmist (including M. Mann) does make that claim, and obviously the only reason for such an egregious unjustifiable declaration is related to the fact that their computer MODELs cannot explain the MWP natural warming.

                The fact that the MWP was global and warmer than now and there was no “human activity” involved (no co2 increase, so no water vapor feedback) may not prove our current warming was completely natural, but that possibility certainly becomes plausible, particularly since climate sensitivity to co2 level remains debatable.

                • MichaelR January 15, 2018 at 9:48 AM

                  Ok, so I understand where you are arguing from but, honestly, I cannot trust a word that comes out of Monckton’s mouth based on the catalogue of mistakes and lies he has been caught telling.

                  So this is the biggest study I could find on the MWP
                  The group publishing this consists of 78 researchers contributing as co-authors from 60 separate scientific institutions around the world. So it’s not one man’s opinion,
                  I don’t subscribe to Nature Geoscience so I am going by the write up here
                  Yes, I know, it’s a blog. Sorry, best I can do. They might be misrepresenting the paper (which I cannot check against) but what they say seems to be in accord with the abstract.

                  So, the graph is very fiddly to read as some of the data is regional and then there is an area weighted average data set as well, though not all data points are area weighted! So it’s not obvious but I think the most interesting series is the one at the bottom of the graph with blue boxes. That shows that there was a gradual cooling trend albeit with some ups and downs, where in fact the period around 500 CE was probably the warmest period prior to the current warming period. The ups and downs were fairly cyclical and took about 300 years from maximum to maximum. Then suddenly in the 100 years since 1900, the data comes out of a dip and goes screaming up at a rate completely unprecedented in the last 2000 years.

                  I can’t find a citation for the meta-analysis you mention. I trust it’s well sourced right? Ie in a decent peer reviewed journal. If so, please could you post a link to it?

                  Just to explain my understanding of the global nature of the MWP, perhaps we are taking across purposes given that the event did not cause uniform warming, indeed some areas cooled while others warmed. The reconstruction I took from NOAA was showing global average temperatures, as that is what we are generally concerned about now, though again, we currently see some areas warming much more than others.

                  • Denis Ables January 15, 2018 at 12:22 PM

                    The meta-analysis is mine, nothing more than an aggregation of existing information. I have no formal education or work experience related to climate science.

                    It was tiresome seeing all the criticism of Mann’s hockey stick analysis being ignored by the alarmists, so I just looked at all the other conflicting data instead. You will notice that there is nothing in this meta-analysis hidden behind dubious statistical machinations or within secret or dubious computer models. Not much room for controversy. New MWP studies, which are similarly straight-forward, continue to show up regularly and continue to confirm the older studies.

                    My feelings about Mann sound similar to your suspicions about Monckton. Mann’s “scientific” response to criticism was something like “you don’t go to a dentist to have a gall bladder operation”. But there is nothing wrong with Monckton’s analysis of the decade+ after the 97/98 el Nino. Neither was it surprising, which is why the “cherry-picked” claim cannot be rejected out of hand. The data was available for all, and Monckton had carefully described his analysis. Like it or not, the difference amongst “hottest” recent years during that period involved a few hundredths of one degree. NASA had the audacity to play up those meaningless differences as important. Monckton ran the same analysis every few months in the later years during that interim and always cautioned that the upcoming el Nino would likely end the “hiatus”. It did, but even NASA admitted that el Ninos are natural periodic events unrelated to human activity.

                    Neither did it help when I noticed that NOAA re-introduced shipboard temperature intake (with a known .12 deg bias) in an attempt to eliminate the temperature hiatus. ARGO buoys had been specifically deployed because of the dubious value of ship intake data, and here is a supposed science organization so biased it was willing to do almost anything to cover up a serious problem. (The Climate Industrial Complex is driving the science.)

                    I suspect that Henrik Svensmark’s theory is closer to the truth. CERN has long since (quietly) confirmed that his theory is plausible. There are also a lot of studies now (finally) beginning to show up which concur that most climate variation is related to sun activity and its interaction with cosmic rays. That interaction leads to a bit more or less low cloud cover. As Svensmark has put it, clouds drive the climate rather than climate driving the clouds. As far as I know Svensmark has not claimed that increasing co2 has no impact, but he’s still treated as a heretic by alarmists. I recall watching a Youtube of one of Svensmark’s early talks to a crowd of scientists, most of whom were proponents of warming being caused by co2 increase. All of these folks looked as if they were attending a loved ones funeral. One of these “scientists” actually came up to Svensmark afterwards and said something really scientific, “You should be ashamed…”

                    Given the estimated cost of solving this dubious problem, (tens of TRILLIONs of $$) it would be prudent to continue to watch before blowing that much money. In fact, re-directing that kind of money to anything other than ongoing operational needs would likely bring on an economic disaster, and long before 2100.

                    • MichaelR January 15, 2018 at 1:29 PM

                      Ok, so I would like to first say that I appreciate the civilised way you discuss these matters, as not everyone here bothers with manners.

                      Here is where I differ from your point of view.
                      1. While I respect the work that must have gone into the meta analysis you did, it needs to be validated by some experts in the field before it can be “entered into evidence”. Climate science is about a very complex system and people spend years understanding how it works and what are valid ways to analyse the climate. I am not saying I think your analysis is wrong as I am not qualified to do so. I am saying that it needs some scrutiny from experts in the field to make sure the methodology is sound – this is usually done as peer review before publication in a good journal.

                      2. I honestly think Monckton is a busted flush. You really need to watch the videos to understand why I think he is a terrible source for facts and sound arguments about climate science. He is just such a liar. Sorry but that’s what it boils down to.

                      3. When it comes to the energy system, this is not a choice. We know we have to move away from fossil fuels because they are finite. The question is when we change. You are saying that there is a price tag attached to this. That is true but it will be paid anyway. The question is WHEN not IF. And if AGW is correct then there will be an EXTRA costs to not making this change now. And it will be in hundreds of Trillions of dollars. This is not an exaggeration. According to current projections, there will be 3 degrees temp rise by the end of the century on a BAU future. That means sea level rise that will put large parts of hundreds of major cities underwater including 20-30 in the US with Florida and North Carolina most at risk, but then including New York and so on. But worldwide that also means mega cities like Shanghai, So that means abandoning whole cities because the whole economy in those cities will collapse when it becomes clear that they have no long term value. So that means abandoning the value of all the assets in those cities. How much do you think all the land, buildings and infrastructure in Miami is worth? Or New York? Or a London? Or all the other cities globally that will be uninhabitable at the end of the century or soon after. And that is before you get to the storms, the wrecking of agriculture, the droughts and mass migrations, the wars that will inevitably follow. It’s not a world you should risk bequeathing to your grandchildren.
                      And this is not a worst case scenario. That is in the region of 5-6 degrees rise…. it’s disconcerting even to think what that would be like. The Earth cannot support 7 Billion people sustainably as it is. Just imagine the carnage when you reduce agriculture yields by 30-50% in many areas, including the US, as has been forecast by scientists working for the USDA.

                      Now I look at whether these projections and the science behind them is being put forward by any one group or country. It isn’t, it’s globally accepted by science academies and national governments. Then I ask if it’s just a brand new faddish field of research and then I see that the foundations for this field were being laid in the 19th century and were built on throughout the 20th century and the consensus was always that CO2 caused significant warming and that positive feedback effects could dramatically increase its impact. Even in the 1980s, leaders like Margaret Thatcher were onboard with dealing with it as a problem. Back then it was not a political area of science. It’s only since the fossil fuel companies realised that they really had a problem on their hands in the mid 90s and they did what they have always done before, like they did on tobacco, car safety, lead, etc etc, That’s when the science started to come under attack. Check out the film Merchants of Doubt, these guys can be frighteningly cynical.

                      So in my view, the risks are catastrophic in a way that mankind has never experienced.
                      Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no putting it back. Our descendants will be screwed for centuries.
                      I have good reasons to believe the science as the scientific community is so united in support of it, and has been for decades,
                      I have good reasons to doubt the sceptics because the sceptic movement started out as a replay of the tobacco industry fighting science about cancer, etc, just writ much larger.
                      I see no alternative to changing away from fossil fuels anyway.

                      So I think it’s intellectually and morally unacceptable to take a ”wait and see” approach. I think we have to accept that our future is carbon free and make that change now to avoid our descendants suffering the worst effects of climate change.

                    • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM

                      The fact that dishonest “green” rent and grant seeker activists has spent millions smearing Monckton really tells us all we need to know, – they wouldn’t have done that if he wasn’t correct.

                    • MichaelR January 15, 2018 at 1:59 PM

                      Err, you are so very wrong it’s actually ironic and sad.

                      The videos I am referencing are made, privately and personally, by a journalist for BBC and New Scientist with a Youtube channel called Potholer54. You can try to donate money to him but he doesn’t accept it. He instead points people to a charity that works on reducing deforestation and improving medical care for very poor forest dwelling people in Indonesia. He did a BBC radio programme on them and was so struck by how great their work is that he encourages people to support them, not him.

                      Don’t judge everyone by your own evidently low standards of motivation and honesty.

                    • Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 7:21 PM

                      That is an exellent example of what we call nonsense ..

                      However Monckton is of course wrong when it comes to CO2 as something that can heat up anything, CO2 doesn’t produce any energy, it doesn’t prevent energy from leaving the atmosphere because there’s no CO2 in the atmosphere (400 ppmv. is NOTHING!) and at the altitude where this magic is suppose to be happening there’s EVEN LESS CO2 ..

                      Take your FAKE fairy tale to some low IQ leftists, they, i am sure, will faint listening to your stupidity ..

  6. adrianvance January 13, 2018 at 11:48 AM

    The IPCC’s “logarithmic dependence” is bullshit. If you want to know how this really works, and in a way you can understand, see: “CO2 Is Innocent” at and clip-copy the paper, print it, take it to a science teacher for authentication if you have doubt, do the demo and see. I prove what I say. Adrian Vance

    • Ian5 January 13, 2018 at 4:57 PM

      Shameless self-promotion…provides link to intentionally misleading rubbish website that advocates silly conspiracy theories.

      • tony January 13, 2018 at 6:05 PM

        The “climate change” propaganda campaign is a conspiracy itself but I would not call it “silly”. The decision to make carbon dioxide the “evil villain” claiming it will will end life on earth unless all mankind immediately gives up liberties and wealth to join together in the noble battle to defeat “climate change” is a stroke of genius. Carbon Dioxide is the Marxists’ perfect pollutant because every thing mankind does creates carbon dioxide, even dying. Reflecting this, the IPCC’s mitigation plan (read the report) called for governmental control of just about every aspect of human’s life including how many humans there could be. And that is the ultimate goal of “Climate Change”.

        • Li D January 13, 2018 at 6:12 PM

          ” ….Marxists’ … ”

        • Ian5 January 13, 2018 at 10:30 PM

          sil•ly (adj): showing little thought or judgment; foolish, lacking good sense; absurd and ridiculous.

          Now, why not educate yourself:

          • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 7:50 AM

            “why not educate yourself:
            Ian, why don’t you educate yourself. There is zero evidence in your link of any human-caused climate change. It’s only evidence for natural climate change that has been happening throughout the history of the planet:

            BTW, that site is full of propaganda, such as the debunked “97% consensus” propaganda meme. It uses cherry picked and false propaganda talking points.

            Sea level – propaganda based on using two different measurement methods, tide gauges in the early part of the 20th century, the “adjusted” satellite numbers. The un-adjusted satellite data shows no change in sea level rise. The only common measurement method, tide gauges, shows lower rise rate in the late 20th century than the early 20th century.
            – “The rate of sea level rise was found to be larger during the early part of the century (2.03 +/- 0.35 mm/yr 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 +/- 0.34 mm/yr, 1954-2003).” – Holgate(2007), ‘On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century’
            – “we use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyze the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration … The new reconstruction suggest a linear trend of 1.9 mm-yr^-1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 mm-yr^-1 since 1970.” – Jevrejeva(2014), ‘Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807’

            Global temperature rise – propaganda based on corrupted-by-adjustment land/ocean numbers. The satellite data sets show no increase in global temps from 1997 until the natural 2015-2016 El Nino: Only a natural El Nino, which is the release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere has caused any positive trend over the last ~2 decades.

            Warming oceans – Ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs. Ghgs in the atmosphere can’t transfer heat into the oceans because they are at lower temperature than the ocean surface, plus the energy from ghgs doesn’t penetrate beyond a few millionths of a meter, whereas solar radiation penetrates up to ~200 meters. The science is found here:

            Shrinking ice sheets – False propaganda. The Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets have been increasing in mass.
            – “Ice, Cloud and Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge loss by 82 +/- 25 Gta^-1 … European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992-2001) give a similar gain of 112 +/- 62 Gta^-1.” – Zwally(2015), ‘Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses’
            – Greenland is gaining ice faster than the 1990-2013 average,

            Declining Arctic Sea Ice – propaganda based on cherry picked period beginning at 1979 year of highest ice. Satellite record goes back to 1974 when NH sea ice was 2 million km^2 lower. IPCC FAR Fig.20(a) shows cherry picked 1979 start date,

            Site also ignores record levels of Antarctic sea ice gains, , which offsets Arctic sea ice losses. Global sea ice in 2013 & 2014 was right back where it was in the mid-1980s: No “death spiral” there like the climate alarmists claim.

            Plus recent Arctic ice changes are just natural variations as experienced in the early 1900s: “The huge warming in the Arctic which started in the 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the 20th century.” – Bengtsson(2004), ‘The Early 20th century warming in the Arctic – A Possible Mechanism’ This was written after the 1979-2004 Arctic ice changes.

            Glacial retreat – No empirical evidence that this was caused by anthropogenic ghgs. Glacial retreat started at the end of the Little Ice Age before there were any significant anthropogenic ghgs. Most of the ice loss was prior to the mid-1900s when the IPCC claims anthropogenic influences became dominant. This is also confirmed by this glacial loss chart:

            Extreme events – The US is not the world. And there is no empirical evidence that extreme weather has increased: &

            Ocean acidification – Propaganda. The actual data shows that ocean has not become more acidic.

            Decreased snow cover – Cherry picked NH spring season. The annual data shows no significant change in NH snow cover over the past 45 years:

            All the climate changes observed this century are well within the natural climate variability that has happened previously on the Earth. You provided no empirical evidence otherwise.

            Here is where you can begin your learning about the real empirical science of climate change: Climate Change Reconsidered II – Physical Science

            • Roald J. Larsen January 14, 2018 at 2:51 PM

              Your takedowns are epic!

              No alarmists comes from a meeting with you unscaved, that just has to make a mark! :))

            • Li D January 14, 2018 at 4:59 PM

              1. I think you are an idiot.
              2. Despite that credit is due to you for broaching ( even in your idiotic manner ) the key subject of warming oceans.
              Its unfortunatly not discussed in the same quantity as its importance to the climate, and when it is, its simplified and ideas are usually stated in a haphazard fashion and full of omissions.
              The mechanisms of heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere are of vital importance to any theory, in particular what happens at the cool skin.
              So a belated goodonya for even taking an interest.
              3. Learn some simple physics concerning thermal transfer and gradients.

              Li D

              • RealOldOne2 January 24, 2018 at 9:55 AM

                “1. I think you are an idiot”
                You can think anything you want, but you’ve provided no evidence from anything I have written to support your thought, which means it is a delusional thought.

                “2. Despite that credit is due to you for broaching (even in your idiotic manner) the key subject of warming oceans. …”
                Another evidence-free claim. Quote something I wrote about ocean warming and provide evidence it was wrong or idiotic. You can’t.

                “The mechanisms of heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere are of vital importance to any theory, in particular what happens at the cool skin”
                The only physical mechanisms that transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere are conduction, latent heat (evaporation) and radiation.
                And the only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation. That means that ocean warming is only evidence of natural warming. And since climate alarmists admit that ~90% of all global warming is ocean warming, that means that 90% of all global warming is natural. That’s the science. And no, it’s not idiotic. What is idiotic is to deny it, like you are doing.

                “3. Learn some simple physics concerning thermal transfer and gradients.”
                I have learned that. Thermodynamics and heat transfer are the sciences that cover thermal energy and its transfer between systems such as the atmosphere and the oceans, and I’ve taken college courses in those sciences. You have been unable to show that anything I posted is wrong scientifically. Perhaps you are the one who is ignorant of thermal energy transfer and gradients.

    • Li D January 13, 2018 at 5:36 PM

      From link.
      “The American Meteorological Society, AMS, did not consider any gas a component of the atmosphere unless it was more than one percent of the atmosphere …”
      If its true they are a grotesquely incompetent organisation.
      Methinks it aint true.
      List of atmospheric component gasses is very well established and recognized by all.
      Go and ask a science teacher even!

  7. Jim Huston January 13, 2018 at 1:18 PM

    You should not forget the most fundamental issue of all: without independently verifiable empirical evidence that changes in the atmospheric concentration of carbon compounds do cause changes in global temperature, there is no basis whatsoever for the claim that human contribution to those gases can affect climate.

    A-a-and the big reveal: THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE!

    The entire edifice of human-caused climate change is built upon an assumption, not upon evidence. In fact, proxy CO2 and temperature data show NO correlation at all for the past 500M years (see chart).

    Ice core data for the past 500k years (the current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary, began roughly 2.6M years ago) do show a correlation that is visible at the present near-record low extremes for both temperature and CO2; but the data clearly show that the temperature change comes FIRST, followed by CO2 at about 800+/-600 years. If there is indeed causation, it is the reverse of the assumption.

    • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 2:40 AM

      The graph you have cited is infamous for being misused. It does not factor in the growth in solar irradiance over the period, which has changed significantly. If you factor in the gradual change in solar irradiance, then the correlation pops out. Watch the first 3 minutes of this video to see how you have been mislead.

      • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 7:52 AM

        Still peddling potholer propaganda. Sad. s

        Sorry Michael, but nothing in that propaganda video debunks anything in the graph Jim Huston presented.

        • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 8:01 AM

          How odd. I thought you were all about solar irradiance being the a very important factor in the Earth’s climate, yet you are happy to ignore it when it comes to this graph of CO2 vs temperature, even though there was a very significant change in the output of the sun over that period. Don’t you think you sound very dishonest?
          When you don’t ignore it, you get a correlation. That’s not propaganda. It’s just fact.

          • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 9:11 AM

            “yet you are happy to ignore it when it comes to this graph of CO2 vs temperature”
            Sorry Michael, but I’m not ignoring anything because there is no solar irradiance data plotted on that graph.

            Delusions of fantasy dancing around in your head again. So sad.

            • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 9:26 AM

              So you are being dishonest then. The graph was cited to show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. But that assumes that the sun does not change over the period. It’s obviously sun + GHGs (and a few other factors) that determine global average temperature.
              So you can’t completely ignore TSI and expect to see correlation. If you graph TSI (alone) vs temperature you don’t see correlation either.
              When you plot TSI + CO2, then you do see a correlation between that and global temperature, as illustrated in the video I cited. If you want an argument with Potholer54, go do it on his channel, but he is just citing published journal studies and checking them against the false claims of Monckton.

              • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 9:29 AM

                “So you are being dishonest then.”
                No Michael, as we’ve seen over and over again, you are the dishonest one, such as in your above comment that I exposed your 9 science errors.

                “It’s obviously sun + GHGs (and a few other factors) that determine global average temperature.”
                You have shown no empirical evidence of CO2 causing any change in global temperature. You fail.

                • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 9:48 AM

                  Showing empirical evidence was NOT the aim of my comment. I was refuting that the graph cited proved that there was no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 500M years. It does not prove that, indeed when TSI and CO2 are both factored in you do see a correlation. Did I say it was causal? No.

                  • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 10:08 AM

                    You refuted nothing.

      • Jim Huston January 14, 2018 at 1:44 PM

        Yes, there is very strong correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature, which is not shown on the chart since the chart is not about irradiance. There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and either temperature or irradiance.

        • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 2:34 PM

          Ok, you go ahead and show me a graph of the last 500M years that shows a direct correlation between solar irradiance and temperature.
          I’ll give you a head start. Here is solar irradiance.

          Solar luminosity as a function of time. The luminosity values have been normalized by the current value. From Stothers as quoted in Canuto and Hsieh (1978).

          Now all you need to do is show how temperature correlates to that and your are done…
          But of course temperature looks nothing like that over the period.

          So firstly, you might want to admit that the use of the CO2 vs temperature graph, that ignores solar irradiance, to prove “no correlation” is meaningless and misleading.

          Next, we can move onto why there can be an initial lag between CO2 and temperature while still knowing that CO2 is a GHG. This has been understood and explained for a long time. There are effects of warming (like outgassing from the oceans) that release CO2, and that CO2 then causes more warming. Positive feedback.
          Because I have better things to do that regurgitate a load of published science in an easily digestible way, I will just point you here:

          If it makes you feel any better, the video starts with a description of the lag from The Great Global Warming Swindle, so you will be among friends for that bit.

  8. Richard Yanco January 13, 2018 at 2:11 PM

    Being a rank amateur in comparison with the learned posters to this site I apologize for my bits and pieces of acquired anecdotal information. I have a feeling that with a new and surely more conservative administration in Washington that opposing points of view from those that have dominated the scene for the past 10 to 20 years may slowly begin to appear. Am I correct in this assumption. I have read and listened to Lindzen’s beliefs in the subject of climate change and tend to accept most of his hypotheses regarding Global Warming. I am also aware that many of his fellow MIT scientists do not accept his opinions and conclusions. Who do you believe is correct? Lindzen is a proponent of the “follow the money” theory which makes simple sense to me. I believe that anyone in the earth and atmospheric sciences who didn’t accept the warming science was shut off from government teaching grants and therefore went with the flow.
    Am I wrong in this belief? Also, what about sea level rises? I heard Lindzen in a radio interview explaining that much of the “rise” that we are seeing is likely due to a lowering of the land mass. Is that also true? In this area I use my own personal observations and see that in many areas the sea does not seem to be rising. I often refer to Liberty Island in New York Harbor. I have seen photographs of Lady Liberty going back over 100 years and cannot detect any apparent rise in the sea level. Am I right? Please let me know your thoughts when you have a few minutes. Thank you for your input.

    • Li D January 13, 2018 at 4:55 PM

      “Am I wrong in this belief?”
      Science is not an american only phenomenon.
      Very few scientists would compromise ethics for money.
      Even if ethics of all american scientists are compromised, they get caught out cuz thats the nature of science.
      Sorry, you are wrong.

      Sea level may not be rising in particular locations for a multitude of reasons. It may even grossly appear to be rising in some locations but indeed isnt.
      However, in general, its rising. There is zero doubt about this.
      People are free to set up monitoring equipment( tidal , temp, many other things ) anywhere in the world. ( with due consideration for confounders ), so its a stupid conspiracy to even start, that can be busted by anyone. And yet deniers started it so there ya go. Most stupid group in the history of the world deniers are.

      Li D

      • Li D January 13, 2018 at 5:05 PM

        Can I quickly add that I think its great you are doing your own observations in your own area Richard Yanco.

        • Richard Yanco January 16, 2018 at 3:28 PM

          I haven’t traveled a great deal lately but I do observe that beachfront property in the United States still commands ever higher prices. Why would that be if the beach was going to be underwater? I also have observed Logan Airport in Boston Harbor and water levels have appeared to be the same for over 50 years. I also see current and old photos of Lady Liberty in New York Harbor and her feet aren’t even close to being wet.

          Also I think of simple things like, if the earth is over 5 million years old isn’t it convenient that the bubble just burst during the past 50 or 100 years during the egotistical lifetimes of the “believers”. What a coincidence! Also the 97% figure I believe to be bogus. Finally the Soviet Union had 10 time zones before it collapsed. The country was broke for years after that and I would be willing to bet that their land based reporting stations were either inoperative or turning in bad information. Just my simple minded opinion.

      • Richard Yanco January 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM

        Some of your response surprises me. For instance: “Very few scientists would compromise ethics for money.” I think that when their livelihoods are at risk they will say what they need to in order to pay the rent.

        I appreciate your response to me. I admit that I am not a scientist and don’t pretend to be. I’m not sure that you do the same. I am also suspicious of “zero doubt” when it comes to an inexact science.
        I am also surprised at your “most stupid group” comment. It exposes your strong prejudice.
        Thanks for your help.

  9. reagangs January 13, 2018 at 3:30 PM

    CFact is my main source for up to date anti GW & CC info. These guys have answered my question of ugly expensive wind farms (~$60M/each for off shore installations). Without hard working American tax payers subsidies, these, along with solar panel, CO2 collection sites and other agents, these boondoggles would have relative small ROI, if any.

  10. Big Ed January 14, 2018 at 1:06 AM

    After reading several books on global warming I have become what is called a “denier”. I find it bothersome that some of the greatest believers of Anthropogenic Global Warming are also redistributionists who believe wealthy countries ought to send some of their wealth to poorer countries so they too can participate in the hoax. I expect it is much easier to get people in poor countries and the UN (since they will handle the distribution of our wealth) to believe in global warming if they are promised a windfall for their belief.

    • Denis Ables January 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM

      Others are merely in need of grant dollars, which have not been available if the study did not confirm the government’s bias. That’s the Climate Industrial Complex in operation.

  11. MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 2:28 AM

    I see it’s “spot the scientific errors” time again.
    First, when discussing water vapour as a feedback mechanism, in a warmer atmosphere the air will contain more water vapour, which is not refuted here. That only turns to clouds as the vapour cools. Ie the additional vapour does not all turn into clouds (condensing into microdroplets of water). Much of it stays in vapour form, causing warming.

    Second, of the clouds that do form, you cannot make a sweeping statement that they are all net reflective. Clouds have a complex effect on the temperature of the lower troposphere. Sometimes the reflect incoming sunlight but sometimes they reflect outbound energy back down to the ground.

    Third, water vapour is just one of many positive feedback loops that CO2 triggers. Additional ones include
    – melting polar ice rescuing the albaedo of the Earth’s surface
    – release of methane (a powerful GHG) from tundra
    – weather changes leading to loss of forests that then release more GHGs as they rot or burn
    – warming oceans causing release of frozen methane from ocean floor deposits

    So the point this article makes is wrong, and it glosses over well know and measurable changes that show other positive feedback loops in effect.

    Meanwhile, first the warming figure is misstated. This is over 1.0C by pretty much all measures now.

    And the solar irradiance argument fails every time because if it were true, then you could not explain the warming over the last 40 years when TSI has been constant or falling while temperatures have been rising at an accelerating rate.

    • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 9:08 AM

      “I see it’s “spot the scientific errors” time again.”
      Yes it is, and you make it so easy to spot your scientific errors, because they are pseudoscience.

      “in a warmer atmosphere the air will contain more water vapor”
      Wrong. The air can contain more air, but it does not necessarily do so.
      Oops, Michael’s science error #1.

      “of the clouds that do form, you cannot make a sweeping statement that they are all reflective”
      You are denying reality. All clouds are reflective, to differing degrees. And though high and low clouds have differing effects, peer reviewed science has shown that the net effect of clouds is cooling:

      “the net cloud forcing, C = CLW + CSW (not shown) ranges in value from -140Wm⁻² to +50Wm⁻² , the global time-average being about -20Wm⁻².” – Harries(2000) ‘Physics of the Earth’s radiative energy balance’.

      Oops, Michael’s science error #2.

      “water vapour is just one of many positive feedback loops that CO2 triggers”
      Empirical data debunks your climate cult’s positive water vapor feedback pseudoscience. As CO2 rose, water vapor decreased:
      Oops, Michael’s science error #3.

      “melting polar ice rescuing the albedo of the Earth’s surface”
      Antarctic ice has been growing for decades:

      – “Ice, Cloud and Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge loss by 82 +/- 25 Gta^-1 … European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992-2001) give a similar gain of 112 +/- 62 Gta^-1. … If dynamic thinning continues to increase at the same rate of 4 Gt⁻² with no offset from further increase in snowfall, the positive balance of the AIS will decrease from the present 82 Gt⁻¹ to zero in ~20 years. However compensating increases in snowfall with climate warming may also be expected (Gregory and Huybrechts, 2006); Winkelmann and others (2012).” – Zwally(2015), ‘Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses’

      So Antarctic ice mass is positive and is likely to continue for at least 20 years or more.
      Oops, Michael’s science error #4.

      “release of methane (a powerful GGH) from tundra”
      Propaganda claim that has no empirical data to support it as being human-caused or significant. Recent science shows that methane release is natural:
      Oops, Michael’s science error #5.

      “weather changes leading to loss of forests that then release more GHGs as they rot and burn”
      No empirical evidence to support your propaganda claim that weather changes are human-caused or CO2-caused.
      Oops, Michael’s science error #6.

      “So the point of this article makes is wrong.”
      Sorry Michael, but you did not refute the fact that the CO2 effect in the atmosphere logarithmicaly decreases. Even the alarmist IPCC supports that fact:

      “For carbon dioxide, as has already been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration.” – IPCC, FAR, WG1, p.49

      And sorry Michael, but you eid not refute the fact and point of the article that “water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere”. Again, even the alarmist IPCC agrees with this:

      • “The main greenhouse gas, water vapour” – IPCC FAR, p.xi
      • “Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect” – IPCC FAR, p.xv
      • “Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas.” – IPCC TAR, p.88

      Oops, Michael’s science error #7.

      “This is over 1.0C by pretty much all measures.”
      Wrong. Only when you use the FAKE data which was fraudulently adjusted with no evidence to support the adjustments.
      Oops, Michael’s science error #8.

      “And the solar irradiance argument fails every time because if it were true, then you could not explain the warming over the last 40 years when TSI has been constant or falling while temperatures have been rising at an accelerating rate.”
      Wrong. The slightly falling TSI is irrelevant because:
      a) the mean level of TSI is still the highest in the past 4 centuries:
      b) peer reviewed science shows that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface during the late 20th century warming increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m². CO2 forcing increased by only ~0.5W/m².
      It’s just silly to claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the late 20th century warming when the natural forcing was ~10 times greater than CO2 forcing.
      Oops, Michael’s science error #9.

      Plus then you have the fact that the empirical evidence shows that temperature changes first, and then the CO2 changes later.
      It’s just silly to claim that a cause happens AFTER the effect.

      Once again Michael, you are found to be peddling rubbish pseudoscience of your climate alarmist religion. So sad that you gullibly swallow the propaganda from your climate alamrism religion and aren’t able to recognize that you have been duped.

      • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 10:15 AM

        1 water vapour has increased exactly as expected in line with temperature. This is basic physics. From RSS

        2 yes, cloud cover is currently a net cooling factor, but changes in cloud cover extent and type due to climate change are not well understood and it cannot be assumed to cause MORE cooling as asserted in this article.

        3 same as 1

        4 why look at just the Antarctic? Not cherry picking ae you? Global see ice extent is declining.
        From US National Snow and Ice Data Cente

        5 The article you cite is about sub sea hydrates in Spitzbergen. I don’t see how that invalidates the hypothesis that if you cook the Siberian tundra you won’t release the methane that is stored there.

        6 you are not addressing my point. It’s a known fact that dry forests burn more easily this releasing vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a positive feedback effect.

        7 as above, the articles assertions are incorrect.

        8 conspiracy theorising. All the world’s scientists are in cahoots to constantly put out bad data. Even though multiple sources of data all show warming, as the article actually acknowledges. It just doesn’t acknowledge the full extent.

        9 there is simply a total lack of correlation here.
        Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

        10 I am not discussing CO2 vs temperature lag with you again, I have said my part and you have said yours. Your arguments and evidence did not convince me.

        But I appreciate the lack of accusations of lying this time around.
        Now you are accusing me of being religious which I find somehow better and worse at the same time, but I called your comments dishonest so I’ll take it on the chin.

        • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 10:22 AM

          Poor Michael fails again.
          1. Baseless evidence free claim
          2. Argument from ignorance.
          3. Same as 1.
          4. Magic CO2 again, explains everything.
          5. Handwaving
          6. Handwaving.
          7.Baseless evidence free claim
          8. Propaganda talking point that refuted nothing.
          9. Ignoring solar radiation reaching the surface and citing a CARTOONIST! Hahaha
          10. Denying empirical evidence. That’s science denial.

          You refuted nothing I posted. Another total MichaelR FAIL!

          • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 11:27 AM

            Ok, first, I am not exactly trying to refute you. As usual, I am picking holes in the article.

            Let’s just take 4 – sea ice extent and it’s role in positive/negative feedback (else we will be here all day).

            Again, you say I am attributing something to CO2. Again, I’m not. I’m citing ice melt as a positive feedback mechanism. Read my original comment. The reason I am doing this is not to make a point about CO2. It’s to point out a large and important omission by the author of the article when considering positive feedback mechanisms.

            First, let’s go through the reason why ice melt can play a feedback role.
            1 ice has a higher albedo than land or water so it reflects more incoming sunlight (across all wavelengths) back into space than land or sea in the same location
            2 warming (howsoever caused!) will melt ice and the reveal ocean or land beneath
            3 that lowers the albedo of the Earth
            4 the Earth absorbs more of the incoming solar energy

            So while you cited Antarctic ice extent and excluded Arctic ice extent (for reasons you did not explain or defend), I cited global figures which are obviously more useful if you want to look at global albedo.

            So in this case, ice is, overall, melting globally so according to the action above, it is acting as a positive feedback mechanism for warming.

            • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM

              You’re handwaving.
              No empirical evidence there that shows human-caused climate change.

              • MichaelR January 14, 2018 at 12:38 PM

                OMG. Are you driving while reading my comments or something?
                I was not trying to make the case for human caused climate change in these comments. I am pointing out where this article is incorrect and misleading. You quoted my first line in my first comment stating exactly that intent.

                • RealOldOne2 January 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM

                  “I was not trying to make the case for human caused climate change in these comments.”
                  Because you know that no such case exists based on empirical evidence.

                  “I am pointing out where this article is incorrect and misleading.”
                  You did neither, as I exposed in my reply to your first comment. You’ve been handwaving ever since.

  12. Roald J. Larsen January 15, 2018 at 8:06 PM

    “Fresh analysis of government scientific records reveals the idea of ‘long-settled’ science in the greenhouse gas theory is a myth. The claim human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) act as a control knob on climate only appeared in consensus science since the 1980’s. Prior to that time, official records show the theory as “abandoned.”

    Famously, on June 24, 1988 the whole world first heard about the dreaded “greenhouse effect” (GHE) from NASA’s new champion of the theory, James Hansen. Hansen had breathed life into an old and “abandoned” theory drawing from new space research into Venus and Mars. Thanks to Hansen’s role, climate fear prevailed for a generation.

    Recently, Russian scientists have declared the GHE dead as global cooling sets in; while a team of Italian scientists called for a “deep re-examination” of the failing theory. Other new papers readily dismiss the CO2 climate hypothesis. Below we present the stark evidence and encourage readers to engage in their own research ..”

    • Li D January 15, 2018 at 9:34 PM

      Yep . Global cooling arrived( at some time in the past). Its now established.
      Indeed, it could be said to have set in, as very very much clear data establish cooling trends show, along with massive consilience from other sources.

      How did you grow up to think being a liar is an ok thing to be? That it is acceptable and somehow productive to yourself, family, and community?
      I fricking hate lying criminal dishonest scum.

      Get stuffed ya poxy knobjockey.

      • Li D January 15, 2018 at 9:39 PM

        Same goes for the rest of you muppets who think its ok to be a liar. Be honest. Be rigorous. Be cool. But dont be a liar. Its a sort of thievery.

        • Roald J. Larsen January 16, 2018 at 3:13 AM


          Pinpoint the errors, document it and document what is correct using REAL peer-reviewed reports and unaltered data ..

          .. i’ll just wait here :))

        • Immortal600 January 16, 2018 at 1:02 PM

          You don’t have the expertise to show how he is lying. If you did, you’d address the science instead of name calling. What a shallow person you must be. It is obvious you can’t think for yourself.

      • Immortal600 January 16, 2018 at 12:49 PM

        We feel the same about YOU, KOOK

  13. Richard Yanco January 16, 2018 at 3:33 PM

    I believe that with the new Trump administration in Washington that the pressure that has been exerted by the left during Obama’s eight years will be reversed and that those scientific deniers who have been retiscent about speaking out and risking their careers or their government grants will have the duct tape removed from their mouths. I believe that you will hear more and more scientific folks openly questioning the “science”.

Comments are closed.