Three facts prove climate alarm is a scam

By |2016-05-31T14:11:48+00:00May 31st, 2016|CFACT Insights|52 Comments

hoax1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.

Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.

1. No recent warming despite higher CO2

First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. coolingiceage of about 1.3º F between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age.

During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nîno spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically significant global warming for nearly two decades.

U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments, or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”

2. Extreme claims proven extremely wrong

icestuckContrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”

Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)

As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.

Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.

3. Inconvenient confessions from IPCC authorities

So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from ottmarkey inside sources in their own words.

As written in a 2007  Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or as UN climate chief Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

No, none of this global warming (aka, “climate change”) alarmism is based upon objective science. It never was.

NOTE:  This article first appeared at:


  1. John Macdonell June 1, 2016 at 11:59 AM

    Even if these 3 Newsmax “facts” were credible and not out of context(they aren’t credible), they ignore the massive amount of peer-reviewed evidence that demonstrate AGW

  2. EricAdler June 1, 2016 at 4:30 PM

    The statements of “fact” put forward by Larry Bell are false.

    1. The Earth is continuing to warm. Ocean heat content and surface temperature show it. The UAH satellite modelled temperature, which is used to deny that the earth is warming, has had 6 major revisions and strongly disagrees with the Balloon data which does show warming since 2005. Nine of the 10 warmest global average surface temperatures have occurred since 2000.

    2 .The combined data from tide guages and satellites shows the rate of sea level increase has been acceleration since the 20th century began. The iPCC says that sea level rise has been accelerating since 1900 according to 2 out of three of the estimates it quotes:

    “When a 60-year oscillation is modelled along
    with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL (twice
    the quadratic term) computed over 1900–2010 ranges from 0.000
    [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, to
    0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record,
    and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011)
    record. For comparison, Church and White (2011) estimated the acceleration
    term to be 0.009 [0.004 to 0.014] mm yr–2 over the 1880–2009
    time span when the 60-year cycle is not considered.”

    The so called “confessions” are out of context quote mining from the stolen emails that have been debunked many times.

    • John Andrew Schmanek June 1, 2016 at 7:20 PM

      2th century?

      So to check tide gauges and satellites one most use estimated modeling…..

      That is some great ESTIMATED MODELING you got going there! Concrete proof. At 3mm a decade we are surely done for.

      Can’t they pay for better shills that don’t write things like “2th century….

      • EricAdler June 2, 2016 at 12:40 AM

        Actually the UAH satellite temperature record, beloved by AGW deniers, is created using estimated models. You need them to convert microwave radiation readings at various angles to temperature readings in various height ranges. Corrections must be made for inconsistent internal temperatures of calibration hot targets, drift of height and time of day for given locations etc. and inconsistencies in readings of different satellites. The code is also sloppily written and has large portions that have errors and remain unused. That is why there were so many revisions and it is so unstable.
        The point made by the IPCC is that acceleration will continue as CO2 buildup increases, and the rate at which heat is added to oceans and land glaciers rises. Your sarcasm is not evidence to the contrary.

        The fact that you believe I am paid to do this is flattering, and at the same time evidence of a paranoid conspiratorial state of mind on your part.

        • wally12 October 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM

          @EricAdler: In other words, you refuse to accept the statements from the IPCC that CO2 is not the issue. Instead, the issue is that climate change is no longer a scientific one but a political one where the goal is to redistribute wealth and to increase the power of the UN over other nations of the world.

          • EricAdler October 1, 2016 at 10:18 AM

            Some official associated with the IPCC may have said something that resembles what you claim. The IPCC report was put together by committees of scientists who are expert in the science and said what I quoted.

            • wally12 October 2, 2016 at 11:25 AM

              @EricAdler: I am sure there are some scientists who believe the theory that CO2 contributes to warming the earth. However, there are many who also recognize that CO2 is not the driver of warming and that any attempt to reduce CO2 levels would have little effect on the reduction of temperature. The scientists who contribute to the IPCC organization have been delegated to the back seat. Instead, the political faction of the UN and IPCC has high jacked the issue and has made it a political one. Thus, the issue is now, how can we institute a carbon tax on all the industrialized nations to provide funding for their real objective of gaining more power for the UN and world governance? The goal is to redistribute wealth from richer nations to poorer nations. The immediate result would be to make energy prices higher and thus reduce any competitive advantage for richer nations. This would also cause all the poor people of the world added hardship since energy prices cut into their small incomes. Food prices would increase due to higher farming costs and transportation costs. This entire attack on existing energies was and continues to be the goal of Obama. As you might recall, he stated he would make energy costs higher in order to promote green energy. Even his prior secretary of energy stated that one goal was to increase gas prices to $10 per gallon. Remember that gas was at $4 per gallon and Obama was in heaven. However, that $4 per gallon was extremely difficult on the poor. I recall watching people drive up to a gas station and pump a couple of gallons into their car since they needed what money they had left for food which had also increased due to transportation costs. Unfortunately, Obama lost the fight when the fracking of oil and natural gas on private lands became a method of extracting more from the earth and prices went down. Of course, Obama then realized he lost that fight so what did he do? He claimed that the drop in fuel,prices where due to his leadership; However, “He didn’t build that” and I think you know it. You need to read and understand what the real motives of the left and green energy sector are. They definitely are not for you and me.

              • EricAdler October 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM

                The IPCC report shows the effect of different emissions scenarios on the projected global temperatures. This is the work of scientists on the committees, who looked at the literature and developed a consensus.

                There are a few scientists who don’t agree with the consensus whose ideas and claims were rejected. If you believe they are correct, that is your right, but you have to know that they are a small minority of climate scientists. Five independent surveys of the literature and scientists have indicated this.

                Obama described his energy policy as “All of the Above”. I don’t know what fight you claim he lost.

                What we need is an improvement is gas mileage to reduce emissions. Obama’s administration has mandated that and he is entitled to take credit for it.

                • wally12 October 3, 2016 at 11:15 PM

                  @EricAdler: What time and space continuum are you living in? Many scientists do not develop a consensus unless it involves the debate of A sq + B sq = C sq. Until then there is always room for debate and added investigation. That is not the case with the “warmers” who claim that the science is settled. Sorry but most informed people don’t buy it and neither should you.
                  Obama did not state that it is all of the above.He may have mentioned it in some speech in order to gain some wiggle room for his real objectives and goals. However, he is great at doing this. He will say many conflicting comments in order to be able to go back to them at some opportune time and claim “I said this”. That doesn’t cut any ice with me or other informed people who recognize his “MO”. He has stated that he will make coal so expensive that the coal power plants will not be able to compete. He has prohibited the drilling of oil and gas on federal lands and delayed drilling offshore. He has been able to control the EPA to make regulations that make competition difficult for existing energies. He has established restrictive regulations against oil and gas drilling. He has succeeded in making gasoline expensive up to $4 per gallon in order to make green energies somewhat competitive. He has provide subsidies for the green energy companies to build some of their factories and operations and many of them still failed and of course the tax payer paid for it. The $2 per gallon difference between $4 and the present $2 per gallon resulted in a cost to the poor and middle class a serious hardship. That $2 per gallon difference resulted in costing the nation’s economy about $300 billion dollars per year. I recall that many people who bought gas at the local station only had the funds to buy a few gallons since they were on such a tight budget where food was the priority. So don’t give me and the readers of this blog the BS that Obama was for all of the above. Nobody is buying it.

      • Haramabes ghost September 17, 2016 at 11:32 PM

        I’m sure john andrew schumck is irrelevant and a masterbater

    • wally12 October 1, 2016 at 12:26 AM

      @EricAdler: You are correct that the earth is warming. Even Larry Bell and skeptics will agree with that statement. What skeptics do not agree to is that fossil fuel burning and the associated and the increases in CO2 are not the driver of the warming. That also means that oceans are warming gradually as the earth’s temperature increases. That gradual warming also means that as the oceans warm, the ice in contact with the oceans will also melt at a faster rate. It is simply logical. There isn’t a need for a climate expert to point that out. The earth has been warming on average since the ice ages. The oceans have risen due to this average warming cycle for thousands of years. Why should that surprise any of us including you? What makes you think that this trend will not continue? That trend will continue until there is a major shift in the earth’s axis or due to sun and solar activity changes. It has happened before and why should we be blind to it not happening again?
      The river Tornio in Finland provides ample evidence that warming has been occurring on average for over 300 years and not just due to recently as say for the last 100 years or since the industrial era. This river has been monitored and data collected on the earliest ice break up from 1693 to 2000. The graph furnished shows that there is an average warming of the northern hemisphere for 307 years with cycles of cooling and warming since. What is interesting is that the warming is a straight line. THere isno change or increases in warming due to the industrial era of 1940 to the present. There is no evidence of a inverted “hockey stick”. The average rate of warming is a constant. That means that the increase of CO2 has had no significant affect on the warming rate. It is insignificant.
      Attempting to predict climate change over a short time cycle of only 60 years is not relevant. That means that any graph which uses a 60,100, 150 or 200 year cycle is very misleading and will not accepted as facts where climate is a long term change.

      • EricAdler October 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM

        It is myopic to look at temperature reconstructions of River Tornio in Finland, and then use it to talk about global temperatures.

        If you want to see what has been happening to global temperature, you need to look at global reconstructions We know about ice age cycles. We are in an interglacial period, and the earth’s temperature peaked about 6000 years ago, gradually declined and then in the last 40 years has spiked. Scientists have analyzed the reason for this and found it is the increase in GHG’s, which are driven by fossil fuel consumption and deforestation.

        The scientific theory that certain gases in the atmosphere reduce the rate of rate of radiation of energy from the earth’s surface to outer space, thereby keeping its temperature higher than it otherwise would be, dates from 1824, when Joseph Fourier one of the world’s greatest mathematicians and physicists came to that conclusion. The infara red absorption of gases in the atmosphere was measured in 1859, by another one of the greatest scientists in history John Tyndall, who showed that water vapor, CO2, NO2 and CH4 (methane) were the gases that Fourier was referring to. The first calculations of the effect of increasing CO2 concentration were made by the Nobel Prize winning physical chemist Svante Arrhenius, who got a value of 4C for doubling of CO2 in 1904. This is very close to what we are getting over 100 years later with modern computer models.

        • wally12 October 2, 2016 at 8:31 PM

          @EricAdler:You stated that it is myopic to use the data from the Tornio River and to infer that to the entire earth. That is correct. I didn’t. So if you also recognize that the “warmers” use the melting data from the Arctic sheet ice melting to claim that it is evidence of global warming on the entire earth climate change, it is much more myopic than what I stated. In addition, the Antarctic has been generating more ice. Of course, i am sure you will not admit that, will you?
          Next, you state that the earth reached its high temperature 6000 years ago and gradually declined and then began an increase in the last 40 years. Where have you been for the last 70 or more years. I am 77 years old and have seen that temperatures have risen since my childhood. In addition the temperatures in the northern Hemisphere have increased on average since the 1693. You also ignore that the little ice age resulted in a considerable cooling period and that the temperatures since that time have been on the increase

          You can claim that temperature have increased in the last 40 years. That may be true. It appears that what you do not accept is that the earth’s warming and cooling cycles have switched from warming to cooling every 20 to 30 years plus or minus. That doesn’t seem to register with your thinking does it?
          Next, you seem to accept the conclusions of past scientists as to being true but ignore the scientists of today that have a different analysis. Henrik Svensmark, an astrophysicist, has studied a theory and had Cern conduct an experiment of the possibility that solar rays can result in the helping the formation of clouds and therefore can result in either warming or cooling depending on the activity of the solar rays. The experiment was positive. Of course, the climate scientists dismissed this experiment since it didn’t fit their narrative that only CO2 is the driver of warming. Dyson Freeman, an astrophysicist who has been compared favorably to Einstein, stated that the models used by the climate scientists are flawed. Their models have failed to predict the rise in earth’s temperature even though the CO2 has increased. He states that the climate scientists have used “Fudge Factors” in their models in an attempt to account for the influence of clouds, water vapor, and sun and solar activity in the warming of earth. He states that CO2 is more beneficial to0 the earth and its inhabitants than the insignificant increase in warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and the increases in CO2. Dyson states that the climate scientists must use the true scientific method in their study of climate change and that any claims must be verified by actual observation of the average temperatures. That actual observable evidence has not been verified by the climate scientists. Therefore, Dyson and thousands of other scientists will not support the claims of the climate scientists.

          • EricAdler October 2, 2016 at 9:30 PM

            Your post is full of errors.
            It is nonsense to compare one small body of water with the huge Arctic Ocean which takes up a significant fraction of the earth’s surface.

            It is not myopic to look at the Arctic, because it is the reciepient of heat absorbed by the Tropical Atlantic because of Gulf Stream, a surface ocean current.

            Since Antarctica is land surrounded by ocean, the surface ocean currents surrounding Antarctica are from west to East and do not transmit much heat to it. Models show it will be the last part of the earth to heat up. In addition, the wind currents blow ice away from the land northward leaving open ocean which easily freezes in the winter. Changes in wind currents rather then temperature are responsible for the increasing ice cover there.

            It doesn’t matter where I have been for the last 70 years. I can look at a graph made by scientists based on a combination of temperature proxy analysis and surface temperature measurements and see what has happened to global average temperatures. There is a huge spikeup of temperature which began in 1970’s. It is way faster than anything that happened before. Look at the graph in the link I have provided. It seems to conflict with your personal experience, and I would consider it more reliable.
            Your age doesn’t impress me. I am 2 years older.

            You narrative of Svensmark’s experiment is kind vague and inaccurate. Svensmark claims that an incrase in solar activity will increase the magnetic field in space and reduce the seeding of clouds, thus causing warming. High energy particles do cause condensation of water vapor in the laboratory. However cosmic rays cannot explain global warming we are seeing today. The sun’s activity has been decreasing and cosmic rays have not been decreasing. In addition careful observations of the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays do not show what Svensmark claims in the real world.


            Freeman Dyson has not done any real research in climate science in the form of a peer reviewed paper. He is just mouthing off, expressing a contrarian opinion. In fact the CO2 theory of global warming is based on experiments and observations that began 157 years ago, and models that are at least 112 years old.

            • wally12 October 2, 2016 at 10:19 PM

              @EricAdler: You state my comments are full of errors. That is really interesting since so are yours. You need to reexamine what you just stated. Of course the gulf stream may influence the melting of the arctic ice, However, that stream has a definite flow pattern that flows toward England and not around the continent of America. Therefore it is not responsible for sea ice receding in Alaska. You are correct that the gulf stream could have some influence on the melting of ice in the mouth of the Tornio River. However, it has little influence on melting ice further up steam. The other fact is that the mouth of the Tornio River is much further north than you may be aware. Thus, its temperature is governed by the actual cold conditions of the land in that part of the hemisphere. I believe it is also true that the oceans have been warming since the ice age. Therefore, the ice on the Alaska side has experienced more melting due to oceans that get warmer through the centuries. Remember that there was a land bridge from Russia to the American continent in the distant past.
              You state that the winds blow from east to west in the Antarctic and claim that has some relevance. Since this area is the south pole the winds only circulate around the pole?. Then the ice that is blown away will flow to flow north since that is the only direction it can flow Thus, you are correct the ice will flow with the winds which is north.. As for the freezing of ocean waters, the ice forms due to cold temperatures so wind currents can not form more ice since those currents by your definition will always be cold.

              So are you trying to state that the winds are the reason for colder conditions. I am sorry but that doesn’t make logical sense since the winds are always cold coming off of the continent.

              • EricAdler October 3, 2016 at 12:09 AM

                “Ocean surface currents redistribute heat around the world and have a profound effect on the world’s climate. Nowhere is this clearer than in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current ferry huge volumes of warm salty tropical water north to the Greenland coast and to the Nordic Seas. Heat radiating off of this water helps keep the countries of northwest Europe, which are at the same latitude as Labrador and Greenland, relatively comfortable places to live.”

                The date of melting of the Tornio river could be a local phenomenon. The Arctic Sea Ice is a better indicator of warming trends, since the Arctic region as a whole, is known to warm twice as fast as the global average.

                You don’t really understand my description of the reason for the increased sea ice extent in the Antarctic. If the increase in wind blows more of the ice that is formed northward away from the land, and more ice is formed on the bare ocean, it causes an increase in the area of ice, even if the Antarctic region doesn’t get any colder.

                • wally12 October 3, 2016 at 10:09 AM

                  @EricAdler: Your entire statement about the arctic and the gulf stream is true and that the climate of Europe and other areas are kept warm due to the gulf stream. Nobody doubts that. That process has existed for millions of years.
                  That ice you speak of in Antarctica has also been breaking off and ice has flowed North for millions of years. So nothing new in your comment.

            • wally12 October 2, 2016 at 10:35 PM

              @EricAdler: You are very dismissive of what Dyson Freemen says because he has not had a peer reviewed paper on the subject of climate. Are you aware that peer reviewed papers are not the end all of knowledge. They simply are papers that the examiners view as credible and thus a paper gets published. It is also true that many papers that conflict with the editors views of the science do not get accepted. Dyson did do some climate change work and was not happy with the attitude of some of the climate scientists. Therefore, he decided that it was not worth his time and effort to continue in that area of science. Yet, you believe that studies and information from scientists of 150m years ago are still true and believable. That is truly interesting.
              I too can look at graphs and make my own conclusions. What is interesting is that the climate scientists who found they had no explanation for the cooling of the last 20 years, went back and reshuffled their data to paint a different picture to show warming where there wasn’t any.

              • EricAdler October 2, 2016 at 11:49 PM

                Dyson has retired from scientific research. He is an iconoclastic old fart who is just mouthing off. Actually papers are not reviewed directly by the editors. They are given to a number of scientists who check them out, suggest improvements and vet them. This is a good way to check on the validity of the science before they get published. From your writings, it seems that you don’t really understand much about the science, and are therefore vulnerable to quacks who write stuff on the internet that is nonsense, a lot of it conspiracy theories.
                Scientists didn’t show warming where there wasn’t any. The gobal temperature data is gathered by different instruments using different methods which changed with the times. In order to eliminate the influence of these systematic changes on the time dependence of the records, it is valid to examine their effects and correct for them. All of the corrections have been the subject of papers in the peer reviewed literature.

                Your claim that there has been cooling for the last 20 years is clearly false. There is always noise in the data but it definitely shows warming. Look at this graph.

                For a more comprehensive picture read this blog by a published climate scientist and statistician.

                • wally12 October 3, 2016 at 10:00 AM

                  @EricAdler: You should be ashamed of yourself for calling Dyson an old fart. Is that what you are? It is obvious that you only believe what your AGW sources state and are dismissive of all other sources that contradict. It is clear to me that you are not worth having a discussion that will lead to understanding. Have a nice day but to continue discussing the climate with you is not worth my time.

                  • EricAdler October 3, 2016 at 12:06 PM

                    Dyson does no research on climate himself. His claims are incorrect. Your admonition and withdrawl from the discussion is probably a reflection of a realization that you don’t really know enough to deal with the rebuttals I have made to your false claims, rather than my insult of Dyson.

                    I can easily rebut what you said regarding Dyson’s points.

                    It is well known that clouds are complicated, and that climate models cannot deal with them based on first principles of physics, because the grids used are not detailed enough. The scientific vernacular term “fudge factors” is appropriate for how clouds are accounted for. It is a necessary thing to do, and is based on observational statistical data, and the treatement varies among different models. It is a recognized source of model uncertainty. The effects of clouds on warming appear to run, based on measurements, from mildly positive feedback to mildly negative. There is bound to be uncertainty in this kind of situation as the variation in different models reflect.

                    Uncertainty about the future is a feature of life that humans always have to deal with. It doesn’t mean that the projections of the future made by models should be ignored. The models are not expected to be accurate short term predictions, but are interpreted to project trends with uncertainty. They haven’t done all that badly based on hindcasts. The latest IPCC report AR5 WG1 devotes a chapter to the uncertainty in models. If you can find a comment or rebuttal to their assessment by Freeman Dyson, I would be interested in reading it. Basically they find that the models are getting the global temperature trends right as you can see from figure 9.8 on page 768 of the following link:

                    I would rate the ability of the models to project overall long term global trends in temperature as being pretty good even outside of the reference period, where the model “fudge factors” were developed. The reasons for the differences of the most recent period, and the reasons for the apparent recent “hiatus” in global warming were discussed. One reason appears to be an artificial sea surface temperature cooling effect, due to the switch from ships engine intakes to buoys, which has recently been corrected for.
                    The also assess the accuracy of climate models’ predictin of many other parameters. It is worth studying.

                    Dyson is a speculative futurist, rather than a researcher on global warming issues, and seems to be full of himself. It is true that CO2 promotes the growth of trees, but the global warming and sea level rise will have deleterious effects according to those who study this. The IPCC report contains a consensus of the science with uncertainty statements.

                    • wally12 October 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM

                      @EricAdler: You are starting to soften a little. You even admit to the fact that “Fudge Factors” are real and that are necessary to account for the off predictions of temperature rise.. I find that interesting that you would even admit that.
                      I didn’t want to stop my discussion with you but I could not sit by and allow you to insult a world known Astrophysicist such as Dyson Freeman. He has more knowledge than you, me and thousands of other scientists. Your statement that he has no experience in climate is false. He has been involved in climate. However, he recognize early on that the climate scientists were on a one track objective and he would have no part it in. He had better things to do.
                      You state that the clouds effect on warming are based on mildly positive to mildly negative based on measurements. How can you say this since clouds and water vapor are recognized as the major green house gas. Therefore, the models are off by even more that you want to admit.
                      Dyson has no ax to grind. He is simply being himself and expressing his insight on an important subject. He isn’t full of himself. He has already proven his worth and simply wants to set the record straight and show that the science of climate is not settled and that much work, study, debate and analysis needs to be done before we can really get our arms around the understanding of climate. He further states that climate is not simply earth’s temperature and a select body of scientists. Rather it needs to include a vast number of scientists in many fields of study. They include but not limited to weather, glaciers, botanists, ocean scientists, astrophysicists, math science, Computer scientists, heat transfer engineers and physicists etc, etc,etc,..The climate scientists and politicians oppose that approach. They are simply interested in promoting green energies and the taxation on existing energies in order to redistribute the wealth of the richer nations and to further enhance the powers of the UN and IPCC.

                    • EricAdler October 4, 2016 at 1:09 PM

                      Wally, clouds consist of liquid water droplets, not water vapor. The absorption and reemission of IR radiation by water vapor actually provides a positive feedback which doubles the effect of a change in CO2 atmospheric concentration alone on the global average temperature.
                      Dyson is a brilliant man, and has proved it many times, in many fields. He prides himself on being a contrarian curmudgeon. He is not the ultimate authority on Climate matters.

                      Climate Science does include the specialties that you mentioned. I don’t see that climate scientists oppose research in those specialties as you claim. You are making that up.

                      Global temperature is one indicator of change that is mentioned and can be tracked and compared with predicitions.

              • jmac October 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM

                Dyson was a theoretical physicist. By his own admission, he never did any research into the earth’s climate. His statements about climate science occurred very late in his life and he admitted that he was speaking abstractly.

  3. Dano2 June 1, 2016 at 5:06 PM

    Larry Bell phoned this one in by pasting boilerplate and long-ago refuted standard talking points. Did he do this column for free?



    • Ian5 June 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM

      I call it recycling dishonesty.

    • yo neighbor June 17, 2016 at 10:23 PM

      You may have missed this confession… “As written in a 2007 Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

      • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 10:23 AM

        Standard denialists quote mines! Drink!



  4. Dano2 June 1, 2016 at 6:26 PM


    Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.

    “Floods” have also regionally increased (first-third fig)

    “Tornadoes” have also refuted poor hapless Larry (fourth-fifth fig).

    “Wildfires” is mendacious, as the number has decreased but acreage increased. (6th fig)

    The “droughts” is a standard cherry-pick, as the IPCC has indeed said some regions have had increased drought. ( 7th fig)

    Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to refute. This guy gets paid to fib???



  5. Dano2 June 1, 2016 at 6:27 PM

    Edenhofer and Figueres quote mines! Drink!



    • yo neighbor June 17, 2016 at 10:49 PM

      The scam & the purpose of the scam has been totally revealed & you guys trug on…

      ~ Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”


      • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 10:20 AM

        She did not say that . Big fib from you.



        • yo neighbor June 20, 2016 at 5:01 PM

          Your a watermelon. I am a conservationist.

          • Dano2 June 20, 2016 at 7:01 PM

            Can’t hide the ridiculously made up quote, thanks!



  6. Dano2 June 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM

    Big fibbin from poor Larry:

    sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration



    • yo neighbor June 17, 2016 at 10:43 PM

      …Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

      ~…Talk about fibbing.

      • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 10:20 AM

        Standard See hover quote mine! Drink!



  7. Dano2 June 1, 2016 at 6:34 PM

    Provably fibbin:

    satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically significant global warming for nearly two decades




    • yo neighbor June 17, 2016 at 10:40 PM

      …Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

      ~…not only caught red handed manipulating data, but admit it too… can’t take any of your links seriously.

      • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 10:21 AM

        Climategate! Drink!



        • yo neighbor June 20, 2016 at 5:02 PM

          Denial is a response. That’s all it is.

          • Dano2 June 20, 2016 at 7:00 PM

            Just calling the keyword for our denialist drinking game, don’t have a sads.



  8. danmaine June 1, 2016 at 8:01 PM

    These facts are indeed true. Earth has gone through long periods of very dramatic cold with ice over the North American Continent 1000s of feet deep. We are currently at the high swing of temperatures but have not yet reached the temperatures seen in the Medieval warming period. How do you MMGW fanatics explain MULTIPLE ice ages and subsequent warming w/o any significant influence of man? CO2 has risen dramatically yet all the models show increased global temperatures that have not been observed. The models have failed and REAL Science demands repeated questioning and experimental verification. The ice is INCREASING at both poles.

    • VACornell June 13, 2016 at 2:27 PM

      Danmaine….you are correct…
      We’re at the “high swing” and temperatures should continue up.
      And you say ice is increasing at both poles.
      Aren’t these contradictions?
      Vern Cornell, of Tierrasanta, in need…

  9. Paul Chaney June 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM

    Instead of using the global warming issue to promote social control by the wealthy and governing classes, why don’t the wealthy spend their resources on planting trees, installing alternative energy generation, and combatting drought with moisture-harvesting technology? The elite can bunker themselves into favorable locations on earth and protect their holdings with private armies, so they are not really needing to invest in protecting themselves against the general effects of AGW as they are in using AGW to gain more power and control over the masses. After all, if you’d already bought everything that money can buy, what else could you have? More power and control. They want to take their private jet whenever they want, including that lobbying trip to Sacramento to support increasing the taxes on the fuel that you and 30 million other Californians need daily to survive.

    • wally12 September 30, 2016 at 11:56 PM

      @Paul Chaney: It is a little difficult for me to understand which side you are on. Is it that you believe that Man made global warming is real and that the elimination of burning of fossil fuels must be done to prevent the destruction of the world via too high temperatures or or that you believe that man made global warming is is not a problem but is some thing that the rich people are using as propaganda in order to make more riches. The truth is that AGW is a scam. It is not done by all rich people. It is done by individuals like Al Gore and others to attempt to eliminate fossil fuel burning and to promote the use of only green energy technology and to accomplish that by the creation of taxes on existing fossil fuel energy sources and thereby enrich them selves, to make the UN a major power over citizens of the world by controlling energy and to make you and me serfs to the large world government system..

  10. Lincoln June 4, 2016 at 12:18 PM

    April 22, 2016 Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view

    Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations. On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change. Another U.N. official has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”

  11. VACornell June 9, 2016 at 2:05 PM

    Prosperity spauned CO2 emissions?
    Consider: environmental facts?
    No warming in eighty years?
    Seven inches per century?
    A record lull?
    All from above…:what do we need to get practical? Realistically?
    Let’s recognize that the increase in CO2 has helped us all…those plants
    and animals, including Homo sapiens, that are here…we have benefited!
    Let’s get to 450 ASAP
    290 is no longer…thank God.

    • Ian5 June 16, 2016 at 9:28 PM

      What misleading rubbish. Please educate yourself:

  12. trevormarr August 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    Yes in 2016 AGW is now best defined as Al Gore’s Wrong!!!

  13. trevormarr August 13, 2016 at 11:53 AM

    Yes the only downside to the 1part per MILLION yearly increase in CO2 is the increased bedwetting of the Alarmists!

  14. Jack April 4, 2017 at 11:48 AM

    After reading all this back and forth, I have to say that eric adler is a tunnel visioned obstreperous uninformed opinionated narrow minded goofball. Because of what has been exposed regarding the UN and the IPCC, there is absolutely NO…ZERO…..ZIPPO credibility about these organizations. They are laughable pathetic political scams…….and little eric has bought into it.

Comments are closed.