The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichael Hudson Archive
Global Warming and U.S. National Security Diplomacy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      Control of oil has long been a key aim of U.S. foreign policy. The Paris climate agreements and any other Green programs to reduce the pace of global warming are viewed as threatening the aim of dominating world energy markets by keeping economies dependent on oil under U.S. control. Also blocking U.S. willingness to help stem global warming is the oil industry’s economic and hence political power. Its product is not only energy but also global warming, along with plastic pollution.

      This fatal combination of the national security state’s mentality and oil industry lobbying threatens to destroy the planet’s climate. The prospect of raising temperatures and sea levels along the coasts while inland regions suffer drought is viewed simply as collateral damage to the geopolitics of oil. The State Department is reported to have driven out individuals warning about global warming’s negative impact.[1]Rod Schoonover, “My Climate Report Was Quashed,” New York Times op-ed, July 31, 2019, reported that the White House blocked his report on the adverse effects of climate change on the ground that “the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.”

      The only attempts to restrict oil imports are the new Cold War trade sanctions to isolate Russia, Iran and Venezuela. The aim is to increase foreign dependence on U.S., British and French oil, giving American strategists the power to make other countries “freeze in the dark” if they follow a path diverging from U.S. diplomatic aims.

      It was the drive to control the world’s oil trade – and to keep it dollarized – that led the United States to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to invade Iraq in 2013, and most recently for Donald Trump to isolate Iran while backing Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi foreign legion in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Sixty years earlier, in 1953, the CIA and Britain joined to overthrow Iran’s elected President Mohammad Mosaddegh to prevent him from nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. A similar strategy explains U.S. attempts at regime change in Venezuela and Russia.

      While seeking to make other countries dependent on U.S.-controlled oil, America itself has long aimed at energy self-sufficiency for itself. In the 1970s the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) developed the environmentally disastrous plan to promote North American energy independence by tapping Canada’s Athabasca tar sands. About ten gallons of water are needed to make each gallon of synthetic crude oil. This water is treated as a free good, not factored into the cost of extracting syncrude. (I was the lead Hudson Institute economist evaluating ERDA’s plans, and was removed from the study when I protested that this might cause downstream water problems.) A byproduct of American energy self-sufficiency may be to make water scarcer and more expensive, especially as fracking pollutes local water resources while diverting an immense flow of fresh water as part of the extraction-and-pollution symbiosis.

      The short-sightedness of America’s aggressive oil diplomacy is causing opposition in Europe as it buckles under unprecedented summer heat waves, just as U.S. cities are being devastated by drought, forest fires, floods and other extreme weather. Yet this has not dented the basic thrust of U.S. foreign policy to control oil.

      Oil in the U.S. balance of payments

      Control of oil has long been a major contributor to the U.S. trade and payments, and hence of the dollar’s ability to sustain the huge outflow of overseas military spending. In 1965 I conducted a study for the Chase Manhattan Bank and found that in balance-of-payments terms, every dollar of oil industry investment outflow is recovered in just 18 months. That is because hardly any of the reported import value of oil was paid to foreigners.

      To the extent that the United States must import foreign oil, such trade has been limited to U.S. oil majors (on “national security” grounds), mainly from their own foreign branches. Only a small proportion of the price was paid in foreign currency. U.S. companies bought crude oil from their foreign branches at very low prices, and allocated all the price markup to their shipping affiliates in Panama or Liberia, along with shipping and freight costs, dividends and interest, managerial charges and charges for capital investment, depreciation and depletion. Most of what is counted as U.S. foreign investment in oil takes the form of machinery exports, U.S. materials and management, and so did not actually represent a dollar inflow. The effect has been to obtain oil imports at minimal balance-of-payments cost.

      Since 1974, Saudi Arabia and neighboring Arab countries have been told that they can charge as high a price as they want for their oil. After all, the higher the price they charge, the higher the profits will be for domestic U.S. oil producers. The “conditionality” is that they must recycle their export earnings into the U.S. financial market. They have to keep their foreign reserves and most personal financial wealth in U.S. Treasury securities, stocks and bonds. A global move away from oil would impair this circular flow of oil-production gains into U.S. financial markets supporting domestic stock prices.

      Solar energy technology and other alternatives to oil will not contribute nearly as much to the balance of payments as oil. Not only will environmentally friendly alternatives be outside the ability of U.S. diplomats to control or cut off energy supplies to other countries, but China is taking a leadership position in solar energy technology.


      A major factor bolstering the oil industry’s economic power has been its tax-avoiding “flags of convenience” located in offshore banking centers. U.S. oil companies have long registered taken their profits from production, refining and distributing in Panama and Liberia. Over fifty years ago the treasurer of Standard Oil of New Jersey walked me through how the oil industry pretended to make all its profits in the tax havens that had no income tax – paying a low price to oil-producing countries, and charging a high price to downstream refiners and marketers.

      One implication of this is that there is little political chance of any cleanup of tax avoidance via offshore banking centers, by Western investors and indeed the world’s criminal class and corrupt politicians, given the fact that oil and mining are the major beneficiaries. Weakening the lobbying power to prevent closing the tax loopholes that permit the fictitious cost-accounting of tax-avoidance centers would weakening the oil industry’s economic power.

      U.S. foreign policy is based on making other countries dependent on U.S. oil

      U.S. diplomatic strategy is to make other countries dependent on vital materials that U.S. diplomats can use as an economic lever. An early example were the food sanctions imposed in the 1950s to spur resistance to Mao’s revolution in China. Canada broke the grain embargo.

      If other countries produce their energy by solar power, wind power or nuclear power, they will be independent of U.S. oil diplomacy and its threats to cut off their energy supplies, grinding their economies to a halt if they don’t endorse U.S. neoliberal economic policies. This explains why the Trump Administration withdrew from the Paris climate agreement to slow global warming.

      U.S. Cold War 2.0 policy is aimed at isolating Russia

      U.S. energy self-sufficiency finds its counterpart in the demand that Europe become dependent entirely on American “Freedom Gas,” at a much higher price than is available from Russia’s Gazprom and reject the Nordstream 2 pipeline, preventing it from obtaining lower-priced rival gas from Russia.[2]Regarding U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) of Energy Dominance, see Ben Aris, “Busting Nord Stream 2 myths,” Intellinews.com, August 27, 2018. U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has likened U.S. gas to American soldiers liberating Europe from the Nazis. “The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” he told reporters in Brussels earlier this month. “And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.” See also and https://truthout.org/articles/freedom-gas-will-be-us...road/. The Trump administration argues that to avoid dependency on Russia, Europe should buy its oil and gas at much higher prices from the United States – about 30% higher, in addition to the expense of building LNG ports to transport liquified natural gas by ocean tanker instead of by Russian pipeline. “We’re protecting Germany from Russia and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany,” Trump complained to reporters at the White House during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda.[3]“Euro Slides After Trump Threatens Sanctions To Stop NordStream 2 (Again!),” Zero Hedge, June 12, 2019.

      On July 31, 2019 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 20 to 2 to back the “Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act” sponsored by right-wing Republican Ted Cruz and Blue Dog New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. Companies in Switzerland and Italy were first to be censored.

      Global warming and GDP accounting

      Warmer air temperature means a higher rate of evaporation, and hence more rain, tornados and flooding, as we are seeing this year. A related result will be drought as glaciers melt and no longer feed the major rivers on which dams have been built to generate electric power. The seeming irony is that these effects of global warming and extreme weather have become bulwarks of the rise in U.S. GDP. The cleanup costs of air and water pollution, the expense of rebuilding flooded or damaged homes, crop destruction, the increased cost of air conditioning, of coping with the spread of injurious insects northward and the rise in medical and health costs may actually account for all its growth since 2008.

      Neoliberals celebrated the End of History after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, promising an era of new growth as “the market” became the world’s planner. They did not spell out that much of this growth would take the form of coping with the short-termism of the oil industry and other rent extractors living in the present and taking their money and running.

      What factors should a Green Policy emphasize?

      As Mark Twain quipped, “Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” In today’s political world, doing something about global warming means taking on a set of goliaths that go beyond the oil and gas industry. It is one thing to say that global warming, climate change and the resulting extreme weather are existential threats to present-day civilization and economies. It is another to spell out the preconditions for solving the problem in the sphere of economic and tax reform, military and U.S. national security policy.

      A Green program cannot succeed without confronting the National Security state’s mentality aiming at U.S. oil supremacy. U.S. national security has become a war threatening the security of the entire globe. Threatening to freeze countries in the dark if they do not follow U.S. policy and isolate Iran and Russia, the United States is burning itself up along with the rest of the planet.

      Stopping global warming requires a tax policy to close down the special privileges promoting oil industry profits including the use of “flags of convenience” in offshore banking centers as a means of tax avoidance. A Green program logically would include a natural-resource rent tax (as classical economists advocated throughout the 19th century), and charges for what economists call “external economies,” that is social costs that are “externalities” to corporate balance sheet. Companies should become liable to reimburse society for such costs.

      Imposing a tax on oil usage would raise the price of gasoline, but would not deter consumption much in the short run because car drivers and public utilities already are locked in to oil-using capital investments. A more effective response would be to reduce the profitability of oil by closing the tax-avoidance loopholes and “flags of convenience” that the industry’s lobbyists have created. “Oil industry accounting” leaves “Hollywood accounting” and Donald-Trump style real-estate accounting in the dust.


      The public relations problem with this solution is that this practice of pretending to “earn” all one’s income in small island enclaves with no income tax has become so widespread that it has created an enormous vested interest now including the leading IT giants, industry and real estate. Depriving tax accountants of recourse to such tax-avoidance centers also threatens America’s National Security state by challenging its perceived national interest in attracting the world’s criminal capital to these enclaves as a bulwark of the U.S. balance of payments. The world’s wealthiest corporations and tax evaders are aligned against an economic policy that would most help reduce the carbon footprint by moving beyond oil and gas.

      To implement a successful Green policy program, it thus is necessary to move beyond the environmental problem to take on a broad and wealthy array of vested interests. They will cite free-market ideology as justification for taking their money in the short run, without care for the weather disaster they are causing. That makes the task much more daunting, and also may limit the ideological appeal of a real Green program.

      In countries such as Iceland and Germany, neoliberal Green Parties tend to be centrist and conservative when it comes to supporting banks and the financial sector, and endorse a market-based bonanza of carbon trading rights to be bought and sold by Wall Street speculators. The problem is that such “market-based” solutions must fail, because markets are short-term and do not take account “externalities.” Are Greens willing to criticize this “market philosophy” and its tunnel vision? Without such a challenge, Green parties will appeal largely to “feel good” voters who want to register their politically correct concern without doing much to actually solve the underlying problem.

      We indeed seem to be entering the End Time. It is turning out to be the antithesis of the neoliberal End of History that was being celebrated in 1991 as free market victory after the Soviet Union collapsed. It is a crisis of Western civilization, not its apex.


      [1] Rod Schoonover, “My Climate Report Was Quashed,” New York Times op-ed, July 31, 2019, reported that the White House blocked his report on the adverse effects of climate change on the ground that “the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.”

      [2] Regarding U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) of Energy Dominance, see Ben Aris, “Busting Nord Stream 2 myths,” Intellinews.com, August 27, 2018. U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has likened U.S. gas to American soldiers liberating Europe from the Nazis. “The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” he told reporters in Brussels earlier this month. “And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.” See also and https://truthout.org/articles/freedom-gas-will-be-used-to-justify-oppression-at-home-and-abroad/.

      [3] “Euro Slides After Trump Threatens Sanctions To Stop NordStream 2 (Again!),” Zero Hedge, June 12, 2019.

      Hide 287 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
      1. Realist says:

        Shitlib blather…there is no proof that global warming is caused by people.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @2stateshmustate
        , @anon
      2. anastasia says:

        Here’s something I do not understand about global warmers. – How come they never talk about weather modification in evaluating human impact on climate change?

        We have been modifying weather, and even using weather modification in wars (eg. Vietnam) since 1947, according to James Forrestal). Weather modification is a documented fact – even Wikopedia acknowledges it. So, how come global warmers NEVER EVER discuss this human interference with weather?

        • Replies: @EdwardM
        , @anon
      3. Patricus says:

        There is always the claim that tax breaks for the hydrocarbons’ industries give these producers a free ride at the expense of tax payers. The truth is these industries are net subsidizers of government. There are federal and state taxes at every step of hydrocarbon development and marketing. The green energy sources are the subsidized culprits.

        • Replies: @anon
      4. JVC says:

        Mr. Hudson is talking apples and oranges. On the one hand he is absolutely correct about the role of oil in the USG foreign policy. Much of the worlds problems today have to do with maintaining the petro dollar for without it the USG sinks rapidly. All of our little regime change wars and CIA sponsored coups are basically for this reason, and of course to justify the ever metastasizing defense/security spending.

        On the other hand, Mr. Hudson needs to educate himself on the real agenda behind the Global Warming/Climate change/climate crisis/ weather weirding scam. It has nothing to do with climate and every thing to do with globalization/socialization. One only needs to look into the geologic history of the earth to see that CO2 has been many times higher than the current 4 molecules for every 10,000 molecules of atmoshere, and the earth wasn’t destroyed, and while the earth has been much warmer and colder than now, CO2 levels and temperature really have very little to do with each other. Just since the last glacial retreat, there have been warmer climates (holocene optimum!) that saw temperatures higher than the climate fear mongers predict in their worst cases (RCP8), and the fact that what is being used as a base line —1850-1880– is exactly when the earth was beginning to recover from the little ice age–the coldest thinks have been in the last 10,000 years. Look at the big picture, and it is easy to see that the UN–ipcc –paris accords etc, etc, etc are about wealth redistribution, and one size fit’s all global government, plus a bit warmer climate with a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere will only be beneficial for every living thing on the planet.

      5. We do appear to be in the End Game. If Michael Hudson’s economic analysis is right that ‘U.S. national security has become a war threatening the security of the entire globe’, we are truly at the gapping abyss of apocalyptic war. The pattern of history also signals a third world war. The author is describing the destructive nature of power.

      6. @JVC

        Well said. Mr. Hudson has been fooled by climate change alarmists. If he was as well-versed in paleoclimatology as he is in economics, he would be far less nervous.

        The incremental (and very incomplete) atmospheric warming that’s been measured over the past century has produced no lasting environmental harm. Many other human actions however have been environmentally devastating, from rainforest deforestation to megafauna extinction.

        Mr. Hudson needs to seek out and explore alternative scientific views on ‘climate change’ and come to grip with the fact that there are scores of natural forces which shape and steer climate in unexpected way. And these same forces also interact with one another in chaotic fashion.

        It should also be recalled that No. America experienced a real and measurable cooling period from 1945 to about 1975, even though atmospheric CO2 was rising throughout that period. Climatologists called the phenomena ‘global cooling’. It was scientifically real and it was a huge news story back in the 1970s. I wrote about it as a journalism student. Even though this ‘climate change’ was a very BIG DEAL, it came to absolutely nothing.

        Interestingly, the big ‘global cooling’ scare of the 1970s (which was featured on Page 1 in the NY Times, the WaPo, LA Times, TIME magazine, and Newsweek) has been completely memory-holed.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @PetrOldSack
        , @anon
        , @anon
        , @anon
      7. I used to think the world of Michael Hudson. His research into the jubilee practices of 5,000 years ago were a revelation. As was his rendition of how economic theory was corrupted by the rentiers starting in the late 19th Century. And his description of how the world works for the past 50 years via economic colonialism was truly another revelation.

        But I began to sour on Hudson when I started to realize that he had nothing really at all to say about how things would need to change in order to rectify and bring us forward. In other words, he suddenly became just an historian–and nothing more at all.

        This substantially diminished Hudson in my eyes. He became boring in his interviews seemingly going on and on and on about this and that but saying very little other than “they” got away with it, in the past and now.

        But then, Hudson jumped the shark with this climate alarmist nonsense. Michael, you should know better. And if you don’t know better, then you should use your obvious talents at research and go back in time if you have to among other angles, and put climate alarmism in its grave where it clearly deserves to lie.

        Will he do this? I doubt it, as he seems fixated on this fiction.

        I no longer respect, listen to or read Michael Hudson.

        • Agree: Bill Jones
        • Replies: @Anonymous
        , @Tom Verso
        , @anon
      8. This guy is honest and brilliant. Get the straight story on “climate change.”


        • Replies: @anon
      9. Anonymous[158] • Disclaimer says:

        But then, Hudson jumped the shark with this climate alarmist nonsense.

        Absolutely. This seeming naivety is kinda’ suspicious, frankly.

        He knows that the climate nonsense comes from the same globalist crowd behind many of the economic policies he’s complaining about – and their propensity to manipulate the markets. He also knows what kind of supranational power could be gained from total control of the planet’s CO2 markets.

        • Replies: @anon
      10. EdwardM says:

        I know that this is a rhetorical question. The answer is because any kind of geoengineering wouldn’t achieve the economic reorganization that is the real agenda of climate hysterics. Their socialist solutions — de-industrialization, creation of transnational government, massive wealth transfers from middle-class taxpayers (derided as “consumers”) to third-world countries and politically connected industries, etc. — have been their worldview since long before global warming. They have found their perfect boogeyman.

        • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
        , @anon
      11. Tom Verso says:

        “I used to think the world of Michael Hudson…But I began to sour on Hudson when I started to realize that he had nothing really at all to say about how things would need to change in order to rectify and bring us forward. In other words, he suddenly became just an historian–and nothing more at all”.


        Just yesterday I threw down his book “Killing the Host”. About 2/3’s of the way through I had an “Emperor’s New Clothes” experience. Chapter after chapter he kept saying the same thing about the nature of our economic problems (e.g. ‘debt/equity’ ratios), but never any suggestions about what should be done (e.g. change laws? Get rid of the Fed? …?). Essentially the book is a collection of op-ed pieces.

        Then I saw this same article on the relentless climate apocalypse site Naked Capitalism. An article that significantly is devoid of climate data or citing authoritative text.

        • Replies: @anon
      12. “threatens to destroy the planet’s climate. ”

        What can one say to such barking mad loons?


        “Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. 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.””

        • Replies: @anon
      13. JamesD says:

        I hate when normies try to talk about something they know nothing about. I don’t go to MD forums and discuss brain surgery procedures, so why do normies comment on the oil industry? Think about it.

        The only factual part of this article was the requirement for S.A. to invest in US Treasuries in exchange for defense. The whole “petro dollar” story beyond this is B.S. FX markets are extremely liquid, so pricing oil in dollars is merely a convenience, that is all. You can exchange those dollars to yen in the blink of an eye. The requirement for the Saudis to invest in Treasuries was the key piece, and that was more of a deal done on defense.

        As for the other points, guess what, because of the oil industry we no longer give a crap about the Mid East, except from a global economic view. The Mid East is the headache for China, India, Korea, and Japan. Our imports come from Canada. Why is this? Because the oil industry was allowed to drill baby drill. In the near future, we have ANWR and the elephant field off of Guyana coming online.

        As far as global warming, the satellite data, now a 50 yr. record, shows 1.3 degrees per century, which is what it has been since the ice age. No global warming.

        • Replies: @anon
      14. MarkU says:

        I’m not sure which branch of the Fred Singer school of corporate cocksucking most of the people making comments here are getting their information from, but it certainly isn’t coming from the majority of the scientific community. If content free, repeated assertion was regarded as evidence you would have plenty of it, but it isn’t evidence and never will be.

        Just to be clear :-

        1) The greenhouse effect is real, calculable and measurable and has been known about for well over a century, the Swedish chemist Arrhenius suggested that it might be a problem one day, back in the late 1800’s.
        2) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
        3) Human activity has significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
        4) Natural scientists know perfectly well that there are many factors that affect the earth’s climate, so thanks very much to all the idiots who feel they have to mention it over and over again as if it was a fucking revelation.

        Now, given Underwood’s law “Most people don’t use their critical faculties unless they are told something disagreeable” I don’t expect any of the die-hards here to even consider that their own sources might be biased in any way or funded by the hydrocarbon industry. Neither would I expect anyone who has been arguing on the wrong side for two decades to ever admit they were wrong, even when extreme weather events and rising global temperatures are being reported regularly.

        The horrible truth is that nothing is going to be done about it anyway, certainly not enough. The World’s population is still being allowed to grow unchecked, the Green party has become a party of PC snowflakes “We can’t tell sub Saharan people not to have so many kids, that would be racist”. Indeed declining populations cause ‘alarm’ when it should be cause for hope and measures are put into place to flood those countries with faster breeding people.

        Economic growth is still regarded as an unequivocal ‘good’ thing when we should be cutting down on resource consumption. The short term health of the banking system is apparently regarded as more important than the future of the human race.

        Its almost certainly too late now anyway.

      15. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

        Did you ever wonder why those people never proposed mass planting of trees across the globe? An all-natural solution to the “problem” would be a thing called photosynthesis.

        So, how come they’re insisting on a “solution” that would give them total, supranational control over everyone’s energy usage, industry and development? Like I said in the other thread: global CO2 market is a “solution” in search of a “problem”.

        • Replies: @RobinG
        , @anon
        , @Lars Porsena
      16. Tom Verso says:

        I’m not sure which branch of the Fred Singer school [expletive delete] most of the people making comments here are getting their information from…

        For openers:

        Tony Heller
        Judith Currie
        Alan Watts
        Stephen McIntyre
        Richard Lindzen
        Roy Spencer
        John Christy
        Roger Pielke Jr.

        Of course there are many more but you get my drift.

        By the way were do you get your information?

        • Replies: @UncommonGround
      17. A123 says:

        Remember how it used to be Global Cooling? Then whoopsie, it became Global Warming?

        Now….. Double whoopsie it is Climate Change, not warming or cooling.

        Soros and his Globalist pals make this stuff up to increase their personal power sell their failed ‘green’ technologies in solar and wind power.

        For anyone who does believe CO2 is a problem. The only viable technology solution to replace coal and oil plants is some form of nuclear. There are a number of options, but the most promising is The Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactor [LFTR]. Much safer than anything in use today and is more or less useless as a source of weapons grade material.



        • Replies: @anon
      18. Smokey says:

        Correctomundo, compadre. If the weather could be controlled, countries we didn’t like would have endless tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

        And CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Global warming (as the planet recovers from the Little Ice Age, one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene) causes CO2 to rise.

        The oceans contain more than 50X more CO2 than the atmosphere. As they warm, they emit CO2, just like a warming Coke does. This is straightforward physics: as the oceans warm, partial pressure causes CO2s to outgas (Henry’s Law).

        On time scales from months, to hundreds of millennia, thousands of observations confirm that changes in CO2 always FOLLOW changes in global temperature. Since cause must precede effect, rising temperatures are the cause, and subsequent rising CO2 is the effect of global warming.

        But we never see ∆CO2 always FOLLOWS ∆temperature in the media, which has sold its soul and so must always peddle the “CO2 causes global warming” pseudo-science.

        Once we accept the scientific fact that changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature, it’s clear that someone is lyin’ to us. And it isn’t the scientists who are skeptical of the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare.

        • Replies: @Realist
        , @anon
        , @anon
        , @anon
      19. I’m a global warming skeptic. I’ve found it impossible to make up my mind amidst the blizzards of propaganda from both sides. I do, however, advocate a new “Manhattan Project” to devise a cheap and green energy technology (thorium fission for example) to be given away to the world for free. This would deprive Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf States of their revenue. That alone is a good reason to support it.

        • Replies: @Erebus
        , @anon
        , @Michael888
      20. RobinG says:

        Did you ever wonder why those people never proposed mass planting of trees…?

        They’ve not only proposed it, they’re doing it, wherever possible.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      21. Erebus says:
        @Fidelios Automata

        I’m a global warming skeptic.

        Don’t be.

        The fact is that world temperatures have been rising and falling since the planet had cooled enough for lifeforms to develop on it. A geological eye blink ago, men were battling woolly mammoths in N. Europe, and an eye blink before that hippopotamuses roamed Siberian islands. They didn’t go there on vacation. Looking at a thermal history of the Earth, how/why would anyone in their right mind deduce that climate change is unprecedented escapes me.

        The fact is that the planet’s temperatures have been rising and falling since the dawn of time, sometimes dramatically. Depending on what data set catches your fancy, it’s either rising or falling now, but I can’t understand a world view that causes one to be surprised that it hasn’t been doing one or the other right through all of human history and long before that.

        Embrace the change! It’s here to stay!

        • Agree: Biff
        • Replies: @anon
      22. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

        I’m not talking about some local, limited, actions. I’m talking about a huge, global, initiative to create results visible from space. This would be easy, cheap, natural and effective (I’d volunteer to plant thousands of saplings myself despite not believing in man-made warming) but the globalists on top don’t want that – they insist on gaining control over the CO2 market instead. How (in)convenient.

        • Replies: @A123
      23. @MarkU

        Most of the commenters here are half senile old men. That’s why they neither understand nor care about climate change.

        What is sad is that the nuclear industry has been castrated and doesn’t lobby for its own interests. Serious action to prevent warming requires greater reliance on nuclear energy and immediate action to reduce birthrates in sub Saharan Africa. As you note, unlikely to happen, especially as long as we continue to cede the debate and solutions to the left.

        • Replies: @UncommonGround
      24. @EdwardM

        That is why it is stupid for the right to continue denying the facts. Sea levels are rising, temperatures are increasing, droughts are increasing. This should be a golden opportunity for the right to propose real solutions based around nuclear energy, controlling immigration, and investing in technological solutions where the US can lead the world. Instead the right just wants to scream about bogeyman George Soros.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        , @anon
      25. Realist says:

        If content free, repeated assertion was regarded as evidence you would have plenty of it, but it isn’t evidence and never will be.

        That is exactly what you and the other AGW assholes are doing.

        3) Human activity has significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

        Are you stating that CO2 has never been higher? If so that’s not true.
        It is more plausible that the earth is warming due to natural causes such as solar activity or celestial mechanics. This warming would cause the release of CO2 from oceans and terrestrial carbonates, which means you have the sequence wrong.

        4) Natural scientists know perfectly well that there are many factors that affect the earth’s climate, so thanks very much to all the idiots who feel they have to mention it over and over again as if it was a fucking revelation.

        Yet you and the other dumbass AGWers choose to ignore it.

        Its almost certainly too late now anyway.

        Then shut the fuck up.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      26. Realist says:

        And CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Global warming (as the planet recovers from the Little Ice Age, one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene) causes CO2 to rise.

        The oceans contain more than 50X more CO2 than the atmosphere. As they warm, they emit CO2, just like a warming Coke does. This is straightforward physics: as the oceans warm, partial pressure causes CO2s to outgas (Henry’s Law).

        On time scales from months, to hundreds of millennia, thousands of observations confirm that changes in CO2 always FOLLOW changes in global temperature. Since cause must precede effect, rising temperatures are the cause, and subsequent rising CO2 is the effect of global warming.

        Absolutely correct. I posted a similar response to MarkU before I read your comment.

        • Replies: @anon
      27. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
        @Peter Akuleyev

        We already had two huge disasters with Chernobyl and Fukushima and countless smaller ones. Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe until we can build plants that won’t irreversibly contaminate environment if blown up. Until then, it’s only a matter of time before another mistake, flood, tsunami, earthquake, meteor or war turns a disaster into a catastrophe.

        Just try to imagine a limited nuclear war with and without nuclear plants in the affected areas.

        • Replies: @A123
      28. A123 says:

        Reclaiming a dead zone with little plant life to forest would permanently capture some carbon. But, less than you may think. Also remember that all plants have a life cycle:
        — What happens when the tree dies and decays? CO2 released.
        — What happens if there is a forest fire? A large and sudden CO2 release.
        Trees are only a temporary carbon repository.

        That being said, there are many ‘local-centric’ desirable reasons to establish local flora that can thrive with only natural rain. Especially flowering plants that can support bee populations.


        • Replies: @Anonymous
      29. JVC says:

        It’s sort of stupid to argue about climate change–it always is. Now, while the warmists push for their globalist one size fits all world government (look how well the EU is working out) all indicators are lining up for a period of global cooling once again. Since the end of the little ice age, the shift from warming to cooling has been pretty regular on a (+/-) 30 year cycle. Augmenting this coming cooling is one of the deepest solar minimums in a real long time. Best hope we do not go back into a little ice age scenario (although that would help decrease population) , or even some of the deeper cold snaps that have happened during the Holocene.

        As for Peter’s comment about us half senile old men–guilty as charged, I was getting my geology degree back before plate tectonics was even a settled issue, and have lived through several of these cycles. I remember well the nonsense of the late 70’s as pointed out above. You young whippersnappers have a lot yet to learn about life–but don’t worry, if you are lucky to live long enough you too might get over yourselves.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
        , @anon
      30. @Peter Akuleyev

        I’m no expert, but it seems that the nuclear industry is a dead industry, that’s why there is no effective lobby for it. Nobody has solved the problem with nuclear waste. It’s also very expensive, uran is a limited resource, it may not function well in summer, especially if temperatures get even hotter than now.

        Population growth in Africa may be a problem, an environemntal, a social and a political problem, but from the standpoint of climate change it’s not the biggest concern. The CO2 emissions of the US army is probably much higher than the emissions of hundreds of millions of Africans. The problem of global warming exists now because of our life styles and not in the future because of population growth in Africa (even if this may add something to the problem, but I think we cannot speak about that very much if we ourselves are not able to reduce drastically our CO2 emissions, nucelar energy will definitively play no role in that).

      31. @Tom Verso

        Richard Lindzen: Wikipedia says the following:

        “The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus. Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.” The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.”

        Skeptical Science has a page about him with a huge list of his mistakes: “Climate Misinformation by Source: Richard Lindzen”

        Judith Curry: A web site says the following about her:

        “Judith Curry resigned from her position at Georgia Tech on January 1, 2017, citing the “craziness” of climate science, and plans to focus on her private business.”

        Another web site (sourcewatch. org) says that about her: “Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts’ denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn’t even read it in the first place…” They still say: “Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry.”


        Who is Steve McIntyre who has the blog where Judith Curry wrote according to sourcewatch? “”I’ve spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals,” he said in 2009.[1] He is a “strategic advisor” to CGX Energy, which describes its “principal business activity” as “petroleum and natural gas exploration””

        Tony Heller: Someone says the following about him (his real name is Steve Goddard), this is the nicest thing that I found about him: “Steve Goddard, or as I like to call him, Dorothy (because Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz is his avatar, and I think he might live in Oz) is one of those science deniers who now and then produces a graphic that shows that global warming isn’t real. He is increasingly being ignored by even the ingenuous, but his latest attempt to deny reality has been slapped down so effectively by scientist and blogger Tamino that thought you should see it.

        Anthony Watts is a meteorologist and has had no success with his attempts to challenge scientific consensus. Wikipedia has a section about his “Connection with Heartland Institute. About this institute, Wikipedia says the following: “Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.” And further: “The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies…” For more details about him see Wikipedia:


        Roy Spencer: Wikipedia says the following about him: “Spencer is a signatory to “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which states that “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. (….) In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.” Sourcewatch also has a page about him: “Climate Misinformation by Source: Roy Spencer”


        (I deleted the numbers with references from articles in Wikipedia), for more details, please go to the sources of my quotations.

        • Replies: @anon
      32. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:

        No one asked you, hasbara moron. You’re too dumb to post here.

      33. A123 says:

        Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe until we can build plants that won’t irreversibly contaminate environment if blown up.

        The current U235, water cooled reactors are very difficult to make safe.

        However, there are inherently safe options such as LFTR that are also hard to use for weapons grade material.


        The “Cold War” forced some poor choices, but it is not to late to make new ones.


      34. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        Wrong, shit-for-brains. It’s basic science from EXXON.

        1982 Memo to Exxon Management about CO2 Greenhouse Effect

        • Replies: @Realist
        , @Saxon
      35. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > they never talk about weather modification

        They do. But you never pay attention. When are you going to start?

      36. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > One only needs to look into the geologic history of the earth to see that CO2 has been many times higher

        True. What does that prove? That you’re a cold blooded reptile that can live in a hothouse climate that would kill humans?

        > CO2 levels and temperature really have very little to do with each other.


        > Just since the last glacial retreat, there have been warmer climates


        Your agenda is lying.

        • Replies: @Realist
      37. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > CO2 doesn’t cause global warming

        Wrong. We’ve known CO2 causes global warming for two centuries. Where have you been?

        The History of Climate Science

        > As they warm, they emit CO2

        True, partially, but you omit the fact that as CO2 levels rise they also ABSORB more carbon as carbonic acid, leading to acidification of the oceans. Don’t lie by omission, ok?

        > CO2 always FOLLOWS ∆temperature

        Another lie. Discussed here:

        “In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.”

        > someone is lyin’

        That would be you.

        • Replies: @Realist
      38. Realist says:

        Wrong, shit-for-brains. It’s basic science from EXXON.

        In spite of your ad hominem attack, you are the shit for brains and obviously know nothing about science. Your chart does nothing to prove AGW and the chart doesn’t claim to.

        It is more plausible that the earth is warming due to natural causes such as solar activity or celestial mechanics. This warming would cause the release of CO2 from oceans which means you have the sequence wrong. Warming came first which caused an increase in CO2. You are a perfect example of no nothing shitlibs.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
        , @anon
      39. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > Remember how it used to be Global Cooling?

        No. Not much from scientists; that was a popular media thing. You didn’t read that in scientific journals, you TV-addled moron.

        > Double whoopsie it is Climate Change

        Another lie from you. In actuality, Climate Change is the first term used by scientists to describe global warming.

        The argument “they changed the name” suggests that the term ‘global warming’ was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term ‘climate change’ is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass’ 1956 study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’. The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the ‘CC’ is ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term ‘climate change’ many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

        Global warming vs climate change

        You climate science deniers just lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

        • Replies: @A123
      40. Realist says:

        > One only needs to look into the geologic history of the earth to see that CO2 has been many times higher

        True. What does that prove? That you’re a cold blooded reptile that can live in a hothouse climate that would kill humans?

        Well dumbass it proves that CO2 levels can rise without human causation.
        Therefore there is no proof of AGW.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      41. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > never proposed mass planting of trees

        Don’t read much, do you? Such proposals are easily found, e.g.:

        How to erase 100 years of carbon emissions? Plant trees—lots of them.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      42. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        The fact is that the planet’s temperatures have been rising and falling since the dawn of time, sometimes dramatically.

        True, but humans weren’t alive when cold-blooded reptiles thrived in a hothouse environment, nor when ice covered the globe.

      43. Realist says:

        True, partially, but you omit the fact that as CO2 levels rise they also ABSORB more carbon as , leading to acidification of the oceans. Don’t lie by omission, ok?

        Your stupidity knows no bounds. Carbonic acid is CO2 dissolved in H2O. When the water with dissolved carbon dioxide is heated it releases the carbon dioxide. How can you be so goddamn stupid…do you practice???

        • Replies: @anon
      44. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
        @Bill Jones

        And Stalin means Steel, which, by your guilty-by-association “logic,” means anybody who uses steel is a Soviet-style communist. Science can be used as an excuse for all sorts of agendas, many bad. Such bad agendas do not negate scientific fact.

      45. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        And the oceans are becoming more acidic, in spite of your idiotic claim to the contrary. Now shit or get off the pot: is CO2 rising or falling in the ocean? Answer the question. (Hint: you’re lie by omission about pop fizzing assumes something that isn’t true.)

        This graph shows rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, rising CO2 levels in the ocean, and decreasing pH in the water off the coast of Hawaii. (NOAA PMEL Carbon Program)

        • Replies: @Realist
      46. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        You’re the master of non-sequiturs. Do natural fires disprove any evidence of arson, hmmm? That’s your shyster-lawyer “logic” that wouldn’t work with any jury. And there is abundant scientific evidence of AGW, one piece of evidence being the isotopic signature of carbon, graphed here:

        Source: Climate Myth – CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

        • Replies: @Realist
      47. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        Realist: “shitlib” [comment #1, first word]
        Me, in reply, knowing he’ll get triggered: “shit-for-brains”
        “Crybaby” Realist: “In spite of your ad hominem attack”
        Me: WAAAAHHH!!! You missed a lesson early in life that your mother should have taught you: if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. 🙂

        > Warming came first

        Liar. This graph from doi:10.1038/nature10915 proves you’re lying:

        Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots).

        Source: Climate Myth – CO2 lags temperature

        • Replies: @Realist
      48. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:

        You obviously didn’t understand the point. I wasn’t claiming that I just invented photosynthesis and became the first person in the world to figure out this approach. The point is that the globalist elite behind the man-made global warming hysteria ignored this perfectly natural “solution” for many, many decades because they want the CO2 market instead. As you can see, this could have been “fixed” ages ago.

        That’s how you know that the problem doesn’t exist. The “problem” was invented because the “solution” they want would give them global dominance over everyone’s energy, industry and development. This is how they work. They decide on an agenda and then sell that agenda as a solution to an invented or manufactured problem.

        • Replies: @anon
      49. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > the problem doesn’t exist.

        Sorry, your conspiracy hypotheses do not automatically negate science. Scientific fact stands, in spite of you trying to huff and puff and blow it down with unscientific rhetoric. At least address the science. And in doing so, you would do well to filter out the myths, listed here:

        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

        Great resource for you, if you want to look at the science. Use it.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      50. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > earth is warming due to natural causes such as solar activity

        Wrong again! Earth is warming while solar radiance is cooling, as this graph demonstrates:

        Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

      51. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > celestial mechanics

        Glad you mentioned that! Wow, we might be getting somewhere now! Maybe you can answer one or two of the questions posed here:

        These questions are still not resolved (for a flavor of the discussion, see Huybers, 2009…see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et al 2009; Denton et al 2010 ).

        Milankovitch Cycles

        Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

        • Replies: @Realist
      52. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:

        You’re avoiding the question. It’s not on that list so you’ll have to use your brain this time instead of just pasting the contents of your “Global Warming” folder – which looks like it’s sourced from a single website.

        • Replies: @anon
      53. Realist says:

        You are just writing platitudes you saw from some other dumbass…but getting it wrong.

        • Replies: @anon
      54. Realist says:

        Realist: “shitlib” [comment #1, first word]

        My shitlib comment was not originally directed toward you or any individual…but it sure is now.

        Hey dumbass if you think increased atmospheric CO2 caused global temperatures to rise in the past, what was the cause of increased CO2???

        • Replies: @anon
      55. Realist says:

        As always you’re full of crap. Your supposition and graph does not prove AGW.

        • Replies: @anon
      56. Realist says:

        And the oceans are becoming more acidic, in spite of your idiotic claim to the contrary.

        I never said the oceans were not getting more acidic. I know you don’t know this, but there a number of acids beside carbonic acid that can raise the ocean acidity.

        • Replies: @anon
      57. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        Tony Heller (aka, Steve Goddard) is who Matt Drudge often links to. His claim to fame is that the 1930s were the hottest decade ever. Tony ignores that we’re not talking about American warming, we’re talking about global warming. Tony’s most common schtick is addressed here:

        1934 is the hottest year on record

        Tony’s second most famous schtick, highlighted by drudge, is mocking global warming science when a polar vortex hits. The increased intensity of cold periods caused by the polar vortexes are actually caused by global warming making it more wavey, as illustrated by NASA here: https://www.noaa.gov/multimedia/infographic/science-behind-polar-vortex

        What Tony and his mockers ignore is that while the wavey-gravy polar vortex has Chicago freezing, the arctic is roasting. Scientists have started calling this phenomenon “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” in their journals. Here’s an example of a wavy polar vortex making the midwest freeze while the arctic roasts from earlier this year:

      58. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        Which question did you ask? I didn’t see one. Are you familiar with the use of question marks when asking questions? They come in handy! See how I do it?

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      59. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        Oh, ok. Are you sure you’re not projecting?

      60. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:

        Why wasn’t this “problem” solved decades ago? We obviously had this perfectly natural, cheap, easy and effective “solution” all along. The study linked from your own linked article states:

        The restoration of forested land at a global scale could help capture atmospheric carbon and mitigate climate change. Bastin et al. used direct measurements of forest cover to generate a model of forest restoration potential across the globe (see the Perspective by Chazdon and Brancalion). Their spatially explicit maps show how much additional tree cover could exist outside of existing forests and agricultural and urban land. Ecosystems could support an additional 0.9 billion hectares of continuous forest. This would represent a greater than 25% increase in forested area, including more than 500 billion trees and more than 200 gigatonnes of additional carbon at maturity. Such a change has the potential to cut the atmospheric carbon pool by about 25%.

        Isn’t it curious that the globalist bigshots behind this hysteria insist on creating, and controlling, the global CO2 market instead of simply planting forests?

        • Replies: @anon
      61. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > Why wasn’t this “problem” solved decades ago?

        Keep reading, sparky.

        We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change

        But, first admit that you were totally wrong that such proposals had never been proposed before.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      62. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:

        Keep reading, sparky

        LOL! Did you read it? Something tells me that you just googled the title before posting the link. Your posts are very, very light on actual reasoning. Why don’t you summarise the arguments in your own words?

        As it turns out, that title is completely misrepresenting the text underneath. This is a huge red flag since it suggests that the writer is pushing false narratives. Bottom line is that the initiative would work. The objections are ranging from very weak to absolutely ridiculous (it needs planning, money, willingness, suitable trees, proper locations etc. etc.). This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. The world is – apparently – on the brink of irreversible catastrophe but we can’t implement this obvious solution because it’s too complicated… or something. Amazing.

        This is my favourite:

        “Other experts have also raised concerns that the hype around Bastin’s study is creating misconceptions about the problem and primary solution, which could be problematic in the long-run. They fear a focus on tree planting could distract policy-makers from acting on other efforts to reduce carbon emissions and stop climate change.”

        Do you know what this is? It’s an admission that they don’t want to fix the “problem” – they want the market. Exactly what I keep pointing out to you.

        But, first admit that you were totally wrong that such proposals had never been proposed before.

        Haha, you sound like a 9-year-old. I wasn’t wrong. It looks like you missed the text underneath the picture. Look it up (post #15):

        “So, how come they’re insisting on a “solution” that would give them total, supranational control over everyone’s energy usage, industry and development?”

        I was obviously talking about the bigwigs in charge of the scam and not some random environmentalist. The bigwigs really dislike this solution – as you can see from their decades-long inactivity and actual resistance when the solution was finally proposed by someone else.

        You can see that, right?

        • Replies: @anon
      63. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        You claimed decreased CO2 concentration in the oceans. You’re utterly wrong. Increased CO2 concentration in the oceans has been observed, and easily proven with nothing more than simple scientific equipment. Avail yourself of this illustration to learn the chemistry of it:

        Source: PMEL/NOAA https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/carbon+chemistry++

      64. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        I can see you’re a clown who thinks you can disprove hard science via hare-brained conspiracy theory. It’s not working. The science remains.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      65. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        Your lame denials of science do not disprove the scientific evidence of AGW. Meanwhile, the earth gets warmer and warmer and warmer, and we’re recording record temperatures, such a record warm June 2019.

        Source: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4)

      66. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        You shilling for EXXON again? The fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. The paper calculating that figure is here, from the IMF:

      67. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
        @mark green

        > has produced no lasting environmental harm.

        Wrong, but a very common denialist myth, addressed here:

        Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

        Positives and negatives of global warming

        > Interestingly, the big ‘global cooling’ scare of the 1970s

        Your memory is pretty selective, and based on watching sensational TV programs, and then flat-out lying that the sensationalist TV programs reflected scientific journals.

        The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

        Climate Myth: Ice age predicted in the 70s

      68. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > climate alarmist nonsense

        If climate science is nonsense, then what is your explanation for what is melting the global ice caps on a global scale? I’ve asked this question many time on unz, and you moronic deniers never bother to answer what melts ice, as if you are confused by third grade science.

        Graph source: Zach Labe https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-figures/

        Can you admit what melts ice on a global scale?

        • Replies: @restless94110
      69. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
        @Low Voltage

        Even the climate deniers are totally embarrassed by the silly lies Tony Heller tells. The climate science denier Anthony Watts fired Tony from writing for his website, because he sounds so absolutely stupid.

        Matt Drudge keeps Tony’s website going during the winter when the polar vortex gets really wavy from global warming and creates the “warm arctic/cold continents” phenomenon that is becoming more and more frequent with global warming. Conservatives, most being nearly as dumb as niggers, crow how cold it is in Wash. D.C. for the global warming conference—haw, haw, haw!—without considering how unnaturally warm it is in the Arctic.

      70. A123 says:

        You can spot science deniers when they offer unworkable, anti-science solutions to their fictitious *Global Warming Crisis*. Some of the most prominent anti-science “solutions”:

        — Toxic solar death cells that poison landfills and the planet.
        — Endangered bird elimination spinners (a.k.a. wind power).
        — Randomly transferring cash from U.S. Taxpayers to 3rd World nations to “stop” certain behaviors.
        — Crippling the U.S. Economy with Carbon Taxes, while allowing India and China to ramp up CO2 emissions without controls.

        Absolutely everyone with minimal scientific knowledge understands that these options cannot succeed.

        If you *really* believe in man made global warming….. What solution are you proposing?

        When the “enviromentalist” community offers up a plan that could succeed, I would be much more open to hearing their case. As long the “solution” cripples the U.S. Economy and is guaranteed to fail, we know the anti-science alarmists are not serious about the issue.


        • Replies: @anon
      71. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        You’re like a smoker who is sure the doctor is in on some conspiracy theory, because the doctor says you have to quit smoking or suffer emphysema. Oh sure, the doctor found the perfect boogeyman, muh Marlboros! You’re another moron who thinks that a poorly contrived conspiracy theory can overturn hard science.

        Anyway, can you tell us what it is that is melting ice on a global scale? Did you manage to pass second grade science?

        P.S. You may want to get to Glacier National Park before all the ice is gone; they’ve already lost 120 glaciers in the park. Gone. Goodbye. Hmmm, what’s doing that?

      72. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > 1.3 degrees per century… since the ice age

        LOL!!! If it had warmed 1.3°C per century since the last ice age 10,000 years ago, the oceans would be boiled off by now, you silly moron. (1.3°C x 100 = 130°C warmer) Or did you mean °F? That still puts the temperature WAY above where my gas-fired water heater is set! LOL!!!

        P.S. the satellite data confirms global warming at rates well above the past.

        Source: EPA Climate Change Indicators

      73. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > fictitious *Global Warming

        First, you must admit that global warming is not fictitious. Do you understand what a thermometer is? Ever use one?

        Source: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

        > What solution are you proposing?

        None. Zilch. Nada. There is no solution, once you understand Jevon’s Paradox. Conservation accelerates resource consumption. Runaway global warming is unstoppable. Read Tim Garrett. His article remained unpublished for years because it is so disturbing to those who think anything can be effectively done to stop global warming. Garrett did finally get published, and his article demonstrates that humanity in an inescapable “double bind.”

        …the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption – known as Jevons paradox…

        Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

        Furthermore, because of aerosols from industry blocking heat from the sun, known as global dimming, if we humans did completely stop industrial civilization, the earth would immediately heat up approx. 2.5°C. So industrial civilization is causing global warming, but paradoxically, stopping industrial civilization would greatly accelerate global warming. This paradox is labeled by some as “McPherson’s Paradox.” Before you embarrass yourself trying to refute McPherson’s Paradox, please read the science behind it.

        “…the degree to which aerosols cool the earth has been grossly underestimated…”

        We need to rethink everything we know about global warming: New calculations show scientists have grossly underestimated the effects of air pollution

        • Replies: @A123
      74. @anon

        If climate science is nonsense, then what is your explanation for what is melting the global ice caps on a global scale? I’ve asked this question many time on unz, and you moronic deniers never bother to answer what melts ice, as if you are confused by third grade science.

        The explanation is……the ice caps aren’t melting neither are sea levels rising.

        You can get further details on this by going to https://notrickszone.com

        I would be happy to talk about this further with you, but only under the following conditions.

        1. You must go to https://notrickszone.com and read a MINIMUM of 20 articles. You must read the articles in full. Write them down or otherwise collect the names of each article and its hyperlink.

        2. In your reply to me, list the 20 or more articles you have read.

        Only then will you have any reply that would be of any interest to me.

        The data is in. Climate alarmists have lost the argument. They have been exposed as members of a cult a type of religion with its tired dogma. Cure thyself. Read the articles in https://notrickszone.com. Follow the links in each article. Look at the comments.

        Then and only then come back here and reply to me, if you still have anything to say..

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
        , @anon
      75. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > the ice caps aren’t melting

        That’s a flat out lie. Not only are they melting, the ice mass loss is accelerating.

        Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009.

        > neither are sea levels rising.

        Another flat out lie. Not only are sea levels rising, the rise is accelerating.

        Chart source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

        > The data is in.

        True, and you’re flat out lying about it. When you can stop your lying? Then and only then come back here and reply to me. Got it, boy?

        • Replies: @restless94110
      76. @Anonymous

        That graphic is actually incorrect. It says chlorophyll absorbs green wavelengths making it green. Colors don’t work like that.

        It absorbs red and blue light wavelengths making it green.

        Other than that it is correct though and I would agree with you.

        • Agree: Realist
        • Replies: @anon
      77. A123 says:

        Source: NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

        The NASA GISS data set is highly suspicious. It presents “adjusted” values and the raw data is not disclosed. Without any way to evaluate the secret “adjustments” the data has no meaningful scientific value.


        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      78. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:

        Wrong, the NASA GISS data isn’t highly suspicious. It’s been checked multiple times, and coincides with other data sets, including satellite data.

        > It presents “adjusted” values

        True. And you haven’t the slightest clue why it is necessary.

        Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the unadjusted data?

        A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps are eliminated; those may be introduced by station moves or equipment updates or by combining reports from different sources into a single series. In the adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with documented and undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website. Uncertainty arising from the statistical method used to remove artificial changes is accounted for in the confidence interval on the global mean.


        > no meaningful scientific value.

        The adjustments actually “reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data.” The adjustments are IN YOUR FAVOR!

        Source: No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine

        So go with the raw data! LOL Anyway, your lies have no more scientific value than a flat earther’s.

      79. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:

        > the raw data is not disclosed.

        Liar. It’s an open data set. Pick any station here, and the raw data is there: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/

        For example:

        There’s the unadjusted, raw data, plain as day! Going to apologize for your blatant lie that is so easily disproved? No, you’ll just keep lying, or perhaps slink off to lie another day.

      80. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:
        @Lars Porsena

        > Other than that it is correct though and I would agree with you.

        Translation: Other than getting the basic science wrong, the conspiracy theory based on the bad science is great! LOL! The virtue signaling is a hoot around here.

        • Replies: @Lars Porsena
      81. @anon

        Where are the 20 articles, you loon?

        What’s wrong with you? Why reply if you just want to spout more of your bullshit?

        Are you Michael Hudson’s roommate?

        Do what was requested or shut up.

        • Replies: @anon
      82. Has there been a study done yet on whether the climate change adherents are the same people who insist we should continue an open borders policy of rewarding third world immigrants with first world carbon footprints?

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        , @anon
      83. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
        @Farmer Bob

        Good point and yes – yes trey are.

        • Replies: @anon
      84. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

        For a fellow who can’t figure out what melts ice, you sure are as bossy as a cat lady.

        Photos from NASA Global Ice Viewer

        Let us know when you figure out what melts ice on a global scale, ok?

        • Replies: @restless94110
      85. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
        @Farmer Bob

        Serving red herring today?

      86. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

        Has there been a study done yet on whether the climate science deniers are the same people who insisted that cigarette smoking was safe?

        In fact, some of the same individuals who have spoken out against climate science also claimed that cigarettes were safe.

        Who are the Deniers?

      87. @anon

        Dear anonaloonie:

        See my reply. Follow the instructions

        No point in reading anything you post until you do that.

        Don’t be scared. Learning new things is nothing to be scared of.

        You’re just not serious if you can’t.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      88. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

        You’re still having difficulty with the simple query about what it is that melts ice on a global scale.

        Do you need a hint, or can you manage a first-grade science question on your own?

      89. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
        @Tom Verso

        > devoid of climate data or citing authoritative text

        Hmmm, well, here’s the very latest climate data that I’m citing from an authoritative text, showing July 2019 as the hottest month ever recorded in human history.

        Source: Another exceptional month for global average temperatures
        Copernicus Climate Change Service | ECMWF | 5th August 2019

        Do I get a thank you for filling that void in your life?

      90. @anon

        I know better than to argue with you because most people’s views on this are basically religious, despite none of them admitting it.

        It would be like arguing whether Mohammed was a prophet of God with a Muslim. You’re not going to get anywhere except maybe into a fight.

        If you want to know anyway:

        That graphic did not get the basic science of carbon sequestration wrong, which is what it was attempting to show. It got the color of light wrong.

        All the models have been falsified. All the science has been politicized. There are billions of dollars in grants on the table and this has become a quasi-religious moral issue over which there is plenty of signaling.

        They falsify history, ignore the medieval warm period and the little ice age, and that’s just in the modern interglacial without considering the ice age or the cretaceous.

        They ignore non-atmospheric input like cosmic radiation increasing cloud cover, and the freakin sun, which they insist is static when it observably isn’t.

        And they ignore natural carbon sources like volcanoes make the entire human contribution look like a drop in the sea.

        They lose all their data sets or they refuse to publicize them.

        And they propagandize us constantly throughout the pop culture, with people running commercials, and movies made by Al freaking Gore, and all the giant mega-polluting mega-corps turn it into hypocritical marketing and make billions too.

        They always come up with the exact same result no matter how many times they have to revise their data or their models because they’ve been shown to be wrong, but the outcome never changes. It’s always a hockey stick.

        It’s a hockey stick. That should tell you something.

        They act like they think the environment is supposed to be static and eternal.

        They and everyone else ignore that climate scientists have been alarmed by theories that earth is cooling or alternately warming ever since the thermometer was invented and allowed detailed comparative record keeping, which was relatively recently but well over a century ago.

        They are making predictions as far out from now that it has been since they first began studying the climate and keeping quasi-accurate records. They basically reject all previous measurements except 1 set of tree rings they won’t reproduce and use to reject the entire historical record of the medieval warm age and the little ice age.

        Chaos theory literally shows us that you cannot predict what they claim to be predicting. Their own models also show they can’t predict anything.

        Read up on chaos theory.

        Their argument that chaos theory doesn’t apply here, is that climate is much simpler than weather, even though climate is just global averaged weather, and long term predictions are easier to make than short term predictions.

        Those are the arguments of complete charlatans. Long term predictions are easier to make because everyone who remembers them is dead by then and no one cares if they were accurate. Chaos theory shows why long term predictions always get exponentially harder to make than short term predictions.

        Meanwhile even saying what the exact and accurate average temperature of the whole world is right now is no simple certain task at all and has plenty of room for argument.

        And they can’t get any of the short term predictions right predictively. They keep going back and adjusting, but no matter how many adjustments are made the long term prediction never changes. And the short term prediction is never right.

        It will never change either, until it does change, and when that eventually happens it will change to global cooling again.

        Just FYI. It’s not worth bickering about.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        , @anon
        , @anon
      91. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
        @Lars Porsena

        Great post.

        • Replies: @anon
      92. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
        @Lars Porsena

        You can out Gish-Gallop Duane Gish himself! Damn! I’ll address just a small sampling of your screed of lie after lie after lie.

        > All the models have been falsified

        Liar. Even the very early ones, such as this 1981 example from Hansen, still quite accurate.

        Source: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?

        > They lose all their data sets or they refuse to publicize them.

        Another lie that I already covered in comment #78. Re-parroting lies do not make them true. Good grief, go look at the data yourself!

        > the freakin sun… they insist is static

        You’re a freaking liar, it’s been well-considered and documented. Solar radiance is down (not static, dumbass), temperature is up.

        Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

        > chaos theory


        The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.

        Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?

        > it will change to global cooling again

        You’re a moronic liar who confuses sensationalist TV programs from the 1970’s with science journals. This article explains your conveniently poor memory:

        “The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.”

        What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

        Are you all Gish-Galloped out now? Or are we gonna rodeo again? I like ropin’ liars. Yeehaw!

      93. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
        @Lars Porsena

        > There are billions of dollars

        No shit, sherlock.

        “The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires”

        Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement: Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement

        And you fell for their shtick, just like so many people fell for the cigarette companies bullshit that smoking didn’t cause cancer.

      94. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

        If only to highlight the fact that billionaire climate denier propaganda is quite similar tobacco executives’ propaganda, since they use the same PR company. Really! Read about it here…

        Big Tobacco spent $100,000 setting up the Restoring Integrity to Science Coalition “to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of ‘junk science’.”

        How tobacco shills inspired climate denial

        Same shit, different assholes.

      95. The global warming crusade experienced a bit of a setback around the beginning of this decade when the hacked e-mails of the East Anglia Institute revealed that there is an enormously powerful “scientific” and media establishment that deliberately falsifies and distorts data and suppresses dissent from the global warming mantras.

        Also around that time came a report by NASA scientists ( but, I believe, not issued *by* NASA) that showed heat is dissipated into space sooner, and at a more rapid rate, than the global warmists’ climate models predicted, thus accounting for their failures as predictors up to that point.

        And then there was a report of a CERN experiment which indeed confirmed the fact that cosmic radiation contributes to cloud formation; and the scientists conducting the experiment labored mightily for years to be allowed to conduct the experiment but were prohibited to *interpret* their results publicly. Recently, there are reports that Japanese and Finnish scientists have also confirmed this.

        • Replies: @anon
      96. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

        > climate change–it always is

        That’s the #1 most used Climate Liar argument. It’s amazing how the Big Tobacco/Big Oil PR firms have got you dumb-as-niggers conservitards parroting deep oil state bullshit so easily.

        > all indicators are lining up for a period of global cooling once again.

        Liar. Global Warming is accelerating. A very slightly lower rate of solar irradiance from the solar minimum is barely putting a dent in that acceleration, as this graph shows:

        You aren’t competent to do third grade science, moron, and your rockhound degree is as useless to your understanding of climate science as an SJW degree from a women’s college.

        > have lived through several of these cycles

        Yeah, you’re the dumb-as-a-nigger conservitard who believed the anti-science tirades and “free-market” shilling of Big Tobacco too. It’s not surprising to find out today’s Deep Oil State pockets use the same PR firm as Big Tobacco did.

        > I remember well the nonsense of the late 70’s

        Yeah, you were mezmerized by sensationalist TV about heading into a new ice age like the fat’n’stupid bump-on-a-log that you are, and did not read scientific journals, the vast majority of which were predicting global warming, even in the late 70’s.

        What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

      97. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

        > Are you stating that CO2 has never been higher? If so that’s not true.

        Lying again, are you, you lying sack of shit Deep Oil State shill? CO2 has never been higher millions of years. Here’s the CO2 record for the last 800,000 years.

        When are you going to stop lying, liar?

      98. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:
        @Fidelios Automata

        > the blizzards of propaganda from both sides

        Today’s climate debate is like yesterday’s Big Tobacco vs Science debate; your fatal error is mistaking science for propaganda.

      99. anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

        Your stupid denialist website—likely funded by the same PR firms that Big Tobacco used a few years ago—is the equivalent of how science was misconstrued in this Big Tobacco propaganda:

        We’re onto your shtick.

        Fracking Industry Learns From Big Tobacco

      100. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

        The “photosynthesis” solution is hard science. They (used to) teach this in primary school. Half a trillion trees would drop the CO2 levels to what we had a century ago. Maybe you should read your own links.

        This fact is independent of any (conspiracy) talk about globalists’ motives or greenhouse effects. As a matter of fact – if we accept your own theory about those effects – global warming would be actually reversed (not just halted) even at a fraction of the proposed planting.

        None of this is even debatable – but I’m sure you’ll conveniently ‘miss the point’ and drop a random graph, label or insult.

        • Replies: @anon
      101. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
        @Farmer Bob

        > The global warming crusade experienced a bit of a setback around the beginning of this decade when the hacked e-mail

        Liar. The Independent Climate Change Email Review proves your false assertions had no more merit than the Democrat’s accusations of Russian Collusion.

        The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC’s conclusions…

        What do the ‘Climategate’ hacked CRU emails tell us?

        The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU’s results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide.

        Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

        > a report by NASA scientists

        Do tell. But all you’re doing is making up shit while you cannot find such a report. You’re a worse liar than Rachel Madcow.

        > a CERN experiment which indeed confirmed the fact that cosmic radiation

        I really think you’re going over to SkepticalScience.com, finding a climate myth, and then bringing it here, so I can go to SkepticalScience.com, put your latest bullshit in the search engine, and show how silly you are. Here we go again!

        Climate Myth: CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming

        Fact is, if cosmic rays are influencing global warming, it is opposite of what you imply.

        Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth’s reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

        What’s the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

        And I’ll remind you, that while there are a very few contrarian science studies that do get published, e.g., the Finnish/Japanese cosmic rays/clouds study, the vast majority of science studies go this way:

      102. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        > The “photosynthesis” solution is hard science.

        I never said it wasn’t. Everybody knows trees use CO2 from the atmosphere. However, your hare-brained conspiracy theories that you’ve conjured about why trees aren’t being planted that somehow disprove global warming — those aren’t hard science. You seem to have major problems with reading comprehension.

        > if we accept your own theory

        That CO2 causes global warming is not my own personal theory, its the theory of the whole body of science.

        > None of this is even debatable

        Then take your own advice and quit debating the established science of global warming.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      103. Realist says:

        Do I get a thank you for filling that void in your life?

        I’ll give you a fuck you for the void between your ears.

        • Replies: @anon
      104. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        Yours is nothing but shitlib blather. And that’s what you are is a shitlib, i.e. “Pollution is Muh Freedom!”

        The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response – is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last 40 years, against the possibility of collective action. Devastatingly successful, it is not too late to reverse it.

        The political project of neoliberalism, brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any democratic public will.

        Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals

      105. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

        As predicted, you ‘missed the point’ and frantically tried to compensate with insults, labels and random graphs. You’re waving those things in front of our faces like an Australian aboriginal would wave his primitive talismans.

        And for the same reasons, apparently. You don’t really understand what they represent but you’re hoping that the mystical power within, and your fate, will ward of the “evil”. Funny.

        I never said it wasn’t. Everybody knows trees use CO2 from the atmosphere.

        Good. So now you know that it would work and reduce our atmospheric carbon pool by a whopping 25%. That’s all. Everything else is misdirection on your part. I’ve already pointed out – in the same message you replied to – that the “conspiracy” part and the “global warming” part don’t have any influence on this fact. Cheers.

      106. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        > you ‘missed the point’

        What’s your point?

        > You’re waving those things in front of our faces like an Australian aboriginal would wave his primitive talismans…Everything else is misdirection on your part.

        You’re projecting.

        > So now you know that it would work and reduce our atmospheric carbon pool by a whopping 25%.

        Anybody can read the study, dumbass. And it takes the area “the size of the continental U.S.” Did you forget that part? Do you really think that possible?

        Last week, a new study in the journal Science highlighted the role forests could play in tackling climate change. Researchers estimated that by restoring forests to their maximum potential, we could cut down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by 25 percent — a move that would take us back to levels not seen in over a century. Though the study brings hope in the fight against climate change, other experts warn the solution is not that simple.

        The study, led by scientists at ETH-Zürich, Switzerland, determined the planet has 0.9 billion hectares of land available to hold more trees — an area the size of the continental U.S. Converting those areas into forests would be a game-changer for climate change, the authors suggested.

        We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change

        Let’s repeat that: an area the size of the continental U.S.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      107. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        > coming cooling is one of the deepest solar minimums

        You’re one of those Adapt2030 youtube-addled, flat-earth-tier fruitcakes who believe a “Dalton Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” grand solar minimum mini ice age 2015-2035 is coming and you’re going to freeze off your nuts, right? LOL! You’re sadly mistaken. Even if the sunspots shut completely down for a long period, it will hardly be a speed bump to continued global warming.

        Climate Myth: A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age
        Science Fact: Peer-reviewed research, physics, and math all tell us that a grand solar minimum would have no more than a 0.3°C cooling effect, barely enough to put a dent in human-caused global warming.

      108. @Realist

        I’m with you Realist.
        Remember the folks that ridicule anyone for questioning the BS 911 story are the same ones who promote this global warming bullshit.

        • Replies: @anon
      109. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        > the deepest solar minimums in a real long time

        Where? Here’s the record for the last 13 years. No ‘deepest solar minimum’ in sight.

        And no ‘deepest solar minimum forecasts either.

        Based on a compilation of more than 60 forecasts published by various teams using a wide range of methods, the panel reached a consensus indicating that cycle 25 will most likely peak between 2023 and 2026 at a maximum sunspot number between 95 and 130.

        Royal Observatory of Belgium

        Of course, grand solar minimum liars like you won’t apologize after you’re proven wrong, because you didn’t back in 2006-2010 when you were spouting the same bullshit at the end of cycle 23. You’ll just wait another 11 years and bang away like a chimpanzee at it again as the sun cycles.

      110. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

        Do you really think that possible?

        Of course it’s possible – and it’s been possible since all this talk about our impending doom started (34 years ago according to your own graph). You plant a tree and it starts contributing, you plant billion trees and they contribute more. The study referenced in your own link describes a solution that could start reversing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere even if it’s implemented at less than 10% of its potential. Read it carefully and note that they only considered unused land and even ignored desert areas. They also completely ignored “forest farming” (or multi-story cropping) in their proposal. Look it up.

        Look, I’m an environmentalist at heart myself. The amounts of unnatural poisons we’re injecting into our environment are staggering and completely unsustainable. That said, the CO2 scam and its market “solution” is a lie. Maybe your heart is in the right place but your approach is abrasive and your faith is misplaced.

        Final analysis:

        If we have too much CO2 in our atmosphere we can reduce it with new trees. Yes, we can plant enough trees to consistently start reducing the overall CO2 level in our atmosphere. Period.

        • Replies: @anon
      111. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        Are you some cat lady calling Trump a bullshitter?

        The Trump Administration Forecasts 7 Degrees Fahrenheit of Global Warming by 2100

        Since the Trump Administration is publicly promoting benefits of global warming, it’s clearly obvious that you’re one of those box-wine feminist wastrels who voted for Hillary.

        “Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade,” he continued. “This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days.”

        “Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st century Suez and Panama Canals,” Pompeo remarked.

        Pompeo: Melting sea ice presents ‘new opportunities for trade’

      112. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        > the CO2 scam

        What scam?

        > and its market “solution”

        You’re still committing the logical error of trying to negate scientific facts because things you don’t like about political reactions to those facts. It’s as stupid as saying nuclear physics is wrong because you don’t like politicians having nuclear bombs.

        > If we have too much CO2 in our atmosphere we can reduce it with new trees

        What’s the chances of getting that many trees planted? Zilch. Deforestation is still widespread.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      113. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

        What’s the chances of getting that many trees planted? Zilch.

        Let’s see – even at 50% of the proposed coverage, the chances – and the solution to your masters’ projected imminent catastrophe – are as close to 100% as you can get.

        L O L !

        • Replies: @anon
      114. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        50% is as close to 100%? What the hell are you even saying? Lay off the alcohol and stop typing drunk, you cackling fool.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      115. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

        50% is as close to 100%?

        Not exactly… but 50% of A can affect B at close to 100%. Is this confusing to you?

        This is hilarious. I must be communicating with a badly programmed bot.

      116. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        Still drunk, huh?

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      117. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

        Haha, let’s see:

        – My plan is to make a single adult portion of omelette.

        – A full portion requires 4 eggs.

        – I have 8 in the basket.

        – I can use only half of my eggs (50%) to completely reach the target (100%).

        Does this happen to you often? Next time when you get confused and everyone starts coming across as “drunk”, try reading slowly or take a break.

        • Replies: @anon
      118. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        While eggs will help you recover from your hangover, this isn’t the food channel. Do you know anything about global warming?

      119. Saxon says:

        The world was warmer 1000 years ago, before any industrial society or fossil fuels burning or any of that. Northern Europeans could live an agricultural lifestyle on Greenland, and did, until it got too cold. It’s still too cold, by the way.

        Some glacier in the US was supposed to melt by 2020, and they had to take down the sign claiming this with less than 6 months left until the due date, because it actually grew.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
        , @anon
      120. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        > The world was warmer 1000 years ago…agricultural lifestyle on Greenland

        Wrong. The land was as green as that “great opportunity” for sale on zillow needs just a wee bit of “TLC.”

        So how did Greenland get its name? According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. However, the age of the ice sheet, which is more than 3 kilometres thick in places and covers 80% of Greenland, proves that the opportunities to establish communities would have been limited to rather small areas.

        Climate myth: Greenland used to be green

        > Some glacier

        Oh sure, “some glacier.” LOL Go on, name it! Let’s see the evidence! Meanwhile, in real life…

        Climate myth: Glaciers are growing

        • Replies: @Saxon
      121. I’m partial to the tree solution, because if the climate warms, the trees will provide shade, but if it cools, we can burn them.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @Anonymous
      122. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
        @Farmer Bob

        Unfortunately, in real life, as the climate warms, the trees are burning.

        The fires, which have been burning for several weeks, have spread across almost 3 million hectares of land, the Federal Forestry Agency has said.

        That’s an area almost the size of Belgium.

        Russia’s army called in as Siberia wildfires engulf area nearly as big as Belgium

        Arctic Fires Fill the Skies with Soot

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      123. Anonymous[496] • Disclaimer says:
        @Farmer Bob

        The tree solution – even if implemented at a fraction of its potential – would actually decrease the CO2 levels in our atmosphere. The globalists behind the scam can’t have that because it would “solve” all their global warming projections even if we take them at face value. Everything rests on those levels in their own models.

        Also, isn’t it amazing that in all these decades they couldn’t even (try to) make a deal with Brazil’s logging industry while their proposed “solution” requires an iron-grip control over the planet’s industry? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

        • Replies: @anon
      124. Anonymous[496] • Disclaimer says:

        So, the human race in the 21st century can’t plant trees faster than they’re burning? Well, I guess we should just lie down and die – or create a market to make them stop burning.

        LOL. You’re such a clown.

        • Replies: @anon
      125. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        Are you taking a break to type online while you’re planting trees? What, you’re not actually planting trees? You never even started? What happened, smoke inhalation got the best of you? Or is it just too damned hot to plant trees?

        During the last 67 years, Anchorage saw a total of 17 days with a temperature of 81°F or above. This year, 81 was the average temperature for a 12-day stretch in late June and early July…

        Alaska Chokes on Wildfires as Heat Waves Dry Out the Arctic
        Fires are spreading farther north, burning more intensely and starting earlier, in line with what scientists have warned would happen with climate change.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      126. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

        > Makes you think, doesn’t it?

        Haven’t yet observed any thinking from you. Your retarded attempts to overturn two centuries of hard science with your half-baked nonsense doesn’t measure up to the standard of rational thought.

      127. Anonymous[496] • Disclaimer says:

        Of course I didn’t start planting trees. My sky is not falling. The whole point is that your handlers didn’t start planting trees. Sheesh, did you lose the plot, again?

        I think we’re done here. I’m not into molesting the disabled and every onlooker with two brain cells to rub together already knows the score. Bye.

        • Replies: @anon
      128. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:

        I have no handlers. You lie, and then double down on your lies. Unfortunately, your lies don’t work.

        > I think we’re done here.

        You can be done lying whenever you stop lying.

        > I’m not into molesting

        And there you go psychologically projecting again!

        > Bye.

        Prison guards sending you back to your padded cell?

        Yet the globe still warms, and because of CO2.

        Source: Empirical Evidence for Global Warming

      129. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:

        Hey, Saxon, I found your glacier and the sign you mentioned. It’s called Okjökull. Unfortunately, the news is exactly opposite of what you said. The glacier disappeared, and the folks in Iceland put up a sign memorializing the loss of their glacier. I think your memory is faulty; might want to check with your doctor about a tune-up. And if you were deliberately lying to me, you’ve got Svevlad’s “feet first” technological fix coming due, understand? Getting kind of serious, ain’t it?

        Scientists memorialize the first glacier lost to climate change in Iceland

        • Replies: @Saxon
      130. “Scientists memorialize the first glacier lost to climate change in Iceland”

        Up in ChiTown they have a glacier lost to climate change, too, and it was lost far earlier than the one in Iceland. It’s called Lake Michigan nowadays. It took a lot of cow farts to melt that one, because they didn’t have any “anthropogenic global warming” in them days.

        • Replies: @anon
      131. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
        @Farmer Bob

        You’re never going to disprove hard science by nitpicking syntax or grammar. It’s quite apparent that CNN is using “climate change” as shorthand the anthropogenic sort that earth has now. Misconstruing such shorthand terms only proves your own dishonesty, Farmer Bob, but then, you’ve proven your dishonesty abundantly already.

        I’m glad you brought up methane. Are you stupid enough to believe that there are no consequences for humans raising both CO2 and methane way above anything seen in the last 400,000 years, hmmm? Here is a chart that shows 400,000 years of the history of Temperature, CO2, and Methane through the several ice age cycles.

        Sorry, but climate scientists haven’t missed the ice ages, and much as you try to falsely allege that they did. As dishonest as you’ve proven yourself, it’s no surprise to see that you’ll use any subterfuge to weasel out of acknowledging consequences for actions. Liars gonna lie.

      132. Hankyou says:

        Great article! The economic fairy tale about perpetual growth nonsense and the mindless push to plunder the planet’s finite resources while trying to dominate and control everything might hit a snag sooner then the supposed leaders at the top of this mess will ever believe. The CO2 level in May 2019 hit record high of 414.7 ppm. Measures from ice core samples found atmospheric carbon dioxide was never higher than 300 ppm for the past 800,000 years. The average being 280ppm. In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high(today’s value) was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today. Between 2016 and 2017, global annual mean carbon dioxide increased 2.2 ± 0.1 ppm, which was slightly less than the increase between 2015 and 2016 (3.0 ppm per year). At this rate, nobody cares if the planet is warming or cooling… the surprise will come from the CO2 effect on the oceans acidification. Now, that’s the game changer and I hope I wont be here when life in the oceans collapse.


        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      133. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:

        > the surprise will come from the CO2 effect on the oceans acidification. Now, that’s the game changer

        True. Humans have managed to trigger another PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) ocean acidification that killed off most life, at a rate 10 (ten!) times faster than the original PETM.

      134. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:

        > I hope I wont be here when life in the oceans collapse.

        Probably will be, unless you’re retired. Things are accelerating now, and a new frequent term found in the climate science scientific literature (check it out on scholar.google) is “faster-than-expected.”


      135. @anon

        True, I probably understand syntax and grammar better than I understand climate change. If I could understand the syntax of your first paragraph, though, I’d be happy to pick the nits. But I don’t need to understand the hard science so well, so long as I understand what I saw in the hacked e-mails of the East Anglia Institute. And sure as heck, when some of the other proponents of “anthropogenic global warming” start talking about “climate change denial” like it were “holocaust denial,” = making it against the law and the like – and don’t lie to me and say they haven’t – I start thinking about how Churchill said the truth is so precious it must be guarded by a body of lies. That’s just about what I saw the “hard” scientists of the East Anglia Institute saying in their e-mails.

        You calling everybody liars fits right in there.

        • Replies: @anon
      136. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:
        @Farmer Bob

        > I understand what I saw in the hacked e-mails of the East Anglia Institute.

        You saw nothing, liar.

        The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC’s conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.

        What do the ‘Climategate’ hacked CRU emails tell us?

        Your propensity to lying is proving pathological. I doubt you could tell the truth about something if you tried.

      137. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:

        11 August 2019
        Image of the Day:
        Satellite view of 5 million km² of Siberia covered by smoke from wildfires

      138. Saxon says:

        The historical fact about why Greenland is called Greenland is not relevant to the fact that people used to actually live there and were able to farm the land and live off of it, which they can’t today. What is now called Iceland is the better land, obviously, and that was a swindle, but that’s besides the point. You are being intentionally obtuse, obviously, because this climate change gibberish is a religious-like item to you.

        • Replies: @anon
      139. Saxon says:

        The glacier I was talking about was at Glacier National Park in Montana, in the United States, you schizophrenic weirdo.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        , @anon
      140. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

        Unbelievable stuff. Rain at the North Pole. Not just rain, thunderstorms.

        2030 is the new 2100. Yet Unztards are still fapping to the dumbcunt who can’t do the math and predicts the sun shuts off and a new ice age hits in 2020.

        • Replies: @Saxon
      141. Anonymous[941] • Disclaimer says:

        I remember that. As far as predictive capabilities go, these people are somewhere between palm readers and goat entrails seers.

        Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its “Gone By 2020” Signs

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      142. Saxon says:

        Meanwhile, schizophrenic doom cultists like you who buy into the newest astroturfed “underwater in 12 years” hoax will probably be parroting that with the weirdest logic imaginable, like this post you just made.

        • Replies: @anon
      143. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

        The plaque is correct that the glaciers are quickly disappearing; 9 have already completely melted away at Glacier National Park.

        In 1966, the park had 35 named glaciers large enough to be considered active. By 2015, only 26 named glaciers remained. The average area reduction was 39 percent, though some lost as much as 85 percent.

        Melting Glaciers | Glacier National Park, Montana

        For several years, those glaciers actually melted faster than the rate predicted by the model, prompting researchers to refine analysis of glacier retreat with more physical detail. These recent studies have revealed the real world complexity of mountain landscape change. Though the park’s glaciers are all getting smaller, variations in snow avalanches, ice flow dynamics, and ice thickness cause some glaciers to shrink faster than others. Sometimes a glacier will retreat very quickly where it was thinly and widely spread, only to shrink much more slowly when only the shaded, high elevation ice remains. ibid

        So the glaciers are quickly melting—as predicted—although not as fast as one study that hadn’t considered slowing after retreat into shade or higher elevation. If you think a sign in a National Park that hasn’t been updated by the government negates global warming, you’re exactly the kind of moron who thinks a doctor who correctly diagnosed your mother with pancreas cancer got it all wrong because he said she probably had a year or two and she lasted three.

      144. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

        I found those “schizophrenic doom cultists.” Predicting another ice age in 5 months. Led by the dumbcunt Valentina Zharkova, who writes:

        “…substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima to occur in 2020–2055…”

        Right here at Unz! 2020 is the year the hoax that Unz global warming deniers hope overturns the reality of global warming is revealed as a hoax.

        > “underwater in 12 years”

        Liar. You put that in quotes, but I didn’t say it. Can you provide a citation for your quotations? No? You can see the sea level rise chart in comment #75. That’s just reality morons like you try to deny with your lies.

        > weirdest logic imaginable

        Posting an image from the Fairbanks AK National Weather Service about thunderstorms at the north pole is the weirdest logic imaginable? That truly is the weirdest logic possible, and thus, you’re psychologically projecting. Why are you doing that? Is it your way of denying reality?

      145. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

        No sea ice within 150 miles of Alaska.

        “Alaska waters are ice free,” said Rick Thoman, a climate specialist at the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy.

        “This is definitely an extreme year — even by more recent standards in a changed Arctic,” noted Walt Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

        In the continually warming Arctic, sea ice has completely melted around the Alaskan coast before, notably during 2017’s melt season, but never this early. “It’s cleared earlier than it has in any other year,” said Thoman. (Sea ice starts regrowing again in the fall, when temperatures drop.)

        Arctic sea ice has been either been at record lows or flirting with record lows throughout much of the summer. “I’m losing the ability to communicate the magnitude [of change],” Jeremy Mathis, a longtime Arctic researcher and current board director at the National Academies of Sciences, told Mashable in June, when sea ice levels were at their lowest point in the satellite record for that period. “I’m running out of adjectives to describe the scope of change we’re seeing.”


        The childish denialist “everything is awesome” cult simply ignores reality.

      146. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

        Latest news: July 2019 was the hottest month ever in human history.

        National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        Goddard Institute for Space Studies

        And that is exactly what is quickly disappearing those glaciers in Glacier National Park.

      147. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

        > a bit warmer climate

        109°F in Paris in 1999 isn’t a “bit” warmer. It’s a whole bunch warmer, more like Las Vegas. And 3 decades Faster-Than-Expected.

      148. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

        Glacier National Park in Montana is where all the glaciers are melting away, you science-denying dimwit. A fellow can watch it happening, in his own lifetime, by his own eyes, if he only has eyes that can see. E.g., Jackson Glacier, 1911 and 2009:


        “In 1966, the park had 35 named glaciers large enough to be considered active. By 2015, only 26 named glaciers remained. The average area reduction was 39 percent, though some lost as much as 85 percent. This trend of glacier retreat is expected to continue as temperatures rise.”


        Come on faggot, tell us your hare-brained conspiracy theory how they’re hiding that ice!

        • Replies: @Realist
      149. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

        > The historical fact about why Greenland is called Greenland is not relevant

        Wrong. Facts are always relevant. Only scammers like you try to say facts are “not relevant.”

        > actually live there and were able to farm the land and live off of it

        Still can and do, dimwit.

        At present, local production accounts for 10% of potatoes consumption in Greenland, but that is projected to grow to 15% by 2020. Similarly, it has enabled new crops like apples, strawberries,[28] broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and carrots[27] to be grown and for the cultivated areas of the country to be extended[29] although even now only about 1% of Greenland is considered arable.[30]

        Economy of Greenland: Agriculture and forestry

        > You are being intentionally obtuse, obviously,

        You’re psychologically projecting, but it is interesting learning about you.

        Fact: Warming during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly was not global.

        Source: Climate Myth – Greenland used to be green

      150. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

        > this climate change gibberish is a religious-like item to you

        Again, you’re psychologically projecting.

        Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) told a constituent that while he believed climate change had been occurring “since the beginning of time… as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

        What’s Really behind Evangelicals’ Climate Denial? | 23 April 2019

        You’re one of those magical thinkers, aren’t you, and are offended by the realization that no Jewish deity is going to save humanity from its own suicide.

      151. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

        Industrial Civilization is a full scale war, via multiple fronts, on Life on Earth.

        The warriors who thought themselves special and apart from the Earth are going to die along with every other species they’re killing.

      152. @anon

        the hottest month ever recorded in human history

        And heretyou are, all chest out about how smart and informed you are, and you write something so jaw-droppingly stupid. How could any reasonable person do anything but laugh?

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      153. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:

        > it actually grew

        Liar. You never have said the name of which glacier “actually grew.” Since there wasn’t a glacier that “actually grew.”

        Though the park’s glaciers are all getting smaller…

        Where is the growing glacier?

      154. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:

        “In the cool, cool, cool of the evening…” ♪ -Bing Crosby

        That’s becoming a thing of the past.

      155. anon[303] • Disclaimer says:
        @Oleaginous Outrager

        > you write something so jaw-droppingly stupid.

        You’re projecting, cretin.

        “Much of the planet sweltered in unprecedented heat in July, as temperatures soared to new heights in the hottest month ever recorded. The record warmth also shrank Arctic and Antarctic sea ice to historic lows.”

        July 2019 was hottest month on record for the planet
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | August 15, 2019

        > How could any reasonable person do anything but laugh?

        How could any reasonable person do anything but laugh — at a childish cretin like you?

      156. anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
        @Oleaginous Outrager

        Luckily, NOAA has artists to draw cartoons for giggling cretins like you.

        Source: What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | September 2014

        For the more serious minded adults, same info:

      157. Realist says:

        Glacier National Park in Montana is where all the glaciers are melting away, you science-denying dimwit.

        No proof it is caused by AGW dumbass.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      158. anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

        AGW has been well proven, and with empirical evidence that it is caused by humans, dumbass.

        Empirical Evidence for Global Warming

        Maybe you missed that first grade lesson on what melts ice. Can you say what physical quantity melts ice? This is just how dishonest the denialists are. They can’t admit what they learned in first grade science, that some physical quantity melts ice.

        Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

      159. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

        Here is how we know humans are causing global warming:

        Source: How Do We Know That Humans Are Causing Climate Change? These Nine Lines of Evidence

        • Replies: @Sparkon
      160. Sparkon says:

        You can’t rule out natural factors.

        Neither can you recreate Earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory, nor simulate it with computer models, but nice chart anyway.

        • Replies: @anon
      161. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

        > You can’t rule out natural factors.


        How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

        > Neither can you recreate Earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory,

        That is a utterly retarded statement. Where did you pull that from, your ass? We can’t recreate sunspots in a lab. Does that mean scientists are prohibited from studying sunspots?

        > nor simulate it with computer models

        Wrong again!

        Climate Myth — Models are unreliable

        > nice chart anyway

        At least you got something correct.

        • Replies: @Sparkon
      162. Sparkon says:

        > Neither can you recreate Earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory,

        That is a utterly retarded statement. Where did you pull that from, your ass? We can’t recreate sunspots in a lab. Does that mean scientists are prohibited from studying sunspots?

        Show us this laboratory where they have recreated Earth’s atmosphere.

        Do you understand the difference between studying sunspots, which is easily done, and recreating Earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory?

        • Replies: @anon
      163. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

        > Show us this laboratory

        Huh? I never suggested what you’re stupidly banging-on about. Re-creating within a laboratory either sunspots or atmosphere is not necessary to their scientific study. All you’re doing is one of the frequent strategies of science-deniers:

        Recreating earth’s climate (or sunspots, or anything else) within the walls of a laboratory as a prerequisite to the scientific study of earth’s climate is a childish “impossible expectation.”

        We can study it just fine where it is, outdoors.

        • Replies: @Willem
      164. Willem says:

        You can graph the same thing with pirates

        Correlation is not (necessarily) causation

        Of course that does not mean that man made climate change does not exist, so perhaps we should be a little bit more careful with earth’s resources, just to be om the safe side. Would definitely end a lot of wars…

        But man made climate change cannot scientifically be proven as for that you would need a comparator earth, without humans in a universe that is further exactly the same as our earth and universe.

        • Replies: @anon
      165. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:

        > Correlation is not (necessarily) causation

        You got that line from Big Tobacco’s PR firm that tried to deny that smoking causes cancer. “Junk science!” Same PR firm now works for Climate Denier billionaires. Meanwhile, you ignore that correlation is a hint that there is causation, and that hint has been studied to a fair-thee-well, and we know from science that rising CO2 CAUSES rising global temps.

        I know someone who is 90, has smoked heavily all his life and he is as healthy as anyone I know. So if smoking is as dangerous as they say it is why is he alright? There cannot be a direct link. There must be other factors leading to cancer so till we are 100% sure we should not ban anything.

        This is similar to the argument which questions why as CO2 increases steadily does temperature not also increase steadily? Doesn’t this mean CO2 cannot be responsible? As we cannot link events directly with CO2 and warming it is unproven. CO2 was higher before and it wasn’t warmer then!

        Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke – sound familiar?

        > man made climate change cannot scientifically be proven

        Wrong. It already has. With EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves it is caused by humans.

        Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

        > you would need a comparator earth, without humans in a universe that is further exactly the same as our earth and universe.

        Wrong again. Where did you pull that one from? Holy fuck, the stupid is so strong here at Unz, it burns. Goes to prove white men can be just as retarded about how science works as sub-Saharan blacks.

      166. APilgrim says:

        When will the ‘SnowFLAKES’ begin to melt?

        Michael E. Mann v. Dr. Timothy Ball (defamation/SLAPP) case dismissed, for lack of evidence.

        The Twitter response of Michael E. Mann, to the British Columbia Court Dismissal:

        • Replies: @anon
      167. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        Denialist flakes like you are the ones getting their panties wet over nothing. Tim Ball’s denialist organization has already made an apology, just like Michael Mann demanded, and the court enforced upon the lying sack-of-shit denialists.

        In 2011, renowned scientist Michael E. Mann sued a Canadian think tank that published an interview suggesting his work on climate change was fraud.

        Eight years later, the Winnipeg-based Frontier Center for Public Policy — which often promotes climate change denial — apologized Friday and wiped the inflammatory interview from its website.

        Michael E. Mann took climate change deniers to court. They apologized.
        Jun 14, 2019

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      168. APilgrim says:

        Harvey Mann dropped his defamation lawsuit, having never complied with the discovery requirements of the court.

        Court costs were assessed upon the plaintiff, for wasting everybody’s time.

        • Replies: @anon
      169. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        > Mann dropped his defamation lawsuit

        Lie. Denialist Tim Ball begged the court to drop the lawsuit because (1) of Ball’s heart condition and (2) claiming that Ball’s lies were not highly regarded by the public.

        > Court costs were assessed upon the plaintiff

        Which is automatic whenever a lawsuit is dropped. You’re lying again to suggest it was a punitive decision against Mann.

        And it still remains a fact that Tim Ball’s organization “Frontier Center for Public Policy” was forced to apologize to Mann for denialist Tim Ball’s many lies. Funny how liars like you love a proven liar.

        BTW, here’s a screenshot of the apology:

      170. @Fidelios Automata

        “I do, however, advocate a new “Manhattan Project” to devise a cheap and green energy technology (thorium fission for example) to be given away to the world for free. This would deprive Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf States of their revenue. That alone is a good reason to support it.”
        Give it away for free? That is ‘extremist’ thinking. While that may save the world, it would also destroy the Petro Dollar and the hegemony of the US. Haven’t you read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman?” Would be better to SELL those thorium fission energy plants through the IMF and World Bank and thus effectively own/ control the countries needing green energy. Of course the scientists who develop the best working models must be ‘disappeared’ otherwise anyone will be able to do it, and America will lose its rightful place on the shining hill in the sun.

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      171. APilgrim says:

        The Court dismissed the defamation suit, because the plaintiff failed to prosecute his case, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the discovery process.

        And finally, the plaintiff consented to drop the case.

        The plaintiff never had a case.

        • Replies: @anon
      172. APilgrim says:

        Does this mean that you have finally given up on wind & solar?

        What the USA needs is to match the Natural Gas power plant efficiencies of Siemens. Our Natural Gas power plant efficiencies totally suck. Some of this efficiency improvement is retrofit-able.

        There are some valid concerns with using Thorium for terrestrial applications. I do favor ET Thorium Reactor Applications, on the Moon, Mars & its moons.

      173. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        > because the plaintiff failed to prosecute his case, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the discovery process.

        That’s what your denialist websites say. Mann says different, that Ball begged off because of health reasons and the line of reasoning that since Ball is a lying shitbird that nobody takes seriously, what he said couldn’t have been considered defamation.

        > The plaintiff never had a case.

        Oh really? If not, then why did the plantiff WIN against Ball’s organization earlier this summer, forcing Ball’s organization to retract and apologize? Hmm?

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      174. APilgrim says:


        Show me the court verdict.

        And all that jazz.

        • Replies: @anon
      175. APilgrim says:

        Lunar Thorium Deposits:

      176. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        Yes a WIN by Mann against denialist Bell’s organization. I already showed you in comment #167 and#169. Open your eyes. Can you even read?

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      177. APilgrim says:

        Settlements mean jacksheet.

        Harvey Mann proved nothing, to nobody, nowhere.

        • Replies: @anon
      178. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        My goodness, what a toddler tantrum! Settlements mean jacksheet only to sheet-for-brains like you. And Mann proved to the court that your lying sack-of-shit denier’s organization had to publicly apologize to Mann and retract their claims. You’re like a petulant two year old girl who thinks closing her eyes tightly makes comments #167 and#169 magically disappear. LOL!

        P.S.Mann’s hockey stick has been proven over and over again by other scientists’ data. It ain’t broke! 🙂

        Source: Climate myth — Hockey Stick is Broken

        P.P.S. That hockey stick has done whacked you on the side of yerr head and yerr smartin’

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      179. APilgrim says:

        The ‘Hockey-Stick’ & Harvey Mann 15 minutes of fame, expired years ago.

        The Paris Accords & Kyoto Protocol, IPCC are evaporating like fog in a desert. The ‘Climate Change’ specter has faded. The ‘Extreme-Weather’ bugaboo is a dying lie.

        You globalist Phuques have lost again. Our beloved President Trump has pissed on your plans.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      180. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        Sorry, dimwit, the beloved Trump Administration (I voted for him too) confirms global warming effects are happening, as depicted by NASA here https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

        1. The Trump Administration Forecasts 7 Degrees Fahrenheit of Global Warming by 2100

        2. Mike Pompeo claims rapidly melting Arctic sea ice could actually be a good thing, as it will create ‘new opportunities for trade’

        The Trump Administration is right in line with climate scientist predictions that we’ll have at least 7 degrees warming and the Arctic Sea ice is in a rapid death spiral.

      181. APilgrim says:

        Forty (40) years of lying, intimidation, & globalized, despotic-oppression, have not endeared these lying climate-zealots to us.

        I do not expect any relief, from their incessant nagging, in the next forty (40) years.

        They have ‘Cried Wolf’, for too long, to remember. They can all pound sand.

        • Replies: @anon
      182. APilgrim says:

        Gloom, Despair, Agony & Woe:

        • Replies: @anon
      183. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        You’ve been ignoring reality too long. Time for you to catch up, just on last month.

      184. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        Actions like evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere have unavoidable consequences, and only the emotionally immature like you, who aren’t man enough to face the consequences of their actions, bellyache like you’re doing.

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      185. APilgrim says:

        What a load of crap.

        Nobody is buying what you losers are selling.

        After a while, SCOTUS quit reading 9th Circuit Death Penalty stays.

        After a while, the ‘Sky-Is-Falling’ FARCE wears out.

        • Replies: @anon
      186. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        So young Republicans are “nobody” and “losers?” Now you sound as spiteful and desperate as Hillary. SAD!

        …U.S. Republicans who said they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement “I worry about the damage humans cause the planet” rose by 11 percentage points to 58% between 2014 and 2019. The number of Republican voters aged 18-34 who are worried about the issue rose by 18 percentage points to 67%

        Source: screen save of Drudge Report https://drudgereport.com/

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      187. APilgrim says:

        Click-Bait is not an argument.

        • Replies: @anon
      188. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        The silly games you play, just like Hillary. You’re a great foil, demonstrating the abject paucity of denialism. Keep responding!

        If you were going to make a genuine inquiry, there would instead be only two questions to ask and answer:

        is the Earth warming or not,
        and if so, what’s the main cause?

        The Simplest Explanation Of Global Warming Ever
        Forbes | Jan 2, 2019

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      189. APilgrim says:

        Nobody believes a God-Damned word you post.

        You are as irrelevant as mouse-farts.

        • Replies: @anon
      190. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

        You’re still mimicking the emotional outbursts of a bitter and angry Hillary; however, your snide remarks have zero effect–even less than mouse farts–on the reality of science. And only those who live in their mothers’ basements and do not get outdoors would think that climate change is not happening. You don’t garden or take walks in the woods, do you? That’s SAD. You might notice something if you did.

        Source: Arbor Day Foundation

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      191. APilgrim says:

        Your guesses are pathetic.

        • Replies: @anon
      192. @mark green

        Not at all in the know, but could it be said that climate warming, is still a not well understood interference of many factors, themselves not readily aligned. Setting focus on it, and sequentially the association as to make science politically exploitable is the real idea of one more tool to subdue the masses with snake oil.

        Human interference with the planet none the less, is real, and long lasting into the future. To point to a measurable result, the understandable consequence, as opposed to the not understood consequence of climate change, and a substantial one. We for now call it toxicity.

        Toxicity, inducing changes of chemical molecular clusters density, permeability, into nature as opposed to what nature itself labored before industrialization, is mostly silenced. Swats of land that are radioactivity with thousand years life lines. Plastic molecules in everything from sea water, to fish to human livers. Antibiotics, toxic chemicals in the drinking water of what has become a toxic blob of humans. Foul air. Human individuals as ultimate filters of air and water, molecular waste, is a sorry outcome for real and for over a century now. Ultimately it should reflect in human health and it does. This again is silenced.

        Just our guess. Michael Hudson seems to be in need for money, as an individual he has a real responsibility to this micro world, that is probably why he ventures into other subjects rather then economics. Sadly as garbled as economics theories can be, setting things simple and straight, as Michael Hudson tries to do, is even more confusing to the 99,9 percent. Economics has no potential for preaching on it’s (missing, lacking)rational. The message of rational theoretical economics goes against base human instincts and emotions, and the only way to impact with the aid of economical reasoning is top down. Not to our today’s elites, their “rational´´ is self interest for their tiny group of usurpers and loads of immediate revenue to feed the middle class clowns doing their bidding. Hence the change of subject in M. H. journalistic endeavors.

        As a last sideline, preaching(journalism) at all(all subjects) became a rather artifactic toy. Manipulating meta data is the real tool of choice for the ones in power. Hence Gooooooogle, Fecesbook, Tweeter, and fill your pick.

        Michael Hudson is a good guy, with a problem. A real intellectual cannot reference himself and be part of the establishment, and credibly critique at once. From Chomsky, over Hedges, and a never ending line of freaks(scientists, politicians, administrators, Wall and Ball street), they all have this “cake and eat it too´´ problem. They are compromised by design.

        That makes Julian Assange such an outstanding phenomenon. Outsiders only can speak up with any remnant of credibility.

        • Replies: @anon
      193. anon[189] • Disclaimer says:

        No guessing, friendo; scientists can quantify it, for example, the climatic changes to Hopkins’ bioclimatic law regarding tree leaf-out in the hills.

        A famous American entomologist, Andrew D. Hopkins, estimated in 1920 the progressive delay in tree leaf-out with increasing latitude, longitude, and elevation, a phenomenon referred to as “Hopkins’ bioclimatic law.” Here, based on massive ground observations in the European Alps, we show that global warming has altered this law. In the early 1960s, the elevation-induced phenological shift (EPS) was approximately 34 days’ delay for every 1,000-m increase in elevation, conforming to Hopkins’ bioclimatic law, whereas, nowadays, this shift has reduced by 35% to 22 d⋅1,000 m−1. Winter warming is likely to be responsible for this strong reduction in the EPS and future climate warming may strengthen this trend.

        More uniform spring phenology across elevations
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2018, 115 (5) 1004-1008; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717342115

        • Replies: @APilgrim
      194. APilgrim says:

        So, tell your ChiCOM buddies to clean up their act.

        • Replies: @anon
      195. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

        Only Nixon could go to China–and you voted for him.

        …Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote.

        Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming

      196. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

        > climate warming, is still a not well understood

        By you. By anybody familiar with two centuries worth of climate science, it is well understood.

        > the not understood consequence of climate change

        Are you kidding? The consequences are clear: extinction.

        “Human life on Earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way.”

        Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don’t Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims

        > they all have this “cake and eat it too´´ problem

        That defines climate deniers to a tee; they want to be able to evaporate earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into earth’s fragile atmosphere, and not have to pay any consequences for their actions.

      197. Cking says:

        Many of us would not know what Finance Capital is, how it works, or recognize the root of humanity’s problems or interpret what was going on as we witness in bewilderment the ‘modern’ neoliberal, psychological warfare offensive, operating as if it sprung from a conscientious citizenry and/or necessary, monetary logic, reducing and/or outlawing our economic rights, a system that can reduce the population’s standard of living with complete legitimacy. I respect Michael Hudson’s scholarship, professionalism as an economist, historian, and his shared insight right up to the Global Warming Hoax perpetrated by humanity’s struggle to survive; it’s the policy of the Financier International, professed, demanded, and broadcast, through their ‘Green’ Infantry and just about any educational and Academia institution there is. ‘Green and Finance’ work congruently. IMHO. Now if you want to say someone or something has to the power to influence weather, I’d agree, reservedly. It appears that the Radical Population Reduction Policy is coming right out into the open, confident that God and Christianity is dead, and the global intelligentsia has ‘got it’ now, that the average, adequately, educated student population, and adult population ‘understands’ through the narrow confines of ‘there is not enough to go around’. Without God, anything is possible, I suppose. As governments submit to the direct control of Central Banker, Finance Capital, the population now accepts that ‘there is no money for you and you must live within your means’. To parrot Hudson; ‘so we don’t have a protest movement for more jobs, higher wages, affordable housing, or an anti-war movement’. The population ‘understands’. Contemplating the immense dimensions of spending $14 Trillion dollars on Perpetual War in two decades will not move anyone; what will? The ‘national’ economy imperative, that a higher population is a matter of the national security, increasing the population’s labor and brain power, lowering the costs of living, has been completely forgotten. Now, the value of the global oil market is about $870 billion dollars, 2 or 3% of the global economy, I was under the impression that the actual oil market has shrunk and that Obama himself pronounced that the USA would leave the petro-dollar; to what I don’t know since no one is talking about a nuclear powered, Universal Development Plan. Is Gas and Oil simply another weapon of the Empire? Your thoughts.

        • Replies: @anon
      198. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

        > it’s the policy of the Financier International, professed, demanded, and broadcast

        You can rant all day like that, but this is reality of how the media are approaching the subject:

        From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, business people and politicians who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to “natural” causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal.

        Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study
        August 14, 2019 | AFP

        Fact is, the US is now ruled by a regime that equates the value of CO2 to the Jews, and claims that any reduction in CO2 is equivalent to another Holocaust.

        “Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews.”

        Trump Adviser Once Compared Carbon Dioxide to Jewish Victims of the Nazis
        National Security Council member who is leading a climate review panel said in 2014 that demonization of the gas ‘is just like demonization of poor Jews under Hitler’

        > no one is talking about a nuclear

        Meet Joe Biden.

        Among the top candidates at the town hall, only front-runner Joe Biden cautiously mentions his plan to use nuclear power to combat climate change.

        Don’t trust candidates who ignore nuclear power

        • Replies: @Cking
      199. Cking says:

        I did not rant. Your own reply is a rant, and the cites you provide are ridiculous, poor quality, and the specter of radical population reduction that drives your umbrage is not mentioned. If covert radical population reduction policy is embedded in any cause, communication, policy, ‘science’, or directive, it’s an inexcusable omission, and taints any finding in science, economy, environment, population, and political policy.

        • Replies: @anon
      200. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

        > the cites you provide are ridiculous, poor quality

        Your ranting is ridiculously poor quality.

        > that drives your umbrage

        Oh, now you’re a magical mind-reader! How’d you do that? With your make-believe wizard’s wand?

        > radical population reduction

        Listen, dumbfuck, Unz commenters are at the forefront of advocating radical population reduction while accusing me of not supporting it and being silent on it too! Hilarious, you must be a LoLbertarian, they often pull shit games like that, which t-t-t-taints your whole argument and even existence.

        (a sampling, not conclusive)
        TTSSYF Comment #10: not one peep from your side about overpopulation.
        Rurik Comment #23: human over-population…Nigeria will add more people
        TTSSYF Comment #129: we ought to address the problem of overpopulation
        TTSSYF Comment #160: It’s overpopulation


        Go over there and argue with them, fruitcake. Enjoy!

      201. Cking says:

        Sir, you’re not well, you disrespect the forum here with your bad language and characterizations and you do not represent the Unz commentators in the forefront of who-knows-what as we all struggle to comprehend the reality, that demands the study and analysis of the subverted, US system of political economy now under submission to Universal Liberalism, the Imperial system we call Globalization today. There is no sense in misrepresenting my commentary. Very simply, US domestic and foreign policy kills too many people, millions of people, and must be confronted and terminated at once, no matter the ideology, cause, or monetary ‘logic’. Physical Development refutes the ‘necessity’ to depopulate the planet. The Universal Order exists in humanity’s realization of the Good; the nuclear powered Universal Development Plan cannot be ignored or delayed any longer. Do not be afraid.

        • Replies: @anon
      202. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

        Sir, you’re not well, you disrespect the forum’s topic. Care to get back on it, instead of riding your “depopulation” hobbyhorse? Don’t be afraid of addressing the subject at hand.

        • Replies: @Cking
      203. Cking says:

        Once more, Universal Physical Development refutes the ‘necessity’ for depopulating the planet.

        • Replies: @anon
      204. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        For the second time, present your argument with Unz commenters Rurik and TTSSYF. Link is provided above, in which they rant and rave as fanatically as you about the opposite ‘necessity.’ And you would already agree that my opinions are the cause of all the worlds problems, so you might hit it off.

        Frankly, I’m not all that much interested in a term “Universal Physical Development” that pops up only 7 times on scholar.google.com, and mostly refers to physical education, and I doubt you even lift, bro. Myself, I do lift weights, perform ring gymnastics and calisthenics, get plenty of aerobics, and figure I’ve got “Universal Physical Development” well under hand, and with all the chicks who want my body, depopulation is a near impossibility. As handsome and strong as I am, I’m starting to entertain the hypothesis that I alone am the cause of all global warming. Stick that in your containment building and smoke it. As long as it isn’t too hot in there this summer. LOL

        Amid climate concerns, nuclear plants feel the heat of warming water

      205. Cking says:

        You’re some kind of dullard troll who doesn’t know when to let go. Beat it now, scram, make like a tree and leave.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      206. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        Question: How do you make nuclear power work if it can’t be cooled properly? Maybe you can explain your Universal Physical Development Cooling scheme it to these atomic scientists…

        Climate change itself works against nuclear power; severe droughts have led to the shutting down of reactors as the surrounding waters become too warm to provide the vital cooling function.

        The false promise of nuclear power in an age of climate change
        Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | August 20, 2019

      207. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        Speaking of making like a tree and leafing early, here’s a chart on the trend of early first leaf. You’re really starting to understand this global warming stuff.

        Extremely early springs, such as March 2012, can lead to severe economical losses and agricultural damage when these are followed by hard freeze events…Without a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, our study suggests that years like 2012 in the US could become normal by mid-century.

        Labe, Z., Ault, T. & Zurita-Milla, R. (2017) Identifying anomalously early spring onsets in the CESM large ensemble project. Climate Dynamics June 2017, Volume 48, Issue 11–12, pp 3949–3966

      208. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > hurricanes

        Al Gore was right.

        • Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) above 26.5 C fuel cyclones, making them more intense.
        • Global satellite coverage available since 1985 shows a consistent average of 80 tropical cyclones per year, varying from 65 to 90, with no discernible trend. [something the climate change deniers will haw-haw about, without admitting to any of the rest of the facts]
        • However, since 1975 there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of Cat. 4 -5 hurricanes of 25-30% per degree C of global warming (and a similar decrease in Cat. 1 -2 hurricanes.
        • Rapid intensification of hurricanes has increased 4.4 mph per decade.

        Climate Charged Hurricane Dorian Tragically Destroys Grand Bahamas
        Paul Beckwith, Climate System Scientist | September 3, 2019

      209. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > in the past, what was the cause of increased CO2???

        An excellent question. Answered here:

        In Earth’s past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.

        What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

        If you need any clarification, just ask.

      210. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > the climate nonsense comes from the same globalist crowd

        Often touted, but doubly wrong.

        First, it doesn’t matter from where science originates. If your mortal enemy makes a scientific discovery, it’s still a valid scientific discovery. Trying to dismiss facts as nonsense, in spite of the scientific evidence, is s sure sign of political immaturity.

        Second, it’s the science-free climate denial nonsense that is coming from the LoLbertarian Globalist Billionaire crowd, such as the Koch brothers and globalist corporations like Exxon, and now the amorphous, secretly-funded “Donor’s Trust.”

      211. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > The ‘Hockey-Stick’…expired years ago.

        Wrong. Mann’s work has actually been confirmed by many other other scientific studies, as noted in comment #178. The hockey stick isn’t broke, no matter how much you rant about it. And you science-denying buffoons even lost a court case over your defamatory lies about Mann, as noted in comment #167. What does it take for you to stop defaming another man? Have you no sense of decency?

        > You globalist Phuques

        It’s you who is controlled by the Globalist Billionaires like the Koch Brothers and Exxon who fund anti-science campaigns that have suckered you Dumb-Phuques into their Globalist Profit Scheme. Now who’s the damned fool?

        > Trump has pissed on…

        The Trump Administration Forecasts 7 Degrees Fahrenheit of Global Warming by 2100

        Then explain that forecast by the Trump Administration; it’s exactly what the climate models show. Are you going to start defaming our beloved President Trump too?

      212. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        I’m just wondering, have you ever discovered what physical quantity melts ice? I asked you here, you replied that calcium chloride does, I then pointed out that it works by an exothermic reaction, a term which should give you a big clue about which physical quantity melts ice. Are you still working on it? Did you get in touch with your first grade teacher about that science lesson you missed? I’m still hopeful you can figure it out on your own.

      213. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > partial pressure causes CO2s to outgas (Henry’s Law)….Absolutely correct.

        Actually, 100% wrong, on all the climate denial points parroted from various climate denial websites, all of which are easily debunked. Frankly, a fellow like you who doesn’t know what melts ice shouldn’t be commenting on topics of science. It’s no surprise that you don’t have an elementary understanding of Henry’s Law. Here’s a little lesson for kids on Henry’s Law, and the key point that you missed:

        Students read about Henry’s Law. Discuss the main points:
        High partial pressure means more carbon dioxide will go into solution in the liquid.

        What do soda and the oceans have in common?
        UCAR Center for Science Education

        The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the partial pressure, which will push more CO2 into solution with the ocean water. (Hence, the ongoing acidification of the oceans.) Of course, if partial pressure remaining the same, then the warmer the ocean, the more outgassing. But Henry’s Law isn’t a cafeteria of tidbits to cherrypick and twist 180 degrees like you dimwitted science-denialists like to do.

        A normal fellow would feel humiliated at having his stupidity exposed like this, and would humbly correct his elementary school science errors, but you’re not normal.

      214. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > they emit CO2

        Wrong. The oceans are most definitely not emitting CO2. Instead, they are acififying (a result of more CO2 absorbed into the water.) The atmosphere’s partial pressure of CO2 keeps getting higher, thus more CO2 is being absorbed by the ocean, rather the opposite of emitting CO2. Study the term “partial pressure,” ok? You haven’t the slightest clue what it means. It’s time for you to get back to elementary science basics at NASA Climate Kids…

        The ocean is great at sucking up CO2 from the air. It absorbs about one-quarter of the CO2 that we humans create when we burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas.)….when the ocean absorbs a lot of CO2, the water becomes more acidic.


      215. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        > all the idiots who feel they have to mention it over and over again

        It’s worse than you think. These science-denial idiots cannot determine what melts ice, a first grade science lesson. They also think the oceans are out-gassing CO2, and twist Henry’s Law to mean exactly the opposite of what it says, namely, “the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid.”

        Of course, as humans increase CO2 in the atmosphere, the partial pressure goes up, and the amount of CO2 in the ocean goes up in proportion, causing ocean acidification.

        These science-denial Kochsuckers will tell you exactly the opposite, with a straight face, that as CO2 goes up in the atmosphere, the oceans are out-gassing it. They’re dumber than most 5th grade sub-Saharan Blacks in Nigeria. And being full retard as they are, they’ve learned to lie their way through their lives as a way to cope; lying and stupidity go together hand in hand. It’s on display here at unz in spades.

        The pack of low-IQ science illiterates here at unz are as disruptive to a discussion about science as a pack of feral blacks caged in nyc classrooms are disruptive to English class.

      216. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        August arctic ice update. Meanwhile, the pack of feral dindu nuffinz denialists haven’t yet figured out what melts ice…

        Source: Sea ice cover for August 2019

      217. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

        As the partial pressure of CO2 goes up in the atmosphere from CO2 added by humans, the oceans take up CO2 and acidify. All of it has be measured for years. Here are the numbers, graphed:

        Chart source: https://skepticalscience.com/Examining-the-impacts-of-ocean-acidification.html

        And yet the Kochsucker dindu-nuffinz science-denialists will flat-out LIE to you and tell you the opposite is happening, that the oceans are outgassing CO2, as if they’ve magically turned Henry’s Law on its head. These reality-deniers like Smokey and “Realist” (LOL!) are no more trustworthy than a pack of feral blacks. And they are no more intelligent either; none of them can figure out what melts ice. SAD!

      218. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
        @mark green

        > there are scores of natural forces which shape and steer climate

        True, just like there are scores of natural forces that shape and steer a river; however, humans themselves can also shape and steer a river.

        See that green line on a steep grade upwards? Human input of CO2 is now the primary force in climate change, over the squiggly orange line representing changes of solar irradiance, or that grey line representing volcanoes. We humans have overcome nature in many ways, climate being just one.

        Graph source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

      219. Sparkon says:

        So how did those ancient forests grow beneath glaciers that are now melting?

        Here’s a clue for the ice experts: It was warmer then.

        There’s nothing unprecedented about the Modern Warm Period, nor about fools cursing their own good fortune.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
        , @anon
      220. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > CO2 levels and temperature really have very little to do with each other


        Chart source: Climate myth — There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature

      221. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > So how did those ancient forests grow beneath glaciers that are now melting?

        You’re regurgitating the same anecdote you said in March 2019, and the answer is the same.

        > Here’s a clue for the ice experts: It was warmer then.

        Wrong. It’s warmer right now than it has been for at least 125,000 years. But there was a medieval warming period, not as hot now, that ended about a 1000 years ago, when your trees started to be covered by ice.

        “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”

        What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?

        Below is a chart recording the global average temperature anomaly. I’ve inserted an arrow showing where your forest was covered with a glacier. Again, no surprise, I’m not sure why you keep banging away about it.

        Chart adapted from climate.gov article above.

        • Replies: @Sparkon
      222. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > There’s nothing unprecedented about the Modern Warm Period

        Wrong! The temperature record looks like a hockey stick; on a geological time scale, the change is extremely rapid. The rate of warming is over 10x faster than the last mass extinction event concurrent with the PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.) The only thing faster than human caused global warming has been an asteroid from outer space smashing into the earth, as this chart shows:

        Chart source: Andrew Glikson, Earth and climate scientist, Australian National University
        Blueprints of future climate trends

      223. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > fools cursing their own good fortune.

        Remember, the Trump Administration has officially forecast a rapid rise of 4°C of global warming by 2100. unless he can alter reality with his Sharpie pen. Here’s a sampling of the “good fortune” that awaits after Trump’s four + degrees of warming, as follows:


        Four degrees
        • Hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost – particularly in Siberia – enter the melt zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities.
        • The West Antarctic ice sheet may lift loose from its bedrock and collapse as warming ocean waters nibble away at its base, much of which is anchored below current sea levels.
        • In Europe, new deserts will be spreading in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey: the Sahara will have effectively leapt the Straits of Gibraltar. In Switzerland, summer temperatures may hit 48C, more reminiscent of Baghdad than Basel. The Alps will be so denuded of snow and ice that they resemble the rocky moonscapes of today’s High Atlas – glaciers will only persist on the highest peaks such as Mont Blanc. The sort of climate experienced today in Marrakech will be experienced in southern England, with summer temperatures in the home counties reaching a searing 45C. Europe’s population may be forced into a “great trek” north.

        Five degrees
        • Five degrees of warming occured during the Eocene, 55 million years ago: breadfruit trees grew on the coast of Greenland, while the Arctic Ocean saw water temperatures of 20C within 200km of the North Pole itself. There was no ice at either pole; forests were probably growing in central Antarctica.
        • The Eocene greenhouse event was likely caused by methane hydrates (an ice-like combination of methane and water) bursting into the atmosphere from the seabed in an immense “ocean burp”, sparking a surge in global temperatures. Today vast amounts of these same methane hydrates still sit on subsea continental shelves.
        • The early Eocene greenhouse took at least 10,000 years to come about. Today we could accomplish the same feat in less than a century.

        Six degrees
        • At the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago, up to 95% of species were extinct as a result of a super-greenhouse event, resulting in a temperatures rise by six degrees, perhaps because of an even bigger methane belch than happened 200 million years later in the Eocene.
        • One scientific paper investigating “kill mechanisms” during the end-Permian suggests that methane hydrate explosions “could destroy terrestrial life almost entirely”. Acting much like today’s fuel-air explosives (or “vacuum bombs”), major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons.

        MOST POPULAR POST EVER: What would 3 degrees mean?

      224. Sparkon says:

        But ignores it was warmer when the forest grew before the currently melting glacier formed.


        You need reinforcements. Maybe call in Greta?

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      225. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        That is Don Easterbrook’s falsely labeled chart of GISP2 proxy ice core temperature data that ended in 1855, a liar’s way of erasing 164 years of global warming.

        Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

        This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand….

        Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

        P.S. Maybe Greta can give you some lessons on honesty; you’re failing hard right now.

      226. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        This is your chart of GISP2 Greenland proxy ice core temperature data—which ended in 1855—superimposed over my NOAA Global Warming anomaly chart, which is partially based on GISP2. But you don’t get to ignore the last 164 years of global warming temperature record.

        p.s. yours might be the original scientific journal chart from which the shyster Don Easterbrook conjures his deceptive chart, your fantasy-iceage-website doesn’t give proper reference. At any rate, the GISP2 Greenland proxy ice core temperature data ended in 1855.

      227. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > CO2 has been many times higher than the current 4 molecules for every 10,000 molecules of atmoshere,[sic] and the earth wasn’t destroyed

        Sure, it’s difficult to destroy rock. But as global warming temperatures rise—long before rock melts—you and everything else living on the surface this big rock has difficulty surviving.

        …now that we humans have embarked on a global warming experiment, there are some useful lessons from the past:

        • The rapid pulse of PETM CO2 followed by rapid warming (figure 2e) indicates high climate sensitivity.
        • CO2 does indeed appear to have a long atmospheric lifetime.
        • Ocean acidification (of the deep sea at least) can occur even under conditions of CO2 release much slower than today.
        • Present acidification of the ocean is far greater than the PETM, and is probably unprecedented in the last 65 million years.

        CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event

        So what we humans are doing to the planet is “unprecedented in the last 65 million years.” Yet you imagine there will be zero consequences for evaporating earth’s coal beds and oil fields into its thin atmosphere. You truly are as dumb as a feral black interrupting class in some sad nyc school right this minute, and for the same reason, you have the mental trait of low time preference.

      228. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > there have been warmer climates (holocene optimum!) that saw temperatures higher than the climate fear mongers predict in their worst cases (RCP8)

        Liar. This chart depicts the holocene optimum, plus modern temperatures record data through the year 1990. Note that the chart depicts neither the last 30 years of global warming nor RCP8 predictions—both of which would be off the chart—the later is off the chart by several chart heights!

        Chart source, adapted from: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

        > what is being used as a base line —1850-1880

        Liar again. See the chart above. See where the zero baseline is? Not where you falsely claim. Which goes to show my maxim: Climate Science Deniers always lie.

      229. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
        @mark green

        > No. America experienced a real and measurable cooling period from 1945 to about 1975, even though atmospheric CO2 was rising throughout that period

        Yet another climate science denier myth that ignores the fact that mid-century cooling involved aerosols which caused increased global dimming (aerosol masking effect) and is irrelevant for recent global warming. Your myth is debunked here:

        The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

        Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

        The following chart depicts the post-WWII rapid rise in sulphate aerosols, which lasted until about 1975 as you have noted, that temporarily attenuated global warming:

        Chart Source: Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?

      230. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
        @mark green

        > the big ‘global cooling’ scare of the 1970s (which was featured on Page 1 in the NY Times, the WaPo, LA Times, TIME magazine, and Newsweek) has been completely memory-holed

        It’s pretty comical when Unz readers begin touting the sensationalist main stream media as authoritative! Too bad you didn’t read the science journals, a vast majority of which were warning about global warming, not cooling. In 1975, the fellow who coined the term global warming predicted this:

        And this is how his model for global has turned out. Not too shabby!

        Charts sourced from: Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker

        The cool-kid scientists were the contrarians in the 1970’s, predicting global warming based on scientific evidence, while the Lamestream Media was banging on about another ice age. And here we have dumbass geezer UNZ commenters, in 2019, still stuck in believing the 1970’s Lamestream Media narrative. Truly, your brain has been Hollywood-addled. Only one word can describe that! SAD!!!

      231. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

        > members of a cult a type of religion

        You’re projecting. Here’s cultish Bible-Banging Science-Denial religion at its worst:

        Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.
        1. “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”
        3. “We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant…

        Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

        All a bunch of anti-intellectual, anti-science cultish garbage. Evangelicals are the low-IQ Negro Equivalents of the White Race.

      232. anon[570] • Disclaimer says:

        > Don’t be scared. Learning new things is nothing to be scared of.

        I went over to your website. All 20 pseudoscience articles I found contained heavy doses of at least one of the “six core features of denialism,” as follows:

        …Geneticist Sean B. Carroll (not to be confused with the physicist Sean M. Carroll) in his 2007 book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, lists what he identified as the six core features of denialism. I think they make an excellent list, and would like to expand on them:

        1) Cast doubt on the science.
        2) Question the scientists’ motives and integrity.
        3) Magnify any disagreements among the scientists; cite gadflies as authorities.
        4) Exaggerate the potential for harm from the science.
        5) Appeal to the importance of personal freedom.
        6) Object that acceptance of the science would repudiate some key philosophy.

        As you will see, all of these strategies are insidious because they are extreme versions of reasonable positions. Their underlying principles are sound, it is their specific application that is the problem…

        Pseudoscience: Features of Denialism

        But let me venture a guess, you deny the scientific evidence of evolution too. Don’t be scared. Learning new things is nothing to be scared of.

      233. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > CO2 levels can rise without human causation. Therefore there is no proof of AGW.

        Fires can ignite without human causation; therefore, there is no proof of arson—said the arsonist. People can die without human causation; therefore, there is no proof of homocide—said the murder.You have all the integrity of a mob lawyer.

        p.s. Got any closer on your quest to find out what physical quantity melts ice?

      234. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
        @Peter Akuleyev

        > stupid for the right to continue denying the facts

        Much of the Stupid Party still believes in magic—that reality is “sustained by His faithful providences”—facts to the contrary be damned. TADA!!!

        …the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which says, in part, “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providences—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

        Deniers Deflated as Climate Reality Hits Home

        Most of them still think, like former Interior Secretary James G. Watts, that Jesus is going to magic their asses into heaven after the last tree goes up in flames.

        > Sea levels are rising, temperatures are increasing, droughts are increasing.

        All true, but when somebody elevates magical explanations for reality over factual evidence, science matters to them not one whit.

      235. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > This warming would cause the release of CO2 from oceans

        You don’t understand Henry’s Law, a 5th grade science lesson. Oceans are not releasing CO2, they are absorbing it because of the increase in partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as a result are becoming more acidic. Great little article on how temperature affects Henry’s Law, and you still loose on that regard:

        This calculation shows that the surface ocean would on average have to have warmed by about 10°C since about 1750 if the oceans had been the source of the CO2.

        OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?

        Oops! You didn’t do that calculation, did you? Math separates the men from the boys in science, boy.

        > Then shut the fuck up.

        You most certainly have, after thoroughly humiliating yourself here with your Fake News that defies Henry’s Law. Where did you get all your Fake News from anyway?

      236. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        > The ‘Extreme-Weather’ bugaboo is a dying lie.

        What age are you, terrible twos? Your “no, no, no!” childish tantrum is the dying lie. Here’s a nice little summary of the Fourth National Climate Assessment of the U.S. Global Change Research Program that was recently published.

        Here are 20 places where weather is getting worse because of climate change

        Where did you get your Fake News that extreme weather isn’t happening, anyway? Do you not get outdoors at all?

      237. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

        M.Hudson: “Warmer air temperature means a higher rate of evaporation, and hence more rain, tornados and flooding, as we are seeing this year.”

        You are correct that more rain and flooding are causally linked with evidence to global warming. More tornadoes? Iffy. More clusters, more powerful, migrating eastward? Yes, there is evidence that warming may be involved. Good article here on tornadoes:

        Tornadoes and climate change: what does the science say?

        I’d also urge you research the terms “wet bulb temperature” + “climate change.” Once the wet-bulb temperature reaches 35°C, one can no longer lose heat by perspiration, even in strong wind, but instead one will start gaining heat from the air beyond a wet-bulb temperature of 35°C. Healthy humans die within 6 hours.

        Humidity May Prove Breaking Point for Some Areas as Temperatures Rise, Says Study
        From U.S. South to China, Heat Stress Could Exceed Human Endurance

        As we head into a New Cretaceous Climate, Missouri has already seen a wet bulb temp of 34°C.

      238. Sparkon says:

        You can’t explain away an old forest under a currently melting glacier by any other rationale except that it was warmer in the past.

        Once all that glacier melts, and a new forest grows where the glacier formed, then we will have approached conditions and temperatures of the past that allowed that old forest to grow in the first place.

        Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

        This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

        Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

        Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.


      239. anon[332] • Disclaimer says:

        It’s time to make you another customized chart. 🙂

        Chart adapted from this source: Earth Institute, Columbia University

        > Once all that glacier melts, and a new forest grows where the glacier formed

        Oh really? LOL! You and your science-denying kooky websites obviously have never heard of the latent heat of melting, i.e., that 334 J of energy are required to melt 1 g of ice at 0°C. Melting ice takes LOTS of heat. It’s why you can’t eat snow in survival conditions, it only robs the body of heat. You weren’t a boy scout or in the military, right? And have you ever watched how fast soil develops or forests grow? Look that up too.

        • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
      240. I am here. What do you know about cosmic rays that I am so misinformed about?

        • Replies: @anon
      241. Sparkon says:

        You weren’t a boy scout or in the military, right? And have you ever watched how fast soil develops or forests grow?

        Wrong. I was in Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and the USAF, but I doubt you ever had a course in Logic.

        However you slice it, old forests beneath currently melting glaciers prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it was warmer in the distant past.

        • Replies: @anon
      242. anon[683] • Disclaimer says:

        No, it wasn’t warmer, you’re the one who needs a course in logic, and in science. Glaciers formed over 4000 years of cooling, as depicted in your custom chart above, take a long time to melt, because of the latent heat of fusion.

        But if you really think you’ve discovered something, write a scientific paper that overturns all the other science. Unfortunately, you won’t, because you arrived here on the short bus, however you slice it. Denialists have low IQs like Negroes, and unable to discern their shortcomings of understanding academic subjects like science. Latent heat of fusion is something you haven’t ever heard about. It confuses you. It makes you angry and frustrated as a Negro to read about it.

        • Replies: @Sparkon
      243. anon[683] • Disclaimer says:

        Do tell how many watts per square meter you imagine cosmic rays affect global warming. Scientists know, they’re well aware of solar irradiance and magnetic variations that affect the climate, and that affect is very small when compared to CO2. Even if the sun were to go into a “grand solar minimum,” which would lower solar irradiance and increase cosmic rays, it would barely put a dent in the rate of global warming.

        And yes, they are aware of beryllium as a proxy measurement too.

        Two methods are used to determine how low total solar irradiance (TSI) fell during the Maunder Minimum. Ice core measurements of beryllium indicate a less variable TSI while modelling from solar magnetic flux show a greater decrease in TSI during the Maunder Minimum. In Feulner 2010, both solar reconstructions are used as shown in Figure 2 below.


        I’d suggest you search key words at skepticalscience.com before you go spouting denialist bullshit that can be easily debunk in two minutes.

        • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
      244. Sparkon says:

        Denialists have low IQs like Negroes,

        Ha ha ha.

        Glaciers formed over 4000 years of cooling, as depicted in your custom chart above, take a long time to melt, because of the latent heat of fusion.

        But before the glacier even formed, a forest was there, so it had to have been warmer.

        You’re a fanatic and a trash-talking fool.

        • Replies: @anon
      245. anon[683] • Disclaimer says:

        > You’re a fanatic and a trash-talking fool.

        You’re psychologically projecting, and on top of that, both illogical and a scientific illiterate. Latent heat of fusion has got you all confused. Anyway, remember to not eat snow for water, and latent heat of fusion as ice melts is the reason why. Confused more now? LOL BTW, the below reference isn’t for you, just for the curious reader reading this who has a higher IQ than you:

        A dynamical energy balance model is developed including both latent heat and sensible heat exchanges. It is applied to reconstructing the history of the changes of the icesheet mass…

        Fong, P. (June 1982) Latent heat of melting and its importance for glaciation cycles. Climatic Change, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 199–206.

      246. @anon

        Now tell me what you know about cosmic radiation causing or not causing cloud condensation nuclei. Watts per square meter have nothing to do with the formation of cloud condensation nuclei.

        • Replies: @anon
      247. anon[683] • Disclaimer says:

        Don’t ask me, ask the scientist who did the experiments. Here’s what he said:

        CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby, about his recent cosmic ray experiment: “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.”

        At CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, scientists created an experiment to test how clouds are formed. The experiment ties in with a climate “skeptic” hypothesis that cosmic rays (charged particles from space) are causing global warming….

        What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?

        And then there’s this: while Galactic Cosmic Rays are up, global temperatures are also way up. You’re theory isn’t holding up so well.

        Chart source: https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

        I told you to go check skepticalscience.com and filter out the denialist crap that is easily debunked, right? Do you see why now?

      248. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        Latest global average temp from NASA’s GISTEMP:

        Appears to be the second hottest August ever.

      249. @anon

        You obviously don’t know much about the CERN experiments. He certainly does not discount the effect. He says that it is a significant debate about how much affect it has from saying a lot to some saying none . You can listen to his lecture here.

        Here is a scientist who thinks that the effect is significant.


        A 8% decrease in galactic cosmic ray intensity during the last 150 years as derived from 10Be records will cause a decrease of 2.0% absolute in low cover clouds which in turn will result in increasing earth’s radiation budget by 1.1 Wm–2, which is about 60% of the estimated increase of 1.66 Wm–2 forcing due to increased CO2 emission during the same period.

        • Replies: @anon
      250. @anon

        This is the video at CERN I wanted to post but for some reason it is not loading. I have seen it before.

        The title is CERN experiment points to a Cloudier Pre-Industrial Climate


        I can’t find it on Youtube and I can’t find the paper either. But I think the implications are clear. We have less clouds today and CO2 didn’t cause them.

        • Replies: @anon
      251. @anon

        Here is what the final sentence of Wikipedia says about the Cloud project:

        Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to attribute all of the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and Earth magnetosphere.

        For Wikipedia, known for its lack of objectivity on anything that is not PC, that is a hell of an admission.

        Kirkby always sounded like a guy about to lose his grant if he said the wrong thing. Maybe that is what happened.

        • Replies: @anon
      252. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        Comment 247: Watts per square meter have nothing to do
        Comment 250: increasing earth’s radiation budget by 1.1 Wm–2

        You’re contradicting yourself. You’re utterly confused, aren’t you? Which way is it; have you decided yet?

        > He certainly does not discount the effect.

        You’re contradicting what he says now.

        Lead author Jasper Kirkby has tried to set the record straight, stating (all following emphases mine):

        [The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.

        ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change

      253. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        > I think the implications are clear.

        You might, but you’re contradicting CERN’s own statement about the video.

        Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are poorly understood and yet important for climate. Indeed, they are recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013) as the largest source of uncertainty in present radiative forcing and in climate projections over the 21st century.

        CERN experiment points to a cloudier pre-industrial climate (4K)
        2016 CERN 24 May 2016

        Clear? Poorly understood? Which way is it?

      254. Sparkon says:

        Appears to be the second hottest August ever.

        Rather, the 2nd hottest average global temperature for August since 1880.

        • Replies: @anon
      255. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        Then don’t quote Wikipedia if you don’t like it, good grief! Go straight for the scientific journals. Like this one:

        Currently a cosmic ray cloud connection (CRC) hypothesis is subject of an intense controversial debate. It postulates that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) intruding the Earth’s atmosphere influence cloud cover. If correct it would have important consequences for our understanding of climate driving processes. Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.

        Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover
        Geophysical Research Letters: Atmospheric Science

        You kinda sounded like a guy about to lose his mind if he reads the wrong thing. Maybe that is what happened.

      256. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        You found it—a cute pop song parody! It’s groovy, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? I guess you’re the youtube video man, may as well jump in too one by Jasper Kirby himself:

        Please watch the whole thing. It’s narrated by Jasper Kirby. He is not disproving global warming as you mistakenly purport, he is trying to “narrow down” how much global warming is predicted in the models. Here is what CERN’s Jasper Kirby he says at 2 minutes, 43 seconds into the video:


        You don’t agree with Jasper Kirby, right? Watch it. Kirby himself disproves everything you and the science-deniers are trying to assign to him.

      257. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        You don’t understand the latent heat of melting ice. Sad! Come on, look up the term, and apply it to glaciers. You sound retarded as you petulantly demand that latent heat be disregarded in glacier formation and melting.

        But if we go back further than the recorded temperature record from the late 1800’s, and look at proxy temperatures, we can find briefly (geologically speaking) warmer temps than today’s, barely warmer, about 125,000 years ago, during the previous inter-glacial warm period. See it there?

        Graph: Friedrich et al. 2016 (in black) en Snyder 2016 (in green).

        Which is why scientist say:

        Earth hasn’t been this hot for more than 100,000 years

        And once we pop above that temperature peak at 125,000 years ago in a few decades, the headlines are going to be “Earth hasn’t been this hot in millions of years.” Read all about it here:

        Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

        What’s the hottest Earth’s ever been?

      258. Sorry for the confusion. I was not talking about watts per meter squared at the time. I was talking about cloud condensation nuclei. I wanted you to focus on that at the time. I want you to understand that CERN found that cosmic rays do cause cloud condensation nuclei to form. Then we get to Watts per meter squared.

        I finally have found the right video. I thought the link above was right but apparently I cut and pasted in the next youtube link by accident which had loaded without me realizing it. Hopefully this is the right link. Kirkby clearly states the CERN experiment proved that cosmic rays cause cloud condensation nuclei to form and multiply in the presence of biogenic vapors. He says in pre-industrial times this “the way” clouds formed. He says today they are not the only means the way clouds form due to sulfuric acid in the air which also makes clouds form and that today sulfuric acid may be the predominant way they are formed.

        However, that is obviously going to be dependent on locale. A locale far enough from pollution and full of trees and plants will be the means in which clouds form.

        • Replies: @anon
      259. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        Thank you. Did you listen to what he said? Three minutes, 22 seconds into the video, Jasper Kirby states, as I’ve transcribed below:

        “This cloud result will have an important effect on global climate models. It’s important to be clear that what this will do is slightly reduce and sharpen the projections of temperature during the 21st century. It will warm. WE are definitely warming the planet. But what the Cloud result will do will serve to sharpen these numbers. They won’t go away. We’re still do for considerable warming. It’s going to be a more precise prediction.” -Jasper Kirby at 3+22

        So, here’s what you’ve done: (1) You’ve helped refute the climate-science-denialist garbage found throughout this thread bellowing about how climate models not being good. CERN’s Cloud experiments will make them more accurate, and may slightly reduce the predicted temps. (2) You’ve confirmed that we humans are definitely warming the planet, and (3) that the warming will be considerable.

        Jasper Kirby is not saying the words that lying denialists are falsely trying to put in his mouth. You’ve provided very good science to study. You’re the first person at unz from whom I’ve actually learned something about climate science, and I truly appreciate that. Here’s to hoping he’s correct; anything to slightly delay the climate catastrophe from the considerable warming we’re going to see is great, and will make my few more decades, and the years my children have to live, slightly more pleasant on this earth.

        > A locale far enough from pollution

        Pipe dream. Listen to what he says. All the CERN Cloud experiment is going to show is “slight” changes in how accurate climate forcings are already modeled, as shown on the NASA GISS graph:

        source: Denialist Claim: “Aerosols Are Not Even Considered in Climate Models”

        • Replies: @anon
      260. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        * spelling error on what I transcribed from the CERN Cosmic Ray/Cloud video:

        “We’re still do due for considerable warming.”

      261. So at least you recognize that cosmic rays can cause clouds. That is the admission I wanted from you in the beginning. Now that you have admitted that here is what Kirkby didn’t say, that is extremely important.

        Increased CO2 has greened up the earth immensely since 1985, according to NASA.


        This immense greening of the earth, which you seem to hate, will greatly increase biogenics over what existed before the industrial age when CO2 was 280 ppm. So their effects will be substantially greater if they supplant sulfuric acid as the primary cloud maker. I would suggest that is probably already happening in the southern hemisphere where the oceans cover 80% of it. Pollution is not the sulfuric generator in the southern hemisphere as it is in the northern.

        Moreover, about the time of Kirkby’s talk, a study published in Nature in 1995 found that the earth has three trillion trees, not the 450 million we had thought.


        Now with three trillion trees, a simple doubling gets you about as many trees that have ever been on the earth since man arrived. And that is not going to be hard to do if CO2 at present levels continues to be the huge plant multiplier it has become. So even the northern hemisphere where most of the trees are could supplant sulfuric acid as the primary cloud driver in the northern hemisphere.

        So these small effects Kirkby sees might end up being huge if he has failed to consider the huge plant growth that has happened since 1985. If we return to the levels of cosmic radiation that were more common during the last millennium, with all of these biogenics floating around, the earth will probably cool, ironically because huge increases in CO2 made the mechanism possible.

        • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
        , @anon
      262. @davidgmillsatty

        Correction: 450 billion trees not million.

      263. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        > That is the admission

        As long as you admit (1) it is still controversial and the hypothesis is being tested, and (2) CRC effects are “slight” as your videos stated. Sure, slight is enough to force some climate changes, but CO2 forcing is still the 800 lb gorilla.

        > Increased CO2 has greened up the earth immensely since 1985

        Bad news: It was greening, temporarily, but that stopped two decades ago. (NASA needs to update their website.) Now the Earth is browning.

        The study published yesterday in Science Advances points to satellite observations that revealed expanding vegetation worldwide during much of the 1980s and 1990s. But then, about 20 years ago, the trend stopped. Since then, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have been experiencing a “browning” trend, or decrease in plant growth, according to the authors.

        Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago | August 15, 2019

        > small effects Kirkby sees

        That’s it: small. He’s only nudging the climate models a bit to make them slightly more accurate, and says so.

        > might end up being huge if he has failed to consider the huge plant growth

        You’re grasping for straws. Unfortunately, there is no “huge plant growth.” Below is a chart of the satellites that measured the former greening. You can see where it peaked just before 2000.

        Chart source: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396/tab-figures-data

        Global Warming is going to march steadily upward, just as the CERN CRC videos you showed me state. And it’s time for the men in the room to admit what the science says, and start proposing common sense mitigation and adaptation.

        If the Right can’t admit to scientific fact, then AOC and her crew have the catbird seat in forming opinion and policy from the science, and the Denialists, whatever good intentions they may have in opposing the hare-brained policies of the Leftists, are going to have major credibility issues as global warming becomes more pronounced.

        • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
      264. First of all, I am not a member of the right. I am far left.

        I am interested in the browning. Who are the people that say this? Biologists or physicists? What do these people say is the cause?

        Here is a study done in 1954 that shows that corn fields in Iowa were starved for CO2 from sun-up to sundown back when CO2 was 300 ppm.


        So clearly there is evidence that adequate CO2 should should green up the earth.

        What about the trees? Are they wrong as well?

        I really don’t care about the charts. You can stop posting them. Economists do the same fucking thing. Do you want to be compared with economists? Because that is what you look like.

        Use some verbal skills.

        • Replies: @anon
      265. @anon

        Now that I have read about it I see that you miss the huge significance of this. The browning is caused by the air drying out. At the beginning of the article it talks about how warmer air can hold more moisture. Colder air can’t.

        The Antarctic has the driest atmosphere on earth. During the ice ages the earth was much more desertified than now. So the first thing that should enter anyone’s head is the question of whether the earth is getting colder and the drying out of the air is caused by cooling.

        It is interesting that the time the article claims the earth begins to dry out coincidentally corresponds to a solar cycle that begins to be much less active than all of the others of the 20th century and should indicate a cooling climate.

        This paper supports the Svensmark thesis. The earth is beginning to cool and the air is drying out.

        • Replies: @anon
      266. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        > The browning is caused by the air drying out

        That’s what the article to which I linked said.

        > At the beginning of the article it talks about how warmer air can hold more moisture

        Warmer air can hold more moisture, but because it’s hotter, that moisture has to be added in sufficient quantities, otherwise, the plant dries out, even if there is more moisture in the air. (Do you realize that if you raise your house temperature from 60 to 70 degrees that there can be more volume of water in the air, even if the relative humidity went down bit and it feels drier?) That dryness (even if there is more water in the air) is called atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD). From the article from which I referenced the chart:

        Abstract: Atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD) is a critical variable in determining plant photosynthesis. Synthesis of four global climate datasets reveals a sharp increase of VPD after the late 1990s. In response, the vegetation greening trend indicated by a satellite-derived vegetation index (GIMMS3g), which was evident before the late 1990s, was subsequently stalled or reversed.

        Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth

        > This paper supports the Svensmark thesis.

        No it doesn’t. Write the author and ask.

        > The earth is beginning to cool

        The chain of misunderstandings that you used to arrive at that conclusion is equivalent to how the flat-earthers arrive at their opinion. I’m still not quite sure if you’re joking or not.

      267. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        > I really don’t care about the charts.

        That chart of satellite data quantifies the greening, and then the pause and subsequent browning of the earth, which is why you don’t like it; it disproves your fantasies. Notice in the example below how Ireland isn’t getting greener. What color is it? Browner? That’s what the satellites measure, and charts display the quantified information.

      268. Your thesis depends on the assumption that the temperature data is correct. If it is not, then your argument falls flat on its face. Since cold air can’t hold much moisture the implication is that it is cold not hot. The burden is on you to explain the lack of moisture in the air as a plausible explanation for drought being heat caused.

        Interesting that you picked the Emerald Isle. So what do you say caused the browning in one year’s time? It is an obvious drought this summer. Here is the reported data:

        As part of their mid-year Outlook, Teagasc economists outlined how Irish grassland and tillage farmers have faced highly unusual weather through the first half of 2018. A long winter was followed by an abnormal spring rainfall pattern. This is turn has been followed by summer drought conditions and unusually high temperatures.

        The initial impact of these weather anomalies was felt via elevated levels of winter feeding of cattle and late planting of spring sown tillage crops. This was then followed by high levels of spring rainfall, which resulted in cattle being removed from pasture and re-housed for a period. By the middle of summer, drought conditions led to a collapse in grass growth, limited grazing and an interruption to silage production.


        So we start out with a long winter, followed by a flooding spring and finally a summer with high heat and no rain. High heat should have produced high humidity on an island. It did not. Why?

        But are you suggesting that Ireland is a proxy for what is happening?

        By the way, your personal attacks don’t help your argument. They are the tactics of losers. Up your game. Stick to facts and data.

        • Replies: @anon
      269. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

        > Since cold air can’t hold much moisture the implication is that it is cold not hot.

        By your twisted “logic,” the dry Sahara desert is the coldest place of all.

        • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
      270. anon[383] • Disclaimer says:

        Latest August 2019 update on the death spiral of arctic sea ice:

        This song by Bruce Springsteen sums it up nicely. Even the Trump Administration acknowledges it, while trying to positively spin the death spiral.

        • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
      271. @anon

        The Sahara is pretty damn cold at night. The Sahara is not as dry as Antarctica. And actually the history of the Sahara is that it has been fairly wet in the not to distant past. In fact it had huge lakes and has a huge subterranean aquifer. It did not get the aquifer by being a dray place.

        But back to the topic at hand. You concede that CERN has proven that clouds are produced by cosmic radiation. So we definitely have another contender for global warming. Kirkby does not know, nor does anyone else just how the sun will react. If it goes into enough of a lull that the earth gets bombarded with cosmic rays, his opinion that cosmic rays will only have a small effect in limiting global warming could very well be significantly wrong. We just don’t know enough about the sun at this point to know.

        But here is what really bothers me about the Armageddonists. If they really were serious about CO2 they would be abandoning their pipe dreams of renewables and get serious about nuclear power. If they are not serious about nuclear power they are not really serious about CO2.

        • Replies: @anon
      272. @anon

        And it was supposed to be ice free by 2005.

        • Replies: @anon
      273. anon[383] • Disclaimer says:

        > The Sahara is pretty damn cold at night.

        Then surely you’ve disproven global warming. LOL!

        > You concede

        You’re a shyster lawyer trying to establish guilt, while totally misconstruing what the CERN experiments are about.

        > Kirkby does not know

        Which way is it? LOL! You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth like a shyster, and even more confused about the sun and the CERN experiments.

        > We just don’t know enough about the sun at this point to know.

        You’re psychologically projecting your own ignorance.

        > serious about nuclear power

        Again, you’re shyster who is flat-out lying now. Plenty of people concerned about global warming advocate nuclear power. I can prove you’re flat-out lying, you half-witted jackass.

        How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming
        Nuclear power is one of the few technologies that can quickly combat climate change, experts argue

        Yet again we see that: Climate Science Denialists always Lie.

      274. anon[383] • Disclaimer says:

        Who said that, your pet hamster? Your pet hamster was wrong. But even though your hamster predicted wrongly, the arctic ice is melting rapidly, as the updated-monthly death spiral chart shows.

        You probably think ice melts as it gets colder.

        • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
      275. anon[383] • Disclaimer says:

        Summer 2019, latest report from NOAA:

        “The Northern Hemisphere’s five warmest summers have all occurred in the last five years.”

        NOAA Global Climate Report – August 2019

        Heating up nearly as fast as an asteroid hit. (see chart in comment #222) But don’t be alarmed, our team of clever science-denialists can overcome reality with their word magic. Well, maybe not so clever, the “Realist” still has not yet determined what physical quantity melts ice.

      276. Actually you are the one who lost the Sahara / Antarctic argument. You picked the hottest and driest place on the planet and I picked the coldest and driest place on the planet and the coldest place is drier. And you complain about my logic.

        Sure there are AGW CO2 people now who are finally advocating nuclear power but most of them still are stuck on renewables. Every major Democratic candidate is into renewables. Not a single one has advocated nuclear power as the best answer to stopping CO2 emissions. As a person on the left, this just irritates the hell out of me. They want my grandkids to live in energy poverty. And if you want to know what kind of nuclear power I think we need here is something I wrote about it in depth.


        (And by the way that website is primarily composed of Bernie Sanders supporters who got pissed off with the DNC, Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton and the Russigate bullshit.)

        You are not going to get anywhere with me posting temperature data. We all know how it has been massaged and manipulated. And it is easy to prove. First of all in the modern era they do not consistently use mercury thermometer data. So we are not comparing apples to apples. That is the biggest problem.

        Wikipedia posts all of the highest temperatures state by state and very few are after 2000. When we use actual data conducted by mercury thermometers, even with the urban heat island effect being much more prominent today, the nineteen thirties still holds the most high temperature records. The highest temperature ever recorded in the US, at Death Valley, was in the nineteen thirties. No temperatures in the 2000’s have even come close. And the same thing happens globally with a few exceptions.

        And as far as I am concerned, any increase in temperature is probably mostly the result of less cosmic radiation than we had in the past. After the CERN experiment cosmic radiation must now be considered as a true competitor to CO2 as a global climate driver. Maybe as we learn more about the sun we will get to figure out just how much it is. Because clouds affect climate far more than CO2 does.

        And as to why Kirkby does not know, a simple look at the Be10 record of cosmic radiation has huge variances in the last millennium. So unless Kirkby can predict what the sun will do over the next several hundred years, he does not know. He may have a point that the cosmic radiation will have a small effect if the cosmic radiation does not change significantly over the next century, but if it does his opinion would be wildly wrong.

        And again you need to stop with the personal attacks. That is a clear sign you are losing the arguments and are desperate. Up your game. You embarrass the left with personal attacks on your opponents.

        • Replies: @anon
      277. @anon

        I meant 2015 not 2005. Typo. But Al Gore predicted in 2008 and 2009 that in 5-7 years the Arctic would be free of ice during the summer. Prediction was obviously wrong.

        • Replies: @anon
      278. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

        But if still think “dry” automatically means “cold,” then go have some fun freezing your ass off in Death Valley at noon in July, ok? And then you start on you Gish Gallop of standard climate-science-denialist bullshit about manipulated temperatures, blah, blah, blah, and then misrepresent the CERN Cloud experiment. Go watch the videos you begged me to watch; you’re misrepresenting them. I’m not going to keep correcting you over and over and over again, you’re too stupid. But I will address this:

        > The highest…the nineteen thirties.

        Unfortunately, you haven’t looked at a globe lately. Death Valley is a single, small location, not the globe. The US is 2% of the globe’s surface. This is how the 1930’s looked, compared to now:

        Chart source:
        Climate Myth: 1934 is the hottest year on record
        Science Says: Globally the year 1934 was cooler than the 20th century average.

        Cherry-picking a single locale on a single date doesn’t mean anything, but I bet you’re stupid enough to think so.

      279. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

        The politician Al Gore isn’t a scientist who made scientific predictions in a science journal any more than your hamster is. Plus, you obviously got a politician’s wrong prediction wrong, so you’ve made just as fatal of an error as Al Gore did, thus negating everything you say and anybody else you might agree with. Tada! I really love using your shyster logic. 🙂

        However, the Department of the United States Navy, which is highly concerned about ice cover and nuclear submarine maneuvers in the Arctic, did issue a warning to its fleet about the Arctic possibly being mostly ice free in 2015, based on the extremely rapid decline of Arctic Sea ice mass from 2001 to 2012, as depicted on this chart:

        You can see what Al Gore was worried about from 2001 to 2012. I surmise that Al Gore took that warning of a possible ice free Arctic meant to prepare US Navy leadership and construed the possibility as a certainty. He was in error to do that, and lost his credibility. That’s why you never trust a Democrat politician, or your Leftist ass! None of you are credible:)

      280. Skeptical science will never convince anyone who is an AGW denier. Just write it off. Don’t waste your time posting that shit. I have looked at the mercury temperature data on Wikipedia from all of the countries of the world and it does not match that shit you just posted. Just a bunch of biased people with an agenda.

        Here is the interesting thing about the northern and southern hemisphere with respect to clouds. The southern hemisphere is much more cloudy. It is covered 80% by oceans and has one continent with no people and another with very few. It only contains 10 % of the world’s population. So where is the pollution in the Southern Hemisphere to produce sulfuric acid Kirkby says causes most of the clouds today? I could see making that argument in the northern hemisphere where 90% of the world’s population is but not in the southern and the southern has more clouds.

        So it seems to me that Kirkby had not fully fleshed out this statement, or was just genuflecting to the AGW crowd with his unsupported conclusion that most of the clouds today are formed by sulfuric acid from pollution. Logic would indicate that the converse is true.

      281. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

        > Skeptical science will never convince anyone who is an AGW denier.

        Wrong. the SkepticalScience.com convinced me, or rather, challenged me to go out and actually study the science at the science journal article level, which the website always cites. Before this year, as a typical rural Republican voter, I had thought it likely that climate change was a crock, like many rural Republican voters do. Now I don’t.

        > I have looked at the mercury temperature data

        Super!!! Publish your data, and compare/contrast it to the publicly-accessible data at NASA GISS. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/ or any of the other global temperature data sets available.

        > The southern hemisphere is much more cloudy.

        How much ya reckon, pardner?

        Source: MODIS sensor on the NASA Terra satellite, July 11, 2005

        > Kirkby had not fully fleshed out this statement

        Translation: I’ve called you out so many times for misrepresenting what Kirkby said, that you finally gave up trying to put words in his mouth.

      282. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

        I wonder how many halibut fisherman in Alaska are still parroting climate-science denialist talking points about how climate model inaccuracy means climate change definitely isn’t happening.

        Graph source below:

        “For two years, the Bering Sea has been largely without winter ice, a development scientists modeling the warming impacts of greenhouse-gas pollution from fossil fuels once forecast would not occur until 2050.”

        As Bering Sea ice melts, Alaskans, scientists and Seattle’s fishing fleet witness changes ‘on a massive scale’
        Sep. 15, 2019 at 6:00 am Updated Sep. 19, 2019 at 7:05 pm

        Remember this term: Faster-Than-Expected.

        Climate Changed.

      283. You were a Republican and now you are not? Think you are some kind of liberal?

        At least with the last few posts you have stopped the personal attacks.

        And you completely flipped your opinion in a year?

        I began studying the sun ten years ago and my opinion hasn’t changed since I learned of the possibility that solar activity was a possible cause of climate change. As time has gone on the evidence has only gotten stronger.

        There is nothing you have told me that makes me think any differently.

        We can play the game of you cite yours and I will cite mine till the cows come home. You can cite Skeptical Science and I will cite notrickszone who every year lists all the published papers on solar influence on climate.

        Here is the list from 2016. Part 1 (of 3) lists 133 papers. Have at it. There are probably 500 or more in the last five years. Maybe 750. I don’t keep track anymore. They are piling up too fast. But you can find all the years from this link.


        I think we have reached an impasse and it is time to say we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

        • Replies: @anon
        , @anon
      284. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

        > You were a Republican and now you are not?

        Wrong. Can you even read?

        > I will cite mine

        LOL! Then go ahead and cite! Please do! The only scientist—who you begged me to watch—you’ve cited says, “We are definitely warming the planet….We’re still due for considerable warming.” (Jasper Kirkby, CERN)

        You’re going to watch that happen, and your denial and lying isn’t going to stop it.

        And lying is all you’ve got. Climate scientists well understand that variations in the sun (that list from the notrickzone liars) affect climate. It’s just that variations in the sun are minuscule now compared to CO2.

      285. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

        P.S. About all the scientific studies about solar variations that are listed at the Denialist site clowntrickzone: Even if the Sun goes into a “Grand Solar Minimum,” it will put only a slight dent in global warming. All the bullshit about a “Grand Solar Minimum” cooling the globe is a pure lie. Cite a million studies about solar variation, and all you get, at the most extreme, is a “Grand Solar Minimum.” Go look at the graph I provided in comment #107. All you goofballs are hanging onto hopes that that graph dashes.

        NASA addresses the kind of stupid shit upon which your “Grand Solar Minimum” hopes are hung:

        Some people have linked the Maunder Minimum’s temporary cooling effect to decreased solar activity, but that change was more likely influenced by increased volcanic activity and ocean circulation shifts.3

        Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.

        What Is the Sun’s Role in Climate Change?

        Just watch. It’s going to keep getting warmer and warmer, in spite of your denials, evasions, excuses, lying about what the science actually says, and hopes that you can avoid the consequences of evaporating earth’s vast coal beds and oil fields into our thin atmosphere.

      Current Commenter

      Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

       Remember My InformationWhy?
       Email Replies to my Comment
      Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
      Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Michael Hudson Comments via RSS