Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years



Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change. But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming. –Sarah Knapton, The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2016

1) Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years, Scott And Shackleton Logbooks Prove
The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 20162) Trump To Scrap NASA Climate Research In Crackdown On ‘Politicized Science’
The Guardian, 23 November 20163) GWPF Climate Briefing: A Brief History Of Arctic Angst
GWPF Climate Briefing, November 20164) Reality Check: Donald Trump On Climategate & The Paris Agreement
GWPF, 23 November 2016

5) Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s Climate Plan Might Not Be So Bad After All
The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

In 2009, Al Gore announced ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.’ The dates by which climate scientists and politicians said the ice would disappear have come and gone, while the ice has remained. Undaunted, fresh predictions have been made in every subsequent year. One problem that persists is that there is still only a relatively short series of direct measurements on which to base our understanding of the Arctic. Satellite monitoring of the Arctic only began in 1978, giving us less than forty years of reliable data. This may not be enough to establish what is normal – or abnormal – for the region. Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us. —GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

Donald Trump plans to put NASA’s focus back on space exploration and cut away programs that study climate change. Bob Walker, an adviser to Trump, told The Guardian that the incoming president wants to keep NASA away from ‘politicized science.’ Other government agencies can take on climate research, he said. ‘We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research,’ Walker told the publication. ‘Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.’ –Francesca Chambers, Daily Mail, 23 November 2016

The international news media is reporting that Donald Trump has changed his mind on climate change and the Paris climate agreement. Yet the transcript of his New York Times interview shows it is far too early to know what the next US President will do about climate and energy policy. —GWPF, 23 November 2016

The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have terrified environmentalists and climate campaigners, who have declared that the next four years will be a “disaster.” Fear is understandable. We have much to learn about the new administration’s plans. But what little we know offers some cause for hope. Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end. –Bjorn Lomborg, The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

1) Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years, Scott And Shackleton Logbooks Prove 
The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2016

Sarah Knapton

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.

Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change.

But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.

Scott's ship the Terra Nova 
Scott’s ship the Terra Nova

It also explains why sea ice levels in the South Pole have begun to rise again in recent years, a trend which has left climate scientists scratching their heads.

“The missions of Scott and Shackleton are remembered in history as heroic failures, yet the data collected by these and other explorers could profoundly change the way we view the ebb and flow of Antarctic sea ice,” said Dr Jonathan Day, who led the study, which was published in the journal The Cryosphere.

“We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began. Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these new findings suggest it may not be anything new.

“If ice levels were as low a century ago as estimated in this research, then a similar increase may have occurred between then and the middle of the century, when previous studies suggest ice levels were far higher.”

Captain Scott and team 
Captain Scott and team

The study was based on the ice observations recorded in the logbooks from 11 voyages between 1897 and 1917, including three expeditions led by Captain Scott, two by Shackleton, as well as sea-ice records from Belgian, German and French missions.

Captain Scott died along with his team in 1912 after losing to Norwegian Roald Amundsen in the race to the South Pole, while Shackleton’s ship sank after becoming trapped in ice in 1915 as he and his crew attempted the first land crossing of Antarctica.

The study is the first to calculate sea ice in the period prior to the 1930s, and suggests the levels in the early 1900s were between 3.3 and 4.3 million square miles (5.3 and 7.4 million square kilometres)

Estimates suggest Antarctic sea ice extent was significantly higher during the 1950s, before a steep decline returned it to around 3.7 million miles (6 million square kilometres) in recent decades which is just 14 per cent smaller than at the highest point of the 1900s and 12 per cent bigger than than the lowest point.

One of the first aerial photographs of the Antarctic obtained from a balloon in 1901, showing Erich Von Drygalski's ship The Gauss 
One of the first aerial photographs of the Antarctic obtained from a balloon in 1901, showing Erich Von Drygalski’s ship The Gauss

The findings demonstrate that the climate of Antarctica fluctuated significantly throughout the 20th century and  indicates that sea ice in the Antarctic is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than that of the Arctic, which has experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century.

In future the team plans to use data from naval and whaling ships as well as the logs from Amundsen’s expeditions to complete the picture.

Separate research by the British Antarctic Survey also showed that the present day loss of the Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been happening since the mid 20th century and was probably caused by El Nino activity rather than global warming.

Pine Island Glacier, which drains into the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica, is retreating and thinning rapidly, but the initial triggering mechanism was unclear. The team looked a sediment cores in the area which showed that an ocean cavity under the ice shelf began to form around 1945, following a pulse of warmth associated with El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Full story

See also: Estimating the extent of Antarctic summer sea ice during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration
The Cryosphere, 10, 2721-2730, 2016 — 21 November 2016

Tom Edinburgh and Jonathan J. Day

Abstract. In stark contrast to the sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, there has been a steady increase in ice extent around Antarctica during the last three decades, especially in the Weddell and Ross seas. In general, climate models do not to capture this trend and a lack of information about sea ice coverage in the pre-satellite period limits our ability to quantify the sensitivity of sea ice to climate change and robustly validate climate models. However, evidence of the presence and nature of sea ice was often recorded during early Antarctic exploration, though these sources have not previously been explored or exploited until now. We have analysed observations of the summer sea ice edge from the ship logbooks of explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott, Ernest Shackleton and their contemporaries during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (1897–1917), and in this study we compare these to satellite observations from the period 1989–2014, offering insight into the ice conditions of this period, from direct observations, for the first time. This comparison shows that the summer sea ice edge was between 1.0 and 1.7° further north in the Weddell Sea during this period but that ice conditions were surprisingly comparable to the present day in other sectors.

2) Trump To Scrap NASA Climate Research In Crackdown On ‘Politicized Science’
The Guardian, 23 November 2016

Oliver Milman

Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

Full story

3) GWPF Climate Briefing: A Brief History Of Arctic Angst
GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us.

Click on image to watch video

In the last days of the Northern hemisphere’s summer, the sea ice that covers part of the Arctic Ocean reaches its minimum extent.

The annual change, recorded by satellites, has come to be seen as evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and a warning of what is to come.

It features in the global news every Summer. One journalist has called it the planet’s ‘white flag of surrender’, others the ‘Arctic Death Spiral’.

The lowest sea ice extent ever recorded was in 2012, and previous to that in 2007.

In the 2000s, a new trend of decreasing sea ice minimums seemed to be emerging. Whereas computer models had predicted that Arctic summer sea ice wouldn’t disappear until the middle of the century, the rate of decline seemed to be much faster.

The story of rapid, unnatural change and the plight of the polar bear became powerful symbols of climate change happening in real time. Campaigners launched high profile, swimming, kayaking and evidence-gathering missions to the North Pole to draw the media’s attention to the issue.

In 2007, media stories featured the claims of Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski, who claimed that the ice would be gone by 2013.

The following year, Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted that 2008 could be “become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

And in 2009, Al Gore announced ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.’

But the missions to the Arctic were hampered by bad weather, not open sea. And the dates by which climate scientists and politicians said the ice would disappear have come and gone, while the ice has remained.

Undaunted, fresh predictions have been made in every subsequent year.

2016 was no exception. In June, one scientist claimed that his prediction of an ice-free Arctic ocean might finally come true. The story made headlines throughout the world. But rather than disappearing, the joint-second lowest sea ice extent since 1978 was recorded…

Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us.

Watch video

4) Reality Check: Donald Trump On Climategate & The Paris Agreement
GWPF, 23 November 2016

The international news media is reporting that Donald Trump has changed his mind on climate change and the Paris climate agreement.

Yet the transcript of his New York Times interview shows it is far too early to know what the next US President will do about climate and energy policy.

President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.CreditHiroko Masuike/The New York Times

Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview: Transcript

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …
[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape.

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.
We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate …

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

Full interview

5) Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s Climate Plan Might Not Be So Bad After All
The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have terrified environmentalists and climate campaigners, who have declared that the next four years will be a “disaster.” Fear is understandable. We have much to learn about the new administration’s plans. But what little we know offers some cause for hope.

It should not need to be restated in 2016 that climate change is real and mostly man-made. It is hard to know whether Trump will acknowledge this. He has called global warming a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, but stated that this was a joke; he denied the existence of climate change during the campaign, but supported global warming action as recently as 2009.

What really matters is not rhetoric but policy. So far, we know that a President Trump will likely drop the Paris climate change treaty. This is far from the world-ending event that some suggest and offers an opportunity for a smarter approach.

Even ardent supporters acknowledge that the Paris treaty by itself will do little to rein in global warming. The United Nations estimates that if every country were to make every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent and there was no cheating, carbon dioxide emissions would still be cut by only one-hundredth of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The Paris treaty’s 2016-2030 pledges would reduce temperature rises around 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. If maintained throughout the rest of the century, temperature rises would be cut by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.

At the same time, these promises will be costly. Trying to cut carbon dioxide, even with an efficient tax, makes cheap energy more expensive — and this slows economic growth.

My calculations using the best peer-reviewed economic models show the cost of the Paris promises — through slower gross domestic product growth from higher energy costs — would reach $1 trillion to $2 trillion every year from 2030. U.S. vows alone — to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 — would reduce GDP by more than $150 billion annually.

So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end.

Full post


616 Responses

    1. Why are climate scientist who are often “wrong” still called scientist? Why are proffesors who teach junk science still teaching? Why haven’t parents and students sued them and their universities for their money back?

      1. The facts are the true science. That’s the problem these enviro-nuts face. When NASA confirms the ice is not melting, but rather expanding would you not call that scientific evidence (i.e. Facts)?

        1. Sure. Absolutely. Here’s the thing, and what a lot of you don’t understand: Science isn’t about being right, it’s not about proving what’s right. It’s about proving what is incorrect. To do that means to experiment. It’s easy to depersonalize “climate change scientists” into a tight-knit group of shills, but the evidence in the arctic is becoming clear even to the layman. It’s *drastically* warmer here in the arctic.

          1. “Here in the Arctic”?? Do you live there? Strange. If it were “drastically warmer” then the ice would be melting,.. which the facts and evidence show its not.

            1. Yes, I do live in the arctic–not sure why that’s strange. I live and work north of Fairbanks.

              This is the point in this discussion where it becomes circuitous—I point to data, and you claim it’s invalid for “x” reason, so I point you to another dataset with separate PI’s and you claim it’s invalid for “y” reason, etc.
              Where does that leave us? What data are you willing to accept that proves the arctic is warming?

              Here’s one:

              1. How about two decades of actual global temperature measurements by NASA satellites and thousands of NOAA ocean temperature sensors which show zero significant temperature increase?
                Even the UN IPCC Chair had to admit this. That’s why environmentalist wackos are now being forced to lie about it and call it a ‘pause’ or a ‘hiatus’ when it’s no such thing.

                1. And there’s the problem with laymen being asked to explain complex scientific issues. It’s very easy to pick on things we don’t understand and come up with ways to explain them away because we don’t understand them.

                  Look, I’m not a climate scientist, I’m a physicist. I can explain to you the minutia about magnetoionic plasma turbulence at the edge of the magnetosphere all day long. That doesn’t mean you’d understand it in any greater detail than you explaining to me whatever it is that you’re an expert on. Using that same logic, one can’t explain a complex system based on single data points, or even a collection of individual points without understanding the system as a whole.

                  1. Well there’s over 40,000 various scientists (including meteorologists, atmospheric and climatologists) that all signed a petition arguing against “global warming” because the facts simply do not support it. That’s why they now just call it “Climate change” because it covers everything that happens even normal activity, seasonal variances, or when there’s fewer hurricanes or more hurricanes, less rain, more rain, blah blah blah, etc. Just a little CYA don’t you think?

                  2. Ken, there are some of us who would understand that specific study of yours quite well. The best and brightest teachers can even explain the important parts of Quantum Mechanics and the Schrodinger Wave Equation to an interested child. It’s a matter of simplification, and not that difficult.

                    However, there is another important point related to your comment. You are correct, because of the limits of our life and time, we are dependent on other experts for information and increasing the boundaries of our knowledge. In the 21st century, one man cannot attain proficiency in every discipline, although this was likely true only 600-700 years ago.

                    Therefore, it is particularly egregious when formerly-trusted scientific authorities (e.g., Mann, Vine) become dishonest and corrupt, or stoop to ostracizing colleagues for political, social, or monetary gain.

              2. You forgot to address cdw’s post to you. Since he went to all that trouble to research it and gather it together for you, I think it would be only fair for you to address it

          2. That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
            You don’t send men to the moon unless you’re sure you’re ‘right’.
            You don’t inoculate millions of children against polio unless you’re pretty damn sure you’re ‘right’.
            And you don’t set technological progress back fifty years on phony artificially weighted computer-generated apocalyptic doomsday crap that has been time and again been PROVEN incorrect.
            AGW is a HOAX, a SCAM, a FRAUD and a LIE.

            1. Hi.
              You’re right, I’m sure, that the development of rockets never failed prior to the Apollo program.

              My question to you is the same as the other commentors: If climate change is not valid, how does one explain the measurable trend of rising temperatures that’s never been seen before in history?

              Note, however, that you’re talking politics, I’m talking numbers and science, and I don’t know that we’ll be able to come to resolve……

              1. There IS no ‘measurable trend’. That is a lie.
                Two decades of actual global temperature measurements by NASA satellites and NOAA ocean temperature sensors show ZERO significant global temperature increase despite alleged drastic spikes in CO2. It’s just not happening.

                    1. It’s a very specific graph, crafted to show a very specific result, based on very particular sensors from one data source.

                      I’ll note that your refusal to look at or explain the graphs I posted indicate a “head-in-the-sand” viewpoint.

                      I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, if you celebrate it.

                    2. Your highly localized and non-sourced graph is totally contradicted by the massive evidence presented in a six-decade global database of actual satellite temperature measurements.
                      We both know very well who’s ‘refusing’ to look at the evidence.

                      But it’s par for the course for AGW fanatics to run for the hills in the face of actual, documented and credible evidence that blows away over a hundred phony computer models.
                      But whatever helps you sleep at night, pal.

                    3. Lie. You got your phony graph rammed down your throat by REAL evidence and you’re running for the hills.

                    4. Well that graphs clearly shows that “El Nino” is “the bad guy!” Need to focus on squashing those pesky “El Nino”s. Maybe Kerry, Obama, Hillary, Kerry and friends should try taking public transportation instead of gas guzzling / CO2 belching fleets of private jets! Hey they scold us for our CO2 emissions – what about their’s?? Heck, they SAY that’s the problem!

                    5. You do understand that climate is a phenomenon that is measured over millennia. 35 years is not even a snapshot. What you are looking at is weather.
                      But even then, it has been released that leftist scientists have been suppressing historical temperatures to make present temperatures appear to be an upswing. I guess they thought that no one would think that they would manipulate temperatures down.

                    6. Now, you’ve gone and confused that poor lib by telling ‘him’ that weather and climate are different things. Shame on you! : )

                    7. Read it and see. You did complete high school, did you not?
                      (For the record, I got a GED. Now don’t tell me I’m smarter than you.)

                  1. You keep linking to that graph; I do not think it means what you think it means.

                    For starters, there is no defining data, just dots and lines, with a trend line that stops in 2012. Why is that? They don’t want to show the last four years? Oh, and the trend line is bogus, as it starts during a period of land measurement and continues into satelleite data. See that big jump between 1973 1nd 1979? 79 was the first year after satellite measurements began.

                    1. Yeah, right, I slept through all of those courses in geology, oceanography and atmosperic sciences that were required for my minor, not to mention all of the algebra, trig, calculus, physics, biology and chemistry I had to pass for my major. That would be Biomedical Engineering and Paleontology.

                      I am a scientist, so try another pat, Lefty insult, why don’t you?

                    2. Or put another way, “You can explain it to us; you just can’t understand it for us.” Then again, you studied STEM courses making your college experience REAL, not just IMAGINED like those who studied underwater basket weaving for a challenging experience. Congrats. There are so few of us left. Keep the faith. Cheers!

                  2. Although it is significant, that graph is regional by nature, and it overstates the increase in mean earth surface temperature for the same period by about 1 Deg Fahrenheit (about 1/2 Degree Celsius).

                  1. No, YOU are. You’re just brainwashed. What caused the ice age, dinosaur farts? The oceans are responsible for about 99% of what these liars are calling “man made” climate change. Sorry, vegetation uses CO2 like we use the oxygen they produce.

                    1. Yes and I never hear that mentioned, ever. Plants breath CO2 and make Oxygen. Do they even teach that in schools anymore? Plant more trees.

                    2. Actually you don’t need to plant trees, they know how to reproduce all by themselves if food (CO2) and water are available.

                      Most of the photosynthesis occurs in the oceans anyway, by way of phytoplankton.

                    3. Yes, but many ice ages have come and gone since the dinosaurs died out, ALL before the rise of man….

                    1. Evidently, climate change deniars are right wingers…. the writing style is totally “conservsative/ trumpster/ tea party. ONe would think issues of climate change would be more scientific and less political.

                    2. So says the borderline-illiterate prog…Go back to 5th grade and learn some of that proper written English, Putz. And, that spelling…what a joke!

                  2. And that IS the problem. We are all being asked to believe that bizzaro reality instead of being presented with true reality. Man Made Global Climate Change is a political animal, not a scientific one.

                  1. After 30 years of building those satellites, they are not as precise as you have been led to believe. That’s now the alarmists can tinker with the data and have you believe it’s fact. The accuracy of their predictions is highly questionable because we haven’t had the sensors that could measure their claims to the degree of accuracy they are using to raise their alarm. In short, it’s all magic with numbers and the unknowing public is no more the wiser and apt to believe any junk science that comes along. It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live Skit where the guy stood up in a white lab coat with an examination mirror mounted on his head. “I’m not a real doctor but I play one on TV.”

              2. Dr. David M.W. Evans:

                We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

                What the Government Climate Scientists Say

                The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C x 3 = 3.3°C.

                The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.

                Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models. The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

                The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

                What the Skeptics Say

                The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 = 0.6°C.

                The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

                The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half. The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

                There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable — it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

                What the Data Says

                Hansen’s predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

                Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

                In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased — which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.

                A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

                Ocean Temperatures

                The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

                Climate model predictions of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo. The unit of the vertical axis is 10^22 Joules (about 0.01°C).

                The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

                Atmospheric Hotspot

                The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot.”

                The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory. The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

                We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late ’90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.

                On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons. On the right is what the climate models say was happening. The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.

                In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification — the amplification does not exist.

                Outgoing Radiation

                The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification.

                Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth’s surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation.

                Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs). Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

                This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification does not exist.


                All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.

                The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.

                We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data.

                The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,

                1. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.

                2. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

                The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

                Some Political Points

                The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the “debate” is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

                This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer, and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesn’t.

                Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?

                1. Doubling of CO2 is going to take millions of years. How can atmospheric CO2 double when the majority of the CO2 is in the earths crust? Don’t you think that the ocean, and or the dirt would absorb enough CO2 to keep the atmospheric levels around the current levels of approximately %0.03875?

                2. Don’t forget that end result of these temperature increases. What will they be? That’s where the real bs happens. No one knows what will really happen, so why not scream that world will come to an end? That’s the crap I can’t believe people swallow.

            2. In the 1970’s a Marxist “think tank”, going under the name of “The Club of Rome” published a paper and a BASIC program titled “Limits to Growth”. No matter what initial conditions were entered the resulting graph always ended in a world wide disaster, unless one entered negative growth rates for population, birth rates and resource consumption. While most people didn’t understand the BASIC programming language those that could understood the obsfucated code was designed to always fail for any positive growth rates.

              Anyone who has read the HARRY_README.TXT file from the 2009 CRU FIOA zip file also understands why the Mann Hockystick graph is no different from the Club of Rome paper, and has the same purpose: Marxist propaganda.

              It’s all GIGO: Garbage In gives Garbage Out. And the 1.072 emails in that zip file shows that those folks knew they were spinning ideological fairy tales.

          3. In the fewest number of words, the scientific method is, “form a hypothesis and test it”. Fortunately, predictions made in the name of “science” in the past that generated media and public hysteria have been tested by time, and the *secret* methods of these “scientists” (mostly in name, only) have come under scrutiny.

            Berkeley Professor Dr. Richard A. Muller:

            “McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

            “Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

            “That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

          1. “Also US submarines are clearly visible now.” Just like they are clearly visible in the tropical waters around the world. Right? Right? Ahhhhh WRONG.

          2. tell me all you know about subs. I want to learn from you after I pushed boats around for 16 years. And I do a polar surface in 1983. I can say I walked around the world and peed on top of it.

          3. The subs were visible for a long time now. Ever since ‘intellectually progressive’ people here in the US leaked the technology to the Russians that allowed them to ‘see’ these subs. That happened under the Clinton administration but at this point, “What does it matter anyway?”

      2. Political agendas and partisan government funding can, and certainly DO get in the way of science.

        Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

        1. Do you think Ken Woods is avoiding you? I do, because he can’t refute your facts. He prefers to mostly attack people who have no science background. Makes him feel superior; a little of that is normal — too much, and it’s pathological.

          1. I feel sorry for Ken because he is used to having most everyone in his circle nod in agreement, or remain silent from intimidation. I worked at U.S. EPA for years back in the early 90’s when this whole scam was getting off the ground. It’s the most amazing piece of agitprop I’ve seen since the days of the old Soviet Union which no doubt inspired the agenda behind it!

            1. Sadly, our government was infiltrated with communists, socialists, and fellow travelers, many years ago. They got what they wanted — control of the education of millions of children and young people, not to mention, judges, Supreme Court picks, and every other social,economic, and financial area. Now we have people steeped in attitudes they were indoctrinated in unknowingly, indoctrinating others. It’s like a fungus. It spreads influence in ever widening areas, including people who would deny to the bitter end the communist influence. Snickered at since the fifties, but insidiously passed on generation to generation.

              1. By the way, that has been the plan since the 1950″s! Thanks to Jimmah Cattah and his U. S. Dept of Edumacation, we are now facing the tip of the sword of those who are unable to critically reason!

      3. Huh??? I think what a “progessive” would call “irrefutable evidence” is what others might consider either “propaganda” or “interesting, possibly meaningful observations”. Shame on us for not buying into the program!

      4. Obviously that is b/c GW is only affecting the northern hemisphere! And its only affecting the northern hemisphere b/c their is more industrialization there………… This explanation makes no sense to me either, but will have to do until we ‘believers’ can make up something better (or just change more data to fit our models)……………..signed, the SCSW (Society of Consensual Scientists of the World)

      5. Ah yes, when defeated by facts, run away and accuse those who supplied said facts as being “mean whack jobs”. Don’t believe you but, if true, why would you give out your phone number? Or did the “mean, nasty whack jobs” go out of their way to look it up? You’re not that important dude.

        1. Don’t forget about the giant safety pins.

          In addition to being “So, so cute,” they help keep Pajama Boy’s fly from yawning open and revealing a vajayjay.

          1. The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places
            the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway

            Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

            Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

            Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

            Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

            Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

            Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

            * * *
            * * * * * *
            I must apologize.

            I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported
            by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 93 years ago.

            This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?

              1. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj25d:
                On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
                ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash25DirectEcoGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj25d:….,…..

            1. Great! Your post just shows that news media hype never changes. One lie after another in order to induce mass hysteria. Good job Washington Post of 93 years ago (and most media since).

              1. Being raised in D.C. was a education which took a long time to understand why I never got it right, However the Post is the same now as before money and truth being forged into wild stories. To see the end of these lies will not happen in my life time. I am aware the Post will be going the way of what happened to free press in the 60’s sorta like the doe doe bird in that it fails to show facts. WE ARE THE MOVEMENT!! Thank God for President Trump given to us thru mercy thank you Jesus!

            2. Haven’t stopped dancing about the election long enough to say Howdy John. Glad to see you’re still in this fight. We have won a important victory, but the fight continues! Keep up the good work and your power dry my fellow patriot!

                1. Awwww look, a liberal wants to play! I think the question son is how stupid are you to wrongfully assume I am a Republican? Not to mention that is “Science” and not whatever that is you wrote in you feeble attempt to insult your next President. What else you got Sparky? Bring it, because this “Runt” can take you on my worst day…..sir!

                2. … much less stupid than someone who voted for an America-hating, white middle-class loathing, tax and spend liberal, anti-Constitutional Socialist, twice in the past eight years.

                1. You dare try and insult your next President Trump with the word “SCYENCE” while you can’t even type correctly (or possibly spell???) a simple word like “graet”?….Pathetic you are….sir!

            3. I’d read that some time ago & sent it to my rellies in Oz. Climate has ALWAYS been changing. I LOVE the flatulence theory. In that case, maybe we’ve got a few BILLION too many people,

            4. Listen, if you really don’t believe in man’s involvement in Climate
              Change after belching tons of carbon into the atmosphere every day for
              over a century and the fact that while 98% of scientists do as well has
              the rest of the world, DO THIS: Write a letter to your future family
              members about your stupid viewpoint. Put it in a safe place. I’m betting
              within 2 generations or so, your descendants will regard you as the
              family fool. Dummy.

              1. “Fool”, “Dummy”?? Typical tolerant lib… have to resort to name-calling as if that helps prove you’re specious points. Okay genius, did you know that one single volcanic eruption (and there are thousands on record) releases more CO2 and “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere than what 150 years of worldwide industrialized society has caused? It’s true yet somehow the world has survived countless eruptions during human history and countless eruptions before human history. And genius, how do you explain the loss of the glaciers that created the Great Lakes thousands of years ago when there was NONE, ZERO industrialization? Maybe ice advancing and receding is normal and cyclical. No one can possibly know (especially you) how this planet works and it’s the height of arrogance for you to claim your beliefs are the right ones.

                    1. When rightard’s positions are indefensible, they tend to go after minutiae like bad auto correct.

                    2. Oh really libtard? What positions exactly are “indefensible”? I provided a couple of very accurate, proven and defendable facts that refute your stupid global warming theory and neither you, nor the only other climate change believer on this post has been able to bring any credible argument against those facts.

                    3. No but you are if you really believe the theory of man-caused Global Warming. Therefore it’s your theory because you believe it and I don’t. I tell you what, why don’t you stop driving your car, stop using your furnace and A/C, and stop buying all products made from, and by, using petroleum products? You can go back to stupidly living in the dark ages under the silly assumption that you are saving the planet. Put your money where your mouth is and start living what you foolishly believe… I didn’t think you would.

                    4. 97% of scientist believe it and so does the rest of the freaking’ world. Even a dummy like Trump is now believing it. Dumbuck goobers on the right are about the only one’s who don’t.

                      Just stfu and write the letter, fool. I’ve been done with arguing this issue with fools like you, years ago.

                    5. 97% of “scientists” also used to believe that the Earth was flat too. 40,000 scientists recently signed a petition stating there is NO evidence of man caused global warming. This is not settled science despite your idiotic claims. I tell you what, if you agree to stop driving and using any carbon and petroleum based products to do your good little liberal part to save the planet then I’ll write a letter for my grandkids so they can laugh when they realize how stupid people like you were who believed man could actually change the climate on a planet wide scale. Trump does not believe in this silliness and is going to end all the useless regulations and stop paying the UN for this nonsense too. I’m sure glad fools like you are no longer in charge of anything. Must suck to be you.

                    6. …by the way, those same 97% of scientists believed just about 30 years ago that we were headed for another ice age and called it “global cooling” before they said, no wait it’s getting warmer again, then they changed it to “global warming” then it started cooling off again so these geniuses started calling it “climate change” just so it would cover anything and everything that could ever happen, no matter how normal it may be. And fools like you just go along with whatever they say. Moron.

                    7. Except, this isn’t true. Today literally every national academy of science, every national science agency, and every association of physical scientists endorses anthropogenic greenhouse global warming and resulting climate change. You can’t find even a single such academy, agency or association proclaiming “global cooling” in the 70s (and certainly not in the mid 80s).

                      Question for you to consider: Outside of its utility in your preferred politics, do you have any abstract interest in truth? Is knowing what is verifiably and reproducibly true or false of some interest to you, in principle? Really think about the question, what would your honest answer be?

                    8. I have no interest in, and this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with logic, common sense and reason. Why don’t you really think about this question: how is it possible that the Earth has experienced and survived thousands of volcanic eruptions over thousands and thousands of years when it is an established fact that just one single eruption expels more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all of human industrialization has caused in the past 150 years? It’s arrogant and foolish to think that man can affect or destroy something that was intended to be around as long as it’s Creator wants it to be. I ask this again too, what caused all the glaciers to melt that formed the Great Lakes tens of thousands of years before humans were industrialized and using carbon-based fuels? There are as many scientists who reject “man caused climate change” as those who believe in it. It’s just that the liberal agenda of the mainstream media and scientific community won’t allow those voices and opinions to be heard without ridiculing them into silence.

                    9. “this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with logic, common sense and reason”

                      The problem with citing logic and reason is that it leads you inevitably to the tools of scientific method, which in turn leads you to a couple of centuries worth of scientific theory, data and evidence regarding earth’s climate and why it changes.

                      “how is it possible that the Earth has experienced and survived thousands of volcanic eruptions over thousands and thousands of years when it is an established fact that just one single eruption expels more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all of human industrialization has caused in the past 150 years?”

                      First, your “established fact” is a rather infamous online myth. Humans emit about 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes in a typical year.

                      You should think about why you came to believe a ‘fact’ so completely out of whack with the evidence, what sources of information you are putting your faith in. They’re not scientific ones, obviously. So what kind of sources are they? Might they have an agenda of some kind?

                      Second, we’re not talking about Earth “surviving”. The question is whether the earth will change in a way that is harmful to humans (as we are already seeing), similar to how it has changed in the past, except this time on a relatively accelerated timeframe and caused by us.

                      “It’s arrogant and foolish to think that man can affect or destroy something that was intended to be around as long as it’s Creator wants it to be”

                      It would be foolish to think man can easily destroy the entire earth. However – change it, pollute it? Of course we can. Even if there is a conscious and intentional Creator, do you think that you are unable to poison your lawn because the Creator created and is responsible for your lawn? Try it. Do you think we are unable to darken the very sky the Creator made for us? Visit Beijing. Welcome to 2016. (And maybe think about what the biblical concept of stewardship for the earth might mean here?)

                      “what caused all the glaciers to melt that formed the Great Lakes tens of thousands of years before humans were industrialized and using carbon-based fuels?”

                      If you’ve asked many times you have probably heard the scientific answer: the advance and retreat of glaciers is believed to be caused by slow changes in orbital tilt, which changes the balance between solar energy retained and energy emitted from the earth into space. This framework for understanding earth’s energy budget – that only via radiation can energy arrive on earth or leave earth, is key to the understanding underlying the modern view on global warming.

                      Nobody claims climate never changed before. It’s just that we are causing it to happen now on an accelerated timeframe that is much more aggressive than anything human civilization has seen before.

                      “There are as many scientists who reject “man caused climate change” as those who believe in it”

                      No; surveys constantly show that among publishing experts in climate science there is almost nobody who rejects “man made climate change”. There are a few people who think the man made part might be so small as to not really be a big deal. The mainstream view is endorsed by literally every national academy of science in every major nation (these are composed of the top scientists in every nation), by every national science agency (like NASA, the Japan Met agency, or Australia’s CSIRO) and by every private association of physical scientists, whether for physics, chemistry, oceanography, geology, even biology.

                      “It’s just that the liberal agenda of the mainstream media and scientific community won’t allow those voices and opinions to be heard without ridiculing them into silence”

                      Well, tell that to some of the folks who have gotten quite famous offering those dissenting opinions. They haven’t had success in science – meaning they haven’t come up with explanations or theories that can be supported by evidence – but they have become very famous on the internet. Look up Judith Curry or Roy Spencer, these people get to be on media programs and get all sorts of publicity despite representing an extreme minority point of view.

                    10. You’re just quoting all the same silly environmentalist extremist established talking points that are just unproven theories used to support their agenda. That’s what you call a “circle of reasoning”. I challenge you to watch the movie “Climate Hustle” and read the book “The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With ‘Climate Change’ Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?” by Christopher Booker if you want to truly hear the other sides of the argument and not just keep drinking the koolaid.


                      By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer

                    12. “You’re just quoting all the same silly environmentalist extremist established talking points that are just unproven theories used to support their agenda”

                      No, ds. This is not info from environmental groups, and your misunderstanding of this is profound. For example, your belief that volcanos emit more CO2 than humans comes from the kinds of sources you cite for yourself, who simply say these things because they sound good, without any kind of actual measuring or scientific assessment. In science, people roll up their sleeves and do hard work, for example:

                      Kerrick 2001, Present and past nonanthropogenic CO2 degassing from the solid earth
                      “Present-day CO2 degassing provides a baseline for modeling the global carbon cycle and provides insight into the geologic regimes of paleodegassing. Mid-ocean ridges (MORs) discharge 1–3 × 1012 mol/yr of CO2 and consume ∼3.5 × 1012 mol/yr of CO2 by carbonate formation in MOR hydrothermal systems. Excluding MORs as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, the total CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanism is estimated at ∼2.0–2.5 × 1012 mol/yr”

                      Published, peer-reviewed work that you can investigate to find out what evidence and measurements actually say about the world. This is the path of diligence, of hard investigation.

                      You, on the other hand, are following a much lazier approach, listening exclusively to non-scientific talking heads who are professional story-tellers – they don’t do work, but they craft stories that a market (you) wants to hear and support, one way or another. Booker is a particularly infamous and unskeptical conspiracy theorist who has repeatedly embarrassed himself by accusing science agencies of fraud when he just did not understand things. He thinks standard statistical processes done in every physical scientific field indicate some kind of conspiracy because he doesn’t understand them. Morano and his ‘Climate Hustle’ is similarly infamous. None of these people are scientists.

                      If you are honest, pick which reason why you are attracted to these sources of information rather than scientific sources:

                      (a) They have much deeper expertise on the subject and have done years of deep research, direct measurements, and have published their insights in formal publications which submit their work to rigorous and critical review by other experts.

                      (b) They tell you something you’d much rather hear, which is sort of fun to believe: that evil envirowhackos have taken over and trying to steal your tax dollars, and we must band together and heroically fight them!

                      No, really, try to be ruthlessly honest with yourself. You prefer Morano and Booker because of (a), or because of (b)?

                    13. You are living proof that environmentalism is a religion. You are so wrapped up in your beliefs of man caused global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption or whatever the latest flavor of the month catch phrase is that you refuse to even consider opposing facts. Remember when the genius Al Gore made the dire prediction that the polar ice caps would have completely melted by 2015 but satellite evidence from NASA proves the ice has actually increased.? All those same environmental scientists you listen to also believed it. And that hole in the ozone layer that was surely going to kill all of us has now magically disappeared too (Those darn pesky facts). Open your mind, read the books and watch the movie I told you about and you’ll see the real agenda. But of course you won’t because you’re brainwashed by this agenda-driven “science”. You can keep writing your silly replies but I am no longer wasting my time reading them or replying to them. Happy New Year

                    14. “you refuse to even consider opposing facts”

                      Such as… your idea that volcanos emit more CO2 than humans? That’s not a fact, ds, it’s a story you heard online which is wildly contradicted by actual evidence collected by scientists doing hard work. Are you really completely unable to understand the difference between “facts” and “stories”, even in principle?

                      How can I be the one who doesn’t consider opposing facts? Why do you believe this is true about me? Is it not just another story you are telling yourself?

                      “Remember when the genius Al Gore made the dire prediction that the polar ice caps would have completely melted by 2015 but satellite evidence from NASA proves the ice has actually increased.?”

                      No, because again literally none of this is true. Gore is not a scientist and his statement isn’t important (it happens that even that is a false retelling of the story – Gore said we could see ice free polar summers by 2015, not that we would) – but it is absolutely false that polar ice has increased! Like wildly false, in the same way your volcanic claims are false. The people who study polar ice publish articles like this, from a few weeks ago:

                      Sea Ice Hits Record Lows
                      “Average Arctic sea ice extent for November set a record low, reflecting unusually high air temperatures, winds from the south, and a warm ocean. Since October, Arctic ice extent has been more than two standard deviations lower than the long-term average”

                      and ice volume from PIOMAS, notice how summer starts at 17 thousand cubic km and ends near 5 – meaning less than a third of the summer volume is left. This is why Gore’s comment is not that crazy. What is more important to you, whether Al Gore is accurate or the fact that the polar ice cap is melting away? It seems clearly to you that the former is more important. Why?

                      This year we saw mass mortality of coral reef, we lost a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef, due to ocean warming.

                      Do you really think only envirowhackos should worry about losing the world’s coral reefs? Why? Why don’t you care, can you explain it?

                    15. …and then there’s the “climategate” email scandal where climatologists were caught doctoring and making up false data because the facts did not support their ideology but you would just dismiss that too even though the rest of the world heard about that on the news. Did you also know that even the founder of The Weather Channel himself denies man caused climate change? You’re really obsessed with your stupid little letter idea. Are you willing to do your part to save the planet and stop driving your car, taking plane trips, using petroleum based products, etc?? Put your money where your mouth is idiot. Why should I bother posting citations when you’re so brainwashed you wouldn’t even read them. The info is all out there if you open your mind to it.

                    16. You can start out by reading: for starters and then I can give you many more to read. If you CAN read that is.

                    17. The founder of The Weather Channel himself denies man caused “climate change?” Well, that does it! A businessman says so, lol! IDIOT.


                      C’mon dude, where’s these “40,000 scientists who recently signed a petition stating there is NO evidence of man caused global warming?”

                      Oh, riiiiight…”Why should I bother posting citations when you’re so brainwashed you wouldn’t even read them..”LOL!!

                      And it was only a matter of time you’d bring up hockey sticks or Climategate which was debunked years ago. You got nothing dummy.

                      “Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy”

                      Fact Check .org: Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don’t change scientific consensus on global warming.

                      Debunked Conspiracy Climategate Five Years Later:

                      Now , just go away. Loser.

                    18. Uhh the founder of The Weather Channel was NOT a business man moron. Did you ever hear of Atmospheric Scientist and Meteorologist John Coleman? No you’re too stupid to know that. For every “fact check” nonsensical opinion you produce, I can produce 2 that say just the opposite, of course we ALL believe everything on the Internet right dummy? Climategate was NOT debunked years ago… saying stupid things like that don’t make them true. So I guess the Great Lakes glaciers that receded and melted thousands of years before any man was around was just a fluke of nature and not part of the normal cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate patterns right dummy? Or did cavemen campfires cause them to melt LOL. By the way did you know the ozone hole that was discovered in the atmosphere decades ago is now completely gone? All the Chicken Littles who were around then said this is it, we’re all going to die!! But we didn’t did we? All the global cooling scientists of the 1970’s said there would be another ice age soon, but that didn’t happen did it moron? Al Gore said 10 years ago all the polar ice would be melted by now and all the coastal cities would be under water but last I checked, the ice has expanded and no cities are under water are they moron? I got nothing huh dummy? How about empirical evidence, common sense and countless untrue predictions from your phony scientist buddies? I know your devasted by HilLIARy losing but be a big boy and get over it and stop being so gullible.

                    19. Yes I will believe what I want because I know the truth… and I don’t need permission from uneducated fools like you to do so. As for you and all your whacko enviro-nut friends, climate change is truly a demented religious cult to you people. Practice what you preach and stop driving your car nutcase.

                    20. If you have even the tiniest iota of an open mind (which, obviously you don’t), watch the movie called: “The Climate Hustle”. It’s funny I just went back to my OP and it has 121 likes. I don’t see any likes on your posts. Sounds like you’re in the minority opinion here. LOL

                    21. So funny how you call me the ‘nutcase’ after the lunatic posts you have written. You are too easy, my friend. My work here is done. Peace, out.

                      Write the letter.

          1. Plus effects of transgender bathrooms ?!! I hope you’re being sarcastic. I imagine Mother Nature is going to sink FL eventually…….. you can NOT fight her. It has nothing to do with our carbon footprint (although ALL the Liberals complaining are still taking private jets)… plate tectonics will dump us or tsunamis. Can’t blame mankind for any of that.

          1. They’re against productive economic activity, which makes it hard for them to earn money legitimately. That’s why they steal using political power instead. They have internalized the myth of the Noble Savage and they project modernization and industrialization as Original Sin. When you are trapped in a quasi-religious ideology so at odds with reality, you can’t expect anything good to happen.

      1. The phrase ‘fake facts’ and ‘fake news’ is very trendy. What’s not fake is who funds internet sites that don’t carry advertising to pay the salaries. The big secret for many of these off the wall advocacy for or against things, is who owns them, who’s payin the staff bills…. which ones are virtual basement sites with less than a handfulls of voluteers, versus larger staffs with larger payrolls.

        So who runs this site? WHo pays for it? IT has a clearly anti-global warming point of view. I havent seen anybody jump on that bandwagon except coal and petroleum related entities, or ones getting donations from them. So shouldn’t be hard to find out about this site, if they’ll tell.

        1. who runs your comment? who pays for it? IT has a clearly anti- fact point of view. i haven’t seen anybody jump on that bandwagon except climate grant based researchers and carbon credit based entities, or ones getting donations from them.

          1. Bondo you’re bein an ass. I’m a commenter, not a webmaster here. I’m not tolerating your wordplay…I asked an honest question, and I expect someone familiar with the operation of this website to explain it to their readers.

          2. Liberals aren’t keen on facts or truth. They also are unable to take responsibility For their own failures, always blaming others. They don’t like the facts They will blame someone else or corporations. Liberals are truly despicable.

      2. The liberals are already creating fake alt-right news, and when one supposedly alt-right website was investigated which created fake news which was debunked, it turned out the web site was created by a registered Democrat from LA:

        Some reporters tracked him down and he said (as reported by CPR, a subsidiary of NPR):
        “The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of
        infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or
        fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories
        and point out the fact that they were fiction,”

        Liberals create fake news to fit the narrative, kind of like the MSM that ignores the news that doesn’t.

    1. Oh, I’m sure that the “facts” are just a case of Russian fake news. 😉

      You know, like the AGW group who set out to prove that the Arctic was ice free by sailing around the world in the north and got stuck due to the sea ice reaching all the way to the shoreline in Russia. Or those NASA images that show plenty (at least as much as usual) of ice at both of the Poles, the climatologist ship that got stuck in Antarctic sea ice and with an ice breaker that went to rescue them for 17 days until a special helicopter could fly in and lift them to safety, the Great Lakes recording their coldest average summertime temperatures in the past few years, etc; all that fake Russian news!

      These fanatics would still be preaching their propaganda even if Canada were under a half mile high glacier; the heat from AGW would just be hiding in some yet unmeasured part of the Pacific floor, or something like that, waiting to unleash its fury on us all.

    2. Arctic ice is expanding, antarctic ice is not. The Southern hemisphere has lower population and less industrialization then the Northern hemisphere. Logical that if man-made gases are causing the earth to warm the effect would be greater in the Northern Hemisphere.

            1. The ice IS melting. It’s at record low levels for this date in the Arctic, and recently 2nd lowest in the Antarctic. And currently the total polar sea ice is at record low levels by far. Facts are facts. Look ’em up.

              1. Did you personally take these readings ? Or did some government or University study tell you this, and who was around hundreds, or even thousands of years ago to make comparisons from, other then old tree rings and drilling into the frozen ice for samples, tells a different story all together..

              2. Repeating the same lie over and over does not make it magically become true. Every scientific study out there says the ice is NOT melting. No matter how much you want it to be true (for whatever liberal ideological reason you may have) it just isn’t.

                1. I said “sea ice”, and the scientific study shows it at record low levels. Of course, the record they are talking about is just since they have had satellites. But the record high temps go back much farther.

                  1. Sea ice cover ebbs and floes naturally and the latest satellite photos show it is in a time of expansion. Why are you libs so intent on proving man caused global warming is real, when it simply isn’t?

                    1. I’m not a liberal – I’m just looking at the evidence.

                      Being it’s late fall, of course the ice in the Arctic is rapidly expanding.
                      Pretty-much everyone admits that some global warming has occurred. The science says that more CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat. And the Evidence says that the past 16 years have seen many new global high average temps, and that’s even with the sun having reduced its activity for most of that time. Record high air and water temps while the sun reduces its output says to me that the increased warming cannot be due to the sun..

                    2. 1. If you’re “not a liberal” then I’m Santa Clause.
                      2. Being fall has nothing to do with the current trend of ice expansion. The ice has been expanding consistently for years, read the NASA satellite data reports.
                      3. I notice you had no response to the facts of volcanic activity adding more carbon in the atmosphere than man could ever do.
                      4. You also didn’t respond to the fact that the glaciers all melted that formed the Great Lakes thousands of years before there was any industrialized society. How many other Ice Ages have come and gone long before man was around to cause them to melt? No one knows therefore this cannot be settled science by any stretch of the imagination. Just in the 1970’s these same “scientists” were predicting another Ice Age then 10 years later, it was “Global Warming” and you take this crap seriously???

    3. But you’ve got to love it when the fanatics set out to prove the Antarctic is melting and get stuck in the ice. They should have been slower to get our Great Lakes Ice Crushers to their rescue and kept them ‘on ice’ for a week or so.

    4. Listen, if you really don’t believe in man’s involvement in Climate Change after belching tons of carbon into the atmosphere every day for over a century and the fact that while 98% of scientists do as well has the rest of the world, DO THIS: Write a letter to your future family members about your stupid viewpoint. Put it in a safe place. I’m betting within 2 generations or so, your descendants will regard you as the family fool.

    5. If you knew anything about the subject you would know that volume is what matters most. See the volume declines in the attached image. Even if we were concerned just about areas of ice there is no point limiting observations to just one part of the planet unless you were misleading your readers. Third the consensus on global climate change is not left/right divided.

      1. There is no consensus on man caused Climate Change and there definitely is no right/ left consensus about it but there certainly is a consensus on the left about it because it fits in with your anti-capitalist, environmental extremist left wing ideology. I’ll ask you the same question I asked another poster here: how come all of the glaciers that formed the Great Lakes melted thousands of years before man and any industry was around to allegedly raise global temperatures? Perhaps it’s just a cyclical phenomenon? Hmm. We don’t have enough recorded historical evidence to know anything for certain about how the Earth’s temperature has fluctuated up and down. One volcanic eruption belches more carbon and sulphur emissions into the atmosphere than all of industrialized society has done in over a century yet there have been thousands of eruptions and the planet has still survived.

  1. Another year zooms by and still the planet ain’t burning up!
    Highest Recorded Temperatures:
    Table of the highest recorded temperatures for each continent..
    Place……………………………………………..- Date -……Fahrenheit
    North America- (Death Valley), —- July 10, 1913—- + 134.0 F
    Africa- Kebili, Tunisia——————- July 7, 1931 — + 131.0 F
    Asia- Tirat Tsvi, Israel————- June 21, 1942 —— +129.2 F
    Australia- Oodnadatta, South Aust,–Jan. 2, 1960 — + 123.0 F
    Europe- Athens, Greece————- July 10, 1977 — + 118.4 F
    South America- Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905— +120.0 F
    Oceania- Tuguegarao, Philippines— April 20, 1912 — + 108.0 F
    Antarctica- Vanda Station, Scott Coast- Jan. 5, 1974 — + 59.0 F

      1. All sorts of deception in their hands, like degrading Pluto a moon.
        They removed Israel as part of Asia and placed it in Africa..To kill the record that Israel set…Plus the instruments used then were faulty blah blah etc.

      1. Of course he is. The ice is going to melt, the sea is going to rise causing major ocean front cities to disappear under water, that’s what he told us. It is obvious he doesn’t believe his own rhetoric, otherwise why would he purchase an ocean front mansion is California, just saying!.

    1. It burns me how many radical environmentalists don’t know anything about growing hydroponic crops or even about the Cambrian era. The two most prolific times in the history of the Earth for life and evolution were when carbon was 5-10 times current levels. If these environmentalists really worship life then they should be burning all the wood and coal they can get their hands on!

      1. They probably think “Cambrian” is a new, hybrid convertible, or a trendy, 3rd-world designer.

        Want to watch them shrink in horror? Ask them about the Carboniferous Period.

    2. Yes!

      Once all of the IR emitted by the surface of the earth is being absorbed by atmospheric CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) before it can escape into space, no further greenhouse warming effect is possible. The warmists would have us believe that each (for example) 25% increase in CO2 concentration will have the same effect as the next 25% increase, but it’s not so. There are diminishing returns as a higher and higher fraction of the IR emitted by the surface is absorbed.

      CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, and it’s only in the atmosphere in trace amounts. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, and we only pretend to be able to understand all of the factors that govern the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and water vapor (which varies greatly from day to day with the weather) and how they interact with the oceans and with the albedo effect of cloud cover.

  2. I have asked this question many times. No one will hazard a guess. But, I will stipulate man made weather change is a certainty.
    First, you know humans are causing climate change, warming or cooling, your choice. Next, you know how to fix it, stopping the use of carbon fuels. Now, buckle up, hang on and keep your arms and legs inside the ride at all times.
    What metric, will you use, to know when you have reached your goal? What does winning look like? Does CO2 change by some amount? What are the average temperatures at some location?
    It’s not unlike dieting. How much weight do you need to lose, before you can go back to fried Oreos?

    1. Same question I ask every socialist that calls for everyone to pay their fair share.

      First I point out the US federal government has been pulling in record revenues for half of the quarters Obama was in office, but still ran a deficit.

      Second, I ask them to present me with an actual number that would cover all the bills we as a society supposedly need to pay, because if no one can provide a number, just yelling “more” is the argument of a petulant child, not of an economist.

      1. @freedom74, here is your number. The National Debt rose by $10 trillion during Obama’s 8 years. We could have maintained a stable debt by increasing Federal revenue by $1.25 trillion each year, or reducing spending by that amount, or by a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending totaling the same amount. $1.25 trillion per year is a lot of fiscal stimulation. Ignore the Budget and the Budget deficit because there is a lot of off budget spending. For example, during FY2015, we had a budget deficit of nearly $600 billion, but our debt increased by $1,400 billion ($800 billion of net off budget spending). I believe Keynes would have thought the same. The problem is what do we have to show for the $10 trillion? Keynes thought that deficit spending would result in the creation of valuable assets in addition to providing a social safety net. Of course, we have been importing a lot of needy people which diverted funds from infrastructure to proving a social safety net. Meanwhile, our interest payments on the debt are now running $200 billion per year higher than they were this past July. So, we now need to cover that in addition to the $1,250 billion ($1.25 trillion) shortfall in Federal revenue to cover our spending.

    2. In all the years I have been tracking this issue I have yet to come across ONE credible scientist who will assert that a carbon tax or other means of raising energy prices will have any APPRECIABLE impact on climate. All this for a LIE when there are so many human needs like world hunger, poverty, illiteracy and disease that go unmet. But then, I guess Al Gore and friends can’t get rich off of providing safe drinking water to people in Africa!

  3. Not for nothing but if the EPA has to do an enviromental impact study on all govt plans and activities why did they never do one on illegal immigration and refugees. Most of these people have at least tripled their carbon footprint by living in America.

    1. interesting point. I think the answer might be that it would not be convenient for the Liberal Left that has had or Nation in its clutches for so many years. Hopefully that trend is being reversed now with a pragmatic businessman at the helm.

  4. “OH NO! Now what??? Fetal position check, thumb in mouth check, a new binky, fresh diapers check…” The disciples of AGW aren’t taking this news well… (lol)

  5. “Climate Change” is the term Obama and fake scientists use when they are caught lying about “Global Warming!” I remember when it was called “Weather.”

    1. I like to ask Warmunists where climate has changed. Show me where the Artic is now Tundra, the Tundra is now Taiga, the Taiga is now Temperate, and the Temperate is now Tropic.

  6. NASA => National Aeronautics and Space Administration…period – that’s all – nothing in there about “climate”, especially the myth of man-made climate change. That obongo forced NASA to totally abandon it’s reason for existing and do “climate research” is a prime example of his gross malfeasance, and it will become part of what passes for his “legacy”. The pusillanimous little socialist now in the white house who is grossly unqualified to run a lemonade stand, much less a country, will go down as the author of the darkest chapter in this country’s existence.

  7. Climate change hustlers are just as bad as race hustlers. They both deal with things that do not exist in the real world, and profit from their hustle. They have no other marketable job skills.

  8. I think it was Carl Marx who said a lie if repeated enough becomes the truth. And when we see the ice still there and they predict anew it will be gone, well sure sounds like what Marx predicted. They also have done it with Hurricanes. Keep saying there would be more and more powerful. Well one finally came after years and it missed us (in most part). They say there is a consensuses of opinion, then 97 percent of scientist, yet we hear notable men and women say differently. But the beat goes on. That dooms day drum. The UN and world socialism keeps wanting to send money to the third world to the point of causing developed countries to be like the third world. Isn’t that what socialism wants to take from one group and give to another to make us all the same. No matter the effort put in by each. Al Gore was a socialist long before he became an imminent scientist and long before he invented the internet.

  9. I was prepared for the great sea level rise, the deadly temperatures, the hurricanes, the food shortages — and, and then — the truth came out. What am I to do now?

  10. First it was global cooling in the 60″s, then it was ozone, then it was Co, then it was warming, now it is CO2 and climate change One thing is true = we do not know but without CO2 all green plants will die and so will we. This amazing world buffers itself and the climate gets a little cooler and little warmer all by itself.

    1. If temperatures haven’t increased markedly during the last 19 years, then folks we’ve got a new “problem”. CLIMATE STAGNATION! Everybody on the left, hop aboard.

  11. I love it…watching Progressive/Liberal heads exploding. All their cherished politicized government agencies that they have used to bash those they disagree with over the heads, are coming under fire. It’s about damn time. If Progressives/Liberals love this garbage so much, let them pay for it out of their own pockets and let them try to sell their bunk to an increasingly skeptical audience. No more taxpayer dollars to frauds and anti American groups like NPR, PBS, EPA, etc. etc. Does anyone remember that over thirty years ago, Al Gore the insane, was claiming that in 20 years the coasts would be under water and that Arctic ice would be gone. Facts are inconvenient truths to Progressives/Liberals.

        1. We all know why. It’s because you have too much freedom. We need more centralized control to save the planet and to save Humankind. I think we need to start by depopulating places like Alaska, Siberia, and Northern Canada. People living there consume far too much fuel keeping warm and transporting consumer goods to their remote locations, causing global warming. They should be moved (forcibly, if need be) to urban centers in tropical climates where they can exist with a minimal level of consumption. Anyone who lives in a place like Alaska is guilty of helping destroy the planet.

      1. Write to President Obama and ask him to turn off HAARP, then.

        I mean, since you believe in Fairy Tales and such. Why don’t you post that bogus graph link from that lone, Alaskan Climatologist, again? That should “learn” us Troglodytes.

      2. “Recorded history”. How far back does that go? How do you know the Earth wasn’t much hotter in the past before “scientists” started taking stats? How do we even know the accuracy of these earlier stats when the equipment sensitivity has vastly improved over the past few years? The facts say that on average, the Earths temperature has remained consistent for the past couple of decades.

    1. I have been trying to track down at least one of the articles from the late eighties, that I remember seeing, that stated a SIGNIFICANT part of Florida would be under water by now.

  12. Conflating arctic sea ice predictions (Which if you do some quick google searches you can find have actually come true, and we have proof that the arctic-North polar ice has completely melted over the summer the last several years!) with a sketchy comparison of current satellite measurements of Antarctic ice to some hand drawn measurements with a sextant, to defend the lie that climate change isn’t happening? Illogical!
    Scientists are paid to tow the global warming line, eh? Puerile ignorance!
    I wish folks where you grew up were taxed more to pay for better schools for you.

      1. What do you mean? Like take you on a trip over the arctic next summer so you can see it for yourself?
        There are none so blind as those who would not see.
        With or without parachute?

          1. The sea ice cover has been so depleted by warming air and water temperatures during the past few decades that it was “preconditioned” to reach a new record low,…

            Here’s the link:

            Now we’ll all go away because folks like yourself pretend there’s no impact since it doesn’t reach out and kill you like a bullet. Soon enough though…

            1. MYTH 6: The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

              FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:

              1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

              2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

              To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

            2. If they lied in 1996 they are liars now. Why is it only the left thats on this wagon. Go back in your basement and go to slept until your mom calls you for lunch.

    1. In fact, the federal establishment pours MILLION$ into a government-controlled school system across the U.S. that indoctrinates every generation with this idiotic global warming nonsense. To question it in school is to risk apostasy, ridicule, administrative retribution and attacks from one’s peers at an age where such trauma leaves lasting scars. Each class of high school graduates in the U.S. has been trained from kindergarten to believe the lie.

      Yet, even after years of indoctrination, an inordinate number of people eventually see through this transparent, politicized nonsense, which is ample evidence of just how bogus it is.

  13. The luny left needs to be exposed as they are liars and want everything we do as people. Its all about control and climate change is temperature change that happens every day. The left lies to the stupid people all the time and the stupid people on the left just get voting for the communis, socialist politicians. Look at what they have done to people of color by keeping them at 13% of the population for 70-years. We would have no poverty if we controled our borders and let people come in legally, but this current Prez has flooded the country with illegals mostly muslims.

    1. “Global warming / Climate change / whatever” is a belief system cum religion. Some evidence supports it; other evidence, which does not support it, is a minor distraction.

  14. “there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap,
    during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next
    five to seven years.”

    Algore is such a mawron. It’s amazing that he was able to invent the Internet with his tiny IQ.

  15. I served with the British Antarctic Survey from 12/60 until 3/63. The Base Name Halley Bay. Base Z.The latitude at that time was 76. 25 South.
    Earlier this year the Ice Shelf edge was 75. Deg South. A movement north of over 70 Miles.
    The ice shelf thickness is about 700 feet with 100 feet above sea level.
    Only in a world of Five Star Hotels and such could an IDIOT like John Kerry think the ice cover is shrinking.
    There is aplace name after me. Bob-Pi Crossing. Check it out.

    1. Cool stories. A tractor named Paul that didn’t want to leave… That’s what the kids should be taught, the men that braved the elements to do research.

  16. So….now clear that “Global Warming” is in fact a religion-and heresy is punished severely. I wonder what these pseudo climate “scientists” will say when England experiences Dickens-style winters (frozen Thames River), snow and icy roads. Prof. jones will (no doubt) have to “massage” the model!

    1. That’s why they stopped calling it Global Warming and now call it Climate Change. And yes, I know the term Climate change has been around for many decades, but until the hiatus became undeniable, all you heard about was Global Warming.

  17. Antarctica Ice isn’t going away, in fact it is growing. There is also evidence that the earth is undergoing the early stages of a pole shift. There is no real imperical data on the climate effects of a pole shift other than the placement of the poles themselves, which may explain the polar vortices in the lower latitudes of the North. Think of it this way… the north pole may wind up in New York….

  18. Moving water under the ice will cause it to melt, like in the Arctic OCEAN. Land under the ice will cause it to build up, like on the Antarctic CONTINENT. 100 years or 1000 years of history won’t tell us what the ice will do over the next 20 years. Get over it…..

  19. The sniveling fear mongering hypocrites and cowards of the press couldn’t find truth with a map and a searchlight. Climate has been changing forever and that will continue. Even after the Climate gate expose, the parasites haven’t given up in their voracious quest for money and control.

  20. Famous statements made throughout human history:

    Global Warming is real. The science is settled.
    Phrenology is real. The science is settled.
    Drapetomania is real. The science is settled.
    Astrology is real. The science is settled.
    Alchemy is real. The science is settled.

  21. I knew this for the last 4 years, ever since I arrived in the US from Canada, Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is all leftist lies and propaganda designed by the Globalist in order to enslave humanity in their evil twisted crony capitalist world. They are running amuck with this non-sense make believe in Canada further crippling an already damaged economy virtually the same way Obama has been doing in the states for the last 8 years.

  22. Kinda what we “deniers” have been saying all along. Night temps are different from day temps. Winter temps are different than summer temps. Year to year temps are different. Decade to decade temps are different. Century to century temps are different. But heating and cooling of the earth is NOT dependent on what humans are doing. But to be fair, maybe a small percentage, emphasis on SMALL, of temp differentials are due to what humans do. But to think we can “tax” our way out of that is just moronic.

  23. WHOA! It matters not if Antarctic sea ice has, in empirical fact, not changed and land-based ice is expanding. The Carbon Tax on Everything and Carbon Credit arbitrage DEMAND! Klimate Kaos Global Warming thermal apocalypse 100 or 500 or 10,000 years hence. The US midwest and northeast buried in snow this Thanksgiving are PROOF of anthropogenic Global Warming as a TEST OF FAITH! DO SOMETHING!!!

    Any text containing HYSTERICAL UPPERCASE! must be true. Who hears Nobel Laureate and Oscar winner Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr. when he farts? EVERYBODY!, or else. Beginning 20 January 2017, “or else” is President of the United States. Every playing card in America’s hand will be Trump. Global Warming will vanish like a sparrow fart in a hurricane.

  24. You simply can’t can’t convince the stupid.
    Facts are irrelevant when they confront “belief.”
    Trump keeps an “open mind.”
    Why tell them to f-off and give them more fodder to make their b-s with?
    Let them spin “open mind” any way they wish.
    Then watch the”open mind” close them down.
    Yet remaining open….

  25. Imagine that. Hmm, natural fluctuation, no, couldn’t be.[/sarc] It’s the height of arrogance to suggest that we alone are responsible for climate change, when our total impact is less than the impact of a single volcanic eruption a year. Oh sure, we hurt our environment. Maybe we can get over this carbon thing and perhaps clean up the HUGE floating garbage pile in the Pacific ocean instead. Now that’s a real man-made problem. We should focus on things we can verify that we have done, with clear incontrovertible evidence, and fix them, and let nature do it’s thing everywhere else. For scientists, there seem to be a lot that are not very good at science.

      1. Typical mindset these days, no one has any responsibility. We’re like a planet of toddlers. It makes me sick. People need to grow up. We spout make believe science and pretend real problems don’t exist.

  26. This article and the people who believe it, are jokes, period, end of report. Scientists studying this warming effect for decades are not ‘enviro-nuts’ Enviro-dolts are you gullible non-critical thinking types who are brainwashed by sites like this… Shakelton’s log books? you must be the most gullible ever. Do yourselves a favor and check the background of this looney site. LMAO

    1. So I guess we just ignore NASA satellite evidence of the increasing ice cover at the poles and the fact that the Earths temperature has not risen in 16 years? I’m the one LMAO at gullible idiots like you.

  27. The facts and truth just confuse the silly little liberals.

    Everyday Now Is Another Beautiful Triumphant President Trump Day in America~~~!!!

    Shalom My Fellow American “Citizens”

  28. Political reality is about to smack climate alarmist/fantasists in the head with the incoming Trump Administration. Expect the alarmists to fight loudly every step of the way but with GOP control of both the House and Senate and Trump in the White House it will be not much more than the same media noise that Americans tuned out when they elected Trump. Expect climate hysterics to continue their shrieking as their grants are shrinking because MONEY is what this fraud has been about from the beginning!

  29. I wonder if they realize yet that when he says ‘we’re going to look at it’ that with Sessions in as AG, there are other possibilities?

    If they were smart, they would just let the issue go, rather than risk PROSECUTION for:


    But what do I know.

    I’m patient, and they have been given more than enough rope with which to be hung…many times over.

    The only question is whether they will be prosecuted before any statute of limitations expires?

    1. All Trump has to do is nothing. Let his people do their job.
      The only thing keeping this from exploding is the massive Obama pressure to obstruct and cover up the thousands of smoking guns.

  30. A note to Mother Jones, et al: your pre-election lies helped put Trump in the White House; just what do you think your post-elections lies are going to accomplish?

  31. That is the ULTIMATE problem / Achilles Heel in dealing with “progressives”. They have an agenda that requires their unchallenged control of the world and will/do use ANY and EVERY “tool” to make that happen. No way to have an intelligent discussion of climate changes and how to mitigate them when they insist to the point of pouting / rioting that their idols (e.g. the well credentialed climatologists such as Al Gore, Obama, Leo DiCaprio, …) simply MUST be believed / followed!!! There!!!!

    Sad but true that “science” circa 2016 has become “political science”.

  32. When the Sun becomes a red giant, it will happen very quickly, sweeping through the inner Solar System in just 5 million years. It will then enter a relatively brief (130 million year) helium-burning phase. It will expand past the orbit of Mercury, and then Venus. By the time it approaches the Earth, it will be losing 10^20 tonnes of mass every year (8% the mass of the Earth).

    But the habitable zone will be gone much sooner. Astronomers estimate it will expand past the Earth’s orbit in just a BILLION YEARS FROM NOW. The heating Sun will evaporate the Earth’s oceans away, and then solar radiation will blast away the hydrogen from the water. The Earth will never have oceans again. It will eventually become molten again.

    Will the Earth survive? According to Schroder and Smith, the answer is no. Even though the Earth could expand to an orbit 50% larger than today’s orbit, it won’t get the chance. The expanding Sun will engulf the Earth just before it reaches the tip of the red giant phase. And the Sun would still have another 0.25 AU and 500,000 years to grow.

    Once inside the Sun’s atmosphere, the Earth will collide with particles of gas. Its orbit will decay, and it will spiral inward.

  33. Global Warming is a myth that has now been renamed Climate Change. The Earth’s climate has been constantly changing since its formation 4.5 billion years ago. To date the Global Warming Myth, that has been projected by computer models, has been debunked by actual data. Bottom line, The Global Warming myth is driven by the politicizing science instead of actual scientific data. Global warming is a politicized lie, end of story!

  34. Until the MAJOR problem of the 3rd world multiplying like rabbits is addressed with the resulting eradication of the Jungles and Rain Forests combined with the massive pollution problem in China, everything else is ridiculous and does NOT need to be considered.
    . for US Senate, Kentucky, 2020, Ditch da Mitch
    No BANKSTER, PoliTick, Judge, Crony Corporate Fascist or Traitor is too Big to JAIL or Impeach!

  35. In the late 1070’s early 80’s they ( scientists that wanted government grants)said that a mini “ice age” was coming. Look it up. It was in Science journals and magazines.

  36. Global Warming===>Climate Change===>Climate Disruption issue has been corrupted by Collectivist goals.

    Ideally Scientist would dispassionately compile & distill the data so as to advise our Society & Government, which in-turn charts how Humanity integrates that knowledge into the fabric of our lives.

    Stepping away from the Climate issue itself & just looking at the behavior of those that have been shown to massage & distort the data, how is it possible for the public to trust our EPA over what now is obviously an entire issue ENCAPSULATED by bureaucratic & Socio-Political agendas?

    There is no-way to look at the Climate issue today without acknowledging that powerful Statist elements have sized upon this issue; establishing a meme that seeks to sequester more than just our Carbon.

    This recklessness in conflating CO2 pseudo-pollution, with actual pollution. Is actively enforced by the Agenda-Driven MEDIA echo-chamber, in order to establish their smug consensus–A consensus derived from a rote parroting ‘uber allies’ to the almighty construct known as the “Carbon Footprint”.

    Politically Correct Science creates pseudo-science, and that makes for bad public policy. It risks impoverishing our society for inconsequential returns. This in turn makes it less likely that we as a society will fund needed environmental cleanups!

    REMEMBER impoverished societies DO NOT spend to protect Mother Nature

  37. We will just have to wait for NASA (our FIRST priority is muslim outreach) to “adjust and refine” with their (never to be peer reviewed) computer program to see that sea levels will raise hundreds of feet due to the ice really melting.

    1. There’s a long list of alarmist predictions. NONE of which has come true or anywhere close. You think these people would stop doing this but they know they can go out like Obama and say “the science is settled…the debate is over…97% of scientists agree…” and get away with it because the same crooked media that didn’t hold Hillary accountable for her crimes won’t hold ANY alarmist responsible for their words.

  38. We will just have to wait for NASA (our FIRST priority is muslim outreach) to “adjust and refine” with their (never to be peer reviewed) computer program to see that sea levels will raise hundreds of feet due to the ice really melting.
    This will be front page on the NYT newspaper next week!

  39. These are the SAME geniuses that told us in 1973 that we wouldn’t be able to grow crops north of DC by the year 2000. The earth was FREEZING BS.

  40. I hope Trump gets rid of the climate change B. S. but if he does not then I am going to come up with some hokey green energy idea, have my wife start a minority (woman) owned business that accepts government grants to make each home in the African Savannah it’s own power station using wind, solar, geothermal and whatever other B. S. I can put into the compact low cost system.

    I will hire a lawyer to draw up the business proposal and submit it to the SBA and get a loan for as much as I can possibly get. My wife will make me an employee and pay me $150.00 an hour. If that looks suspicious I will go back to college for some B. S. climate class and then she can start the business. I will sale my self as 25% native American to the college and get a minority preference.

    In the end I will draw a really nice paycheck for many years and the end product will be functional but in no way efficient enough to replace the power company. I want my tax dollars back and if this is how I have to get them, then so be it. Who knows, maybe I’ll come up with something that does replace the power company.

  41. I don’t know if volcanic activity in Antarctica has increased in the last century, but if it has, that would make this an even bigger deal.

    Sure, the climate is going to change gradually. It does so dramatically over long periods of time. Man has nothing to do with these changes and can do nothing about them but anticipate and adjust. Just 11,000 years ago, the Sahara Desert was a green paradise and the glaciers were a long way from receding in the northern hemisphere. It won’t be long before we’ll have to rename it “Sahara.”

  42. The Arctic Ocean is about 13 million square kilometers. In the summer of 2012 ice fell to about 3 million square kilometers It was at that point 80% ice free. The ice extent has shown a huge decrease. Apparently some feel that since the the worst predictions have not come true that this is evidence that the climate is not changing. They are wrong.

  43. Please remember, Al Gore not only invented the internet,he is protecting the world from global warming.
    Plus he promoted Hillary. His wife,Tipper saved our youth from devil music. Don’t forget he sold his TV station to islamic terrorists.

  44. “Antarctic ice melt is not contributing to rise in ocean levels.”

    I can tell these head in the sand scientists why ocean levels are rising in one word, EROSION. We lived on Cape Cod and sometimes as much as thirty or forty feet of ocean cliffs fell to erosions. It depended from year to year how much shoreline was lost due to erosion.

    Every year a little, or much shoreline was claimed by the action of ocean waves and tidal action. The same erosion takes place on every bit of shoreline exposed to ocean waves and currents. Add to this the silt and sediment that is carried to the ocean by rivers around the world.

    Add to those the soil that is washed into the rivers by rain, snow melt, and when the land is bare and dry, by the action of wind. Toss in the rocks and earth scoured by the movement of glaciers which eventually ends up in the seas.

    Ever wonder why the Himalayan and Alpine mountain ranges are so jagged compared to the White and Smoky Mountains in the U.S. It’s because those smoothed and rounded mountains are much older than their craggy counterparts. The constant, inexorable erosion of wind, rain, and changing temps from freezing to thawing have produced the natural smoothing of once jagged upheavals.
    Have you ever heard any of the climate change/global warming proponents talk about this when they predict the sky is falling, or more appropriately, the oceans are rising, the oceans are rising.

    The truth is that with or without man’s activities, all of the land currently above sea level will end up covered by the oceans’ waters. It is inevitable.

    1. Trying his usual bribery tricks. These fake carbon credits would make a few people like obama, Gore, Lurch, etc., very, very rich. It’s nothing but a wealth redistribution scheme.

  45. More scientists refute this scam every year. If it wasn’t so dangerous the lies and deceit on the part of the globalists would be funny.
    This is nothing more than a scheme to transfer wealth from more developed, wealthier countries, primarily the U.S., to poorer countries.
    Progressive liberals led by Obama have advanced the dissolution of our borders and demonized the idea of American nationalism more in the last eight years than the previous two hundred years.

  46. Repeat these words. Every morning, and every night, and all day long. “DemocRATs are liars”. “DemocRATs are evil”. “DemocRATs hate you and America”. “DemocRATs are the racist party”. They are no longer a different idea. They have become the party of death and evil. Dis-own all your evil democrat friends. Dis-own all your evil democrat relatives. If they have any humanity left in their hearts. They will come back. If not. They are truly evil and not worthy of the freedom that America, (WE) gives them, or our friendship. Stand for our liberty at ANY cost.

  47. Happy climate Gore stealing day. Mini Ice Age will be here in 40-50 years and temps will drop starting now. That’s as per the SUN which is 99,9% of our climate influencer. 2 Decades of Democrats lying about EVERYTHING. Thanks Clinton’s no w goto jail.

  48. De-friend all democrats. They have become the communist left that is trying to destroy our liberty. Friend or family. If they have the demonic traits of anti life and freedom. Shun them. Isolate them. No matter who they are.

      1. Well, let’s let the violent democRATs do the rioting. That is their current form, and history. We just need to un-friend them in everything in our country. Cancel your cable, as most of your package money goes to pay for democrat news and programming. You can get the truth from on-line sources, or select radio sources.

  49. I want to THANK THE 5-10% democrats who came to Their senses in swing states and voted with their head not dogma. You saved our nation and World. However 8 years of the acted stupidly presidont it may be too steep a ditch we in. OH sure he says now North Korea is a threat. WTH has he been doing? Fuuctard.

  50. That’s because AGW isn’t real science. These chicken little’s don’t know their as$ from a hole in the ground. This is a globalist tax scheme. PERIOD. Liberals are just the useful idiots foot soldiers with a blind devotion to science, regardless of how flawed, to preach the gospel on behalf of the globalists.

    Trump is about to trash every Obama regulation and withdraw us from any and all carbon agreements. And not soon enough if you ask me.

  51. Official records systematically ‘adjusted’ to show heating…

    Let us pray:
    ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
    He maketh me lie down in Greeneth pastures:
    He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.
    He selleth my soul for CO2:
    He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.
    Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason
    I will fear all logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me
    Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion,they comfort me.
    Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
    Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my obedience runneth over.
    Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:
    and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever……….

  52. The arctic ice will disappear.
    Manhattan will be underwater.
    All the polar bears will drown.
    Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas will all be on fire because of flaming fireballs from hell.

    (I added that last one hoping for another 25 million in grant funding).

  53. When the LIBERALS(TOTALITARIANS) wackos explain what cause the de-icing on the U.S northern regions over 12 thousand years ago, them I will believe in the HUMAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

  54. Poor Libs just can’t catch a break. First, Hillary lost the Presidency in a humiliating defeat, and now their Climate Change religion is collapsing from too many facts. We had better put Liberals on suicide watch. Not to intervene, mind you. Just to watch….

  55. Ok so I’m a millennial and I grew up having this global warming climate change garbage hammered into me every day at school it honestly had me worried the earth would be uninhabitable when I was a adult and they continue this indoctrination of our youth and it’s really hard even with facts and proof of lies to convince young people of the truth. Brainwashing is hard to overcome

    1. Welcome to the brainwashing of the “Progressives”. Their goal has always been to obtain power via the youth in that only age brings wisdom. That is why Algore spoke before many school crowds of children and told them they are “much smarter than your parents”.

  56. Many may think the despicable Algore might regret science, but alas he does not. The High Priest of the Global Warming religion has already made his $500,000,000.00 from his cult.

    And all he had to do was ignore science while claiming others pointing to the truth were doing just that. Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard must be so envious; as they never achieved Algore’s riches.

  57. Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

    February 25, 2014

    “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

    Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

    Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

    Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

    The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

    It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

    I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

    If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

  58. Let’s cut to the chase. Global warming is a path to removing the automobile from the grasp of the average citizen. It will also serve to reurbanize the population and allow the elites to plow over the suburbs.

  59. Watch the documentary “Dark Winter”, by Dr John Casey. Dr Casey is a scientist, while Al Gore and all the other climate change alarmists are mostly politicians. Mr Casey describes, in plain layman’s terms, what’s actually happening with the climate.

    The climate has always fluctuated fro billions of years,.. Ice ages to warm periods and back. In between, there are periods called mini ice ages, like those of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums, when winters were much more harsh than usual, due to a decrease in solar activity and sunspots. This year, 2016, we’ve seen a couple of short periods of no sunspots at all. The past 3 winters have been more harsh than usual. Record snowfall in the northeast, Atlanta frozen over for a week, longer, earlier and more severe winter storms than usual, and a notable increase in geological activity. This geological phenomenon is also associated with solar minimums.

    And it continues. We’ve already seen early snow in several places, now Tokyo has seen their earliest snow in over 50 years.

    Global warming stopped 20 years ago, we’ve seen no increase in average temperatures, none of Al Gore’s predictions have proven accurate, while those of Mr Casey have.

    I find it interesting that what is actually happening is the exact opposite of what the climate change alarmists are saying. This is not a climate issue, it’s a control and taxes issue.

  60. hmm i always knew this to be true long before the real experts said it to be. liberals can spread more American Bull Shit than a farmers shit spreader with a high performance engine

  61. Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (DGW)

    The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs – with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON’T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don’t want more plants and animals and trees, no.

    Any time period the warmunists want to “prove” there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter – now they have the perfect example – the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic… Wait, no, it didn’t, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

    Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

  62. Since the earth’s surface is about 70% water and 30% land, what would happen of the sea floor were uniformly smooth? Would the surface of the earth not then be 100% liquid? Could the shifting tectonic plates help prevent such a possibility? Have the Russians replaced the temperature measuring stations that were closed when the old CCCP collapsed? Could the lack of data from those colder climes not skew global temperature averages?

  63. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. There is no context in which “hide the decline” can be construed to mean anything except “falsify the data.”

  64. The typical none sense facts. The Earth is a disc and some one with the name “GOD” created Earth in 7 days, and the woman creature was made out of one rib of man. Don’t you just like those pesky – Neo-Trumponian facts? Haha. Yes, Trump will rebuild the US economy by bringing back stone age industries with low pay and enrich himself and his friends by giving them huge tax cuts.

  65. Trump Gives Media Elite a Blistering Lecture

    The “animalism” of the Liberal Media seeks to unite all of the LIBERALS under their shared status as democrats and keep them loyal to each other.
    They’ve become “comrades in arms” against Republicans and Christians and anyone who is NOT a Marxist Socialist Communist…
    It’s hard to tell the pigs from the humans and vice versa.

    Obama’s experiment of trying to “ANIMAL FARM” AMERICA is now over…
    The skillful rhetorical manipulation of “Squealer” OBAMA is over.
    It’s time the “glue factory” comes and gets them! THEY HAD IT COMING…!

  66. We have liberals on the run. EVERY chance we get to vote them out, expose their lies, boycott their money stream etc. etc. We need to take it. Until we rid ourselves of these people, we’re heading in the wrong direction as a society. No more letting the other guy deal with it, it’s on each one of us..

  67. Environmentalists will not believe NASA’s results. They will say it was hacked. That’s their favorite out when there is something they don’t want to believe.

  68. ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ – ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’
    MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen

    “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.”
    “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?”
    Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer

    ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’
    Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore

    “The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device…The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science…
    “Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?”
    Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

    ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’
    Freeman Dyson

    Obama is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’
    Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever (endorsed Obama for president)

    “…global warming…I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy…It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific”
    James Lovelock (creator of the “Gaia hypothesis”)

    ‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue. Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe, I think is deluding themselves.’
    ‘I think (“An Inconvenient Truth”) a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science. Gore’s irresponsible.’
    ‘My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree (C) rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.’
    Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University

    1. Lindzen and Happer got soundly trounced in court this year for presenting “junk science”. Patrick Moore didn’t found Greenpeace and along with Dyson and Giaver never researched or published in climate science. Lovelock recently reversed himself again. So it would seem that you have a proclivity for seeking out people who are failures in the field or who have never practiced in the field. That’s akin to knowingly visiting doctors who have been found to have committed malpractice and seeking advice for your brain issues from a podiatrist. Are you so nervous of reality that you have to find fakirs to appease your concerns?

  69. Many of us have recognized junk science readily, years ago and as it continues, and are not fooled by the those who scheme to constrain and exercise command-and-control initiatives upon others, except for themselves. Off with their heads….as Jean Jacques Rousseau might have suggested today.

  70. I’ve always used the comparison to man made climate change and the hundreds of sunken cities that have been discovered in the Mediterranean and other seas. The sunken cities certainly predate the “industrial revolution”. So much for ocean rise and voodoo science.

    1. “S-s-s-sil-l-ence F-f-f-f-oo-l,! J-j-j-just-t-t…Y-you…W-w-wait-t, …It’s…..G-g-g-gonna…. G-g-g-get… H-h-hott-er….Th-th-an…Y-y-you…C-c-c-can…B-believ-ve…An-n-ny…M-m-m-minut-t-te… N-n-n-now!

      B-b-b-b-brrrrrrr…!…. C-c-c-can’t-t….St-stop-p-p….Sh-sh-sh-iver-r-ring-ng-ng…I’m…S-s-s-s-o… F-f-f-f-kn….C-c-c-coldd-d , er….I…M-m-mean….H-h-h-h-ott!!”

  71. Happy to hear President-elect Trump intends to put NASA back on track doing space related science as it was created for in the first place. Let NOAA monitor the climate.

    1. Agreed. Having the status of our space program (or more accurately, the smoldering ruins of it) being on par with that of Haiti’s for the past 8 years didn’t do much for our national pride.

    1. Yup, if it really were settled science there would be no need to go around constantly shrieking that it was settled science. The ecoterrorist looters doth protest too much, methinks.

  72. The global warming fake science is just another way for our fake capitalist to extort money from from society to advance there cause of luscious living and greed.

        1. Scientists from many countries. You are asking me to believe in a world wide scam based upon old log books, cherry picked data and a couple misunderstood emails. Rush, Sean, Cruz and Inhofe are wrong on this one.

  73. These Delta Alphas would have us living in caves, huddled around a fire of a couple of sticks whilst they jet around the world to the fine places spewing their Carbon Credit funded CO2 into their air!

    1. Didn’t the Soviet politburo have dachas in the country and also beach resorts on the Black sea??? Yes, they take care of themselves… Hillary and Bills $200 million+, Oh and yes Gore, back on the farm we idiomatically call it ‘living high on the hog’

  74. Sorry, I’m a little dense… I saw the cut log of a 4000 year old redwood once and I noticed that there were wide rings and narrow ones and just sort of assumed that was cold periods and hot ones or possible wet years and dry ones but maybe my assumptions were wrong…. Japan just had the first snowfall in November in 50 years, see the climate must be getting colder… Wait, forgot, its changing…

  75. DENIERS , HERETICS, CRIMINALS DON’T YOU KNOW 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (at least all those who left there names on the report cited which is nothing near 97%) AGREE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL!!!! PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL, SHUN THEM ALL ARRRRGGGHHHHH! our BS isn’t working any more.

    1. Yes, a few log books will be considered into the overall breadth of information but the overwhelming evidence and basic physics predicts that carbon dioxide increases will retain heat.

  76. SHhhhhhhhh……………………… Don’t tell the nature-deniers, climaphobes, and envirosexuals. They’ll have to alter their data again to “prove” global warming.

  77. If you listen to the way Trump talks it’s reasonable to assume that no one will know exactly what he’s going to do until he does it. This does not sit well with freeloading charlatans who are afraid of losing their handouts from US taxpayers.

      1. REALLY??!!! You lefties are still trying to sell us on transparency?!! After 8 years of the absolutely least transparent presidency in the history of human civilization???!@!!!!

  78. Like many things on the left climate change is part of a cult movement. It requires a crippled ability to think properly and an inability to discern facts. It is impossible to argue with most of its followers. it is a belief system not grounded in reality.

  79. Oh. My. GOD!

    “Trump intends to refocus NASA on space exploration.”

    Well, there it is, incontrovertible proof that the man is a sexist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-science racist Luddite and Islamophobe.

    – Typical (i.e., hysterical, fantasist) Libbie

    1. You need some real education. Specifically in physics. You haven’t even got the basics down that would tell you why you see more vapor trails in cold weather.

      1. If you would open your eyes before speaking you would notice the vapor trails cross each other like a tick tack toe board game at the same altitude which passenger air traffic controllers never allow. The military though does what they want in routing. Wise up Fred and stop living a life in denial.

        1. How do you know what altitude they are flying at? Do you have precisely calibrated vision? And those same planes are there every day. They simply don’t leave long, lasting vapor trails unless the atmospheric conditions are right. The “tic tack toe” pattern is simply because they are flying from numerous airports in the, north, east, south and west to many others, all in different directions. Notice how your cars exhaust only leaves a steam trail in the right weather. After eight years in a military air wing, I know a little bit about it. And although I know the government is up to many bad things, let’s keep the ones we discuss, real ones.

  80. I support efforts to control “climate change.” However, government first. When government gives up war and training for war, then, and only then, will I listen to them. Until then, they can unceremoniously bite me.

    An American citizen, not US subject.

    1. Not so much on giving up war. But, all government employees should be forced to use only “green energy” that they have to pay for – no subsidies. When the sun goes down or the wind stops – bummer. Also, only transportation that uses no fossil fuels or used fossil fuels in their production – I think horses qualify,

      A lot of this bs would stop if every bureaucrat had to live the the laws and regulations they pass.

  81. What a bunch of scamming frauds. They play the AGW card on Antartic ice extent with 40 years of data. These clowns ought to be fired and their grant funds taken away. No corrupt anti american democrats in any leadership. NONE.

  82. But, don’t we still want to wreck what’s left of our shipped out economy so those mean libtards don’t call us names? Oh, what to believe, facts or liberal loon fantasy?….

  83. Fun Fact:
    The self aggrandizing liberal global warming “scientists” admitted to falsifying their own data.
    Slowly now for the LOW info lefties c… they L I E D.
    Smh …

  84. As soon as science-whores realize that the government trough will soon only be open to those that engage in ACTUAL science, expect to see a flood of new research showing a remarkable reversal in so-called globull warming. Always follow the money.

      1. David I am sooo sorry. How could I possibly been such a horrible person to not give up my freedom, without being asked, to save humanity from the curse of humanity destroying the ice shelf or whatEVER.

  85. It’s interesting that these clackers say that those not convinced there is a man made reason for climate change do not believe in science, when it’s the climate change clackers that don’t believe in the Scientific Method.

    1. Because the “overwhelming majority of scientists” say no such thing. That is strictly a leftist lie. You would be lucky to get the “overwhelming majority of scientists” to agree that the sun will rise tomorrow. The essence of science is disagreement.

        1. They all rely on grants and other government largesse. THAT is the leverage.

          And we have plenty of reliable data…
          Every single time the government tells us there is a pending disaster that can only be solved if the people give up more money and more freedom, they are lying to us. If there is any “settle science” to be found anywhere in human history, THIS is it!!!

  86. Marxists commies can never allow their useful idiot base to know who they are. They must mask their agenda in love of people,planet, and wildlife. They will stop at nothing and once they are exposed to enough people that they have no reason to pretend anymore. They will take off the mask and prove once and for all who they are and always were.

  87. I can’t wait till January 20th when all the Goebbels Warming Cult funds get cut off and these ecoterrorist looters will be hating life even more than a San Francisco gerbil.

  88. So do these people think the pollution from dirty Chinese and Indian factories magically disappears and only US pollution directly hurts the Earth? Why do these people, other than the french, hate Western Nuclear power plants? Because a movie?

  89. So a century of “unprecedented global warming” do to man-made carbon has had no effect on Antarctic sea ice? Does “scientific consensus” agree? Liberal sheeple….

  90. Look Deeper,
    Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming
    waters, complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined
    to increase sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it’s
    caused by cooling is false.

    Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade.
    In contrast, the Southern Ocean (specifically the region where
    Antarctic sea ice forms) has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only
    is the Southern Ocean warming, it’s warming faster than the global

  91. “Not only has Antarctic sea ice not changed, but land based ice is expanding according to NASA study. ”

    That won’t stop the fake scientists from keeping the scam alive.

  92. Antarctic was never in the equation. It is the Arctic that is melting.
    Nice try at throwing us off. This is why so much “News” is questionable.
    Get to the REAL story.

  93. Adapt2030 on YouTube. Check it out. The climate is driven by the sun, not CO2. We are going into a solar minimum right now that could possibly last until 2060. This does not fit into Carbon Credits and big government plans, so do not expect true stats from them. The theory is now that every growing area above the 45 parallel will be shut down due to extended cold. Expect food prices to increase, as well as possible wars to fought to prevent people from dying from starvation or freezing temperatures.

  94. Having an “open mind” means that you are required to agree with the loony libs. Note that they are NEVER required to have an “open mind”. Never. Ever. And they have a license to lie with impunity, which they use continuously. Right, Hillary?

  95. I think the Sun is the most probable cause of changes in weather. However, I have seen pictures that purport to prove that glaciers are receding in some regions. I have also heard that there is now a “northwest passage” due to the loss of sea ice north of Canada. Neither of the aforementioned declines in ice prove that man was the cause.

          1. IF you had bothered to watch the video and follow it to the home page for Adapt2030, you would have seen that there is almost three years of statistical climate data there, in video format, which shows 1) that the MSWeather (NOAA and other government sponsored weather science administrations) have been intentionally eschewing the data that is presented to the public and 2) that the climate is cyclic, driven by the sun, which is backed up with empirical data from ice cores, tree rings and other sources that reach back over millennia. As I see from watching the video you shared, you tend to agree that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change, as its percentage in the past has been much higher than it is now, without man there to cause its increase, which means that the cause for decreases in temperature and increases in ice depth has to be caused by something else entirely, which, again, is the sun, the source of ALL energy on the surface of the earth.

              1. I am interested in the subject. I am not screaming from the rooftop that the sky is falling. The data correlates to show that the climate is cyclic and is driven by the output of solar radiation that reaches our planet, which in turn is driven by the climate of the star we call our Sun. While I do not have the time or the inclination to watch two hours of video on the subject today, I can grasp the majority of their content from their titles. I would postulate that in the final video, the conclusion drawn is to stand on the fence and accuse both sides of being incorrect, which is possible as true science is being incorrect more than being correct, and admitting openly of being incorrect. There is no “counter argument” to what I have posted as it agrees with the end statement in your final video. The only difference between the conclusion of yours and mine is length of time between cyclic occurrences and the postulation that we are now entering a down trend (cooling) in that cycle. Only time will tell. But telling people to prepare for a possibility is not irresponsible. If that were the case, none of us would have auto, home or health insurance.

                1. Well, thanks Tom. One difference is that I believe that the increase in CO2 will retain heat in our Earthly environs and over time warm the planet and melt the ice. I do not know the long term consequences of that or whether some other competing mechanism will balance it out.

                  1. I would recommend reading material by John Casey, formerly of NASA. His theory is that the climate is cyclic, entering highs and lows. The data he has gathered shows that CO2 levels were higher than they currently are now, and the earth still entered a cooling phase regardless. His data shows through the millennia that it has been the sun, more than any other influence, that has caused the climate to fluctuate. His models do take into account the levels of greenhouse gases besides just the solar cycle. The data that he gathered showed to him that the biggest driving factor was the amount of solar radiation received by the earth. There are small cycles and large cycles. Every 30 years (hence everyone in the 70’s making new ice age claims), every 200 years, and every 600 years. We are currently entering into one of the 600 years cycles, which the historic data has shown to be the harshest. Through the data that he collected, he showed that these cycles historically caused several major empires to collapse due to starvation. Several Chinese dynasties came to there close due to these cycles. The Roman empire was helped to decline because of one of these cycles. The Dark Ages where partially caused by one of these cycles. The winter that George Washington survived at Valley Forge was one of these cycles. It snowed in June in Boston, in part to one of these cycles, but also in part to a volcanic eruption. He also shows that when the solar radiation is at a minimum that it causes the earth’s magnetic field to expand (there’s nothing pushing it back towards the earth), which in turn causes increased volcanic activity and the number of earthquakes that happen. It also causes storms to be larger and have more electrical impact as the magnetic field that helps to restrain them is further out in space. From a scientific and logical standpoint, it makes sense. And now the data is starting to line up and to correlate that the sun is, for lack of a better term, going to sleep. IT will wake again, just as it always has before, but it usually takes 20 to 30 years for it to do so. He postulates that this cycle is one of the larger ones, and the sun will wake briefly in the 2030s only to sleep again until the 2060s. If any part of this is correct, and the data right now is pointing that it is, the earth is about to become very cool for the next several decades.

                    1. If the data is correct in the video I posted, then this winter the entire northern hemisphere will be very cold, very snowy ,and winter will last longer than normal, well in to the spring. We see this happening in the Southern hemisphere right now, where it received the first winter in this new cycle. Again, the data backs this up.

      1. I don’t. A few thousand years ago when man contributed next to nothing to “heating the planet” there were forests growing in Greenland. Something other than man warmed the Earth then and it was far more effective than whatever is alleged to be attributed to man.

          1. How do you not know this? Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green – excerpt: The DNA
            is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of
            Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

              1. @Thisaintnoparty, The Earth experienced far warmer temps 450,000 years ago when there were very few humans, so it was not then nor is it now man made global warming.

  96. I can’t wait for this to be axed of the Kenyan scarecrow to see how he refutes this. Oh wait, doesn’t fit the liberal narrative, so instead we will get another trip, and lecture, from the gigolo lurch kerry

  97. NYTimes and Mother Jones printed headlines that they knew were lies! Just P.O.S liberals. We need laws that would execute reporters who knowling print false headlines to sway public thinking, HANG THEM.

  98. Obscured in this is the mere fact that they need to reference a 100 year old log book to compare against today’s satellite data …

    Oh yeah, that’s within an acceptable margin of error … They really do have a fking clue what the “average global temperature” was in the year 1400 … There are log books!

  99. The problem for lefties is every time they send a ship out to document the shrinking ice caps, it gets stuck in the ice they claim isn’t there and somebody has to go out and rescue the retards

  100. Global warming is simply another rhetorical ploy to fund the argument that people you disagree with politically can be victimized as somehow involved in supporting threats to the planet earth’s well-being. This is science fiction, and if you can’t tell the difference between science fiction and science, then there is nothing I or anyone else can say to you that you will understand. There is such a thing as “incorrigible ignorance.” Best to simply ignore you as you would ignore a noisy dog.

  101. As the novel “Shield of Life” (by Dan F.) relates, the true danger to humanity is not global warming (or climate change), but the depleting Ozone Layer, which is still shrinking despite all efforts.

  102. Obviously ClimateDepot is “fake news”. You can tell by all of the confusing actual data they use. Real news sites just bully people and make fun of them for aspousing different beliefs than the “accepted”, and when data is brought into the picture they treat them like the computer “geeks” of old.

    This is John Galts rebellion in different form, but those clinging to their positions act no differently than the members of their fictional groups. I would say Ayn Rand was a prophet if she were not attempting to show, through her work, exactly how “liberal” ideology comes to the fore and gains power via the lens of history. History which she knew first hand.

    We cannot afford to lose this fight.

    1. Everyone has a narrative. The real skeptics, have had a clear victory here, because they only deal with revealing the narrative fallacies of the alarmists, politics aside.

  103. Ha. Look at 12of you weirdos circle jerking over fake news.
    The smartest people all over the world know the facts on climate change.
    You guys should go back and finish high-school before reading this nonsense

    1. Have troubles reading moron?

      The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

      In 2009, Al Gore announced ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.’ The dates by which climate scientists and politicians said the ice would disappear have come and gone, while the ice has remained. Undaunted, fresh predictions have been made in every subsequent year. One problem that persists is that there is still only a relatively short series of direct measurements on which to base our understanding of the Arctic. Satellite monitoring of the Arctic only began in 1978, giving us less than forty years of reliable data. This may not be enough to establish what is normal – or abnormal – for the region. Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us. —GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

  104. If the left found that insisting the world is flat would get them votes, increase their power and
    access to your money, they would have study after study calling earth a frisbee and not a globe.
    There would be endless taxes and limitations on what we could do and how we could live our lives.
    It’s what they do.

  105. The earth’s axis has changed. Winters generally get warmer in the southern hemisphere, thus Antarctica is warmer. Summer brings warmer temps to the northern hemisphere and the Arctic gets warmer as well. Because of the change in the axis of the earth, the sun is being observed farther north than normal and making the southern half of the world cooler and the northern half warmer. All of the global warming advocates and most of the population live in the northern hemisphere and observe this warming, but refuse to factor in the cooling in the south. More hype, more deceiving data, and much to do about nothing we can change.

  106. They just have not explained it well enough! All this global warming is causing the atmosphere to rise (warm air rises) This causes the North pole to get warmer and melt while all the heat pulled from the South pole causes the ice to increase!

  107. No one to date has gone completely around the Antarctic, that we are aware of, why is that ? I think these Junk Scientific Globalist are hiding a big secret, Admiral Bird , back in the 50’s said, the Antarctic, is a world beyond any thing imaginable. I find it curious that the UN emblem shows a flat Earth but we are always shown a photoshopped global earth with jerky movements that it spins, no clear streaming of it spinning. With photo technology advanced as it is, NASA should be able to do better then this, or it’s faked.
    What exactly is the firmament, the bible speaks about, and past civilizations had talked about until, Copernicus and others of the Jesuit Order insisted to convince us the Earth spins around the sun, that we are not the center of the Universe, now we are taught we are just one in billion of universes in an unfathomable space, when the bible taught us we are special place and God said he made the Sun, Moon and Stars AFTER he made the Earth.
    The antarctic has been getting a lot attention lately with top world leaders and religious leaders all stopping down there, so we are NOT being told the truth, and only very restricted air and sea cruises go anywhere near it before military forces prevent any private individuals to go there. Something not right in the land down under.

    1. They don’t want us to see the giant balloon knot that keeps earth from going “PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!”around the galaxy.