Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!

JP_1Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?

Image right: The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.

Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!

Hat-tip: NTZ reader Arne Garbøl

The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: “The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”

So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.

The JP writes that “many will be startled” by the news that a little ice age is a real possibility. Indeed, western citizens have been conditioned to think that nothing except warming is possible. Few have prepared for any other possibility.

In its latest 2-page report, the JP now appears to tell its readers that our views on climate science have to be much more open minded and unshackled from the chains of dogmatism.

JP starts by reminding readers that it was just over 100 years ago that the world had clawed itself out of the little ice age, which extended from 1400 – 1900, a time when the Thames river often froze over. All paths in determining the cause of the little ice age all seem to converge to a single factor: solar activity.

The Jyllands-Posten quotes David Hathaway:

‘We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years,’ David Hathaway from American space research institute NASA newly concluded in connection to the release of new figures for the sun’s activity. He said the activity for the ongoing cycle is half of the previous cycle, and he predicted an even lower activity for the next cycle, which will hit us in few years.”

Suddenly even the greenest of media outlets among us are contemplating what the consequences of a quiet sun may be. The JP then quotes Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who says these consequences could be dramatic:

It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age. It seems likely we are on the path to a period with very low solar activity, which could mean that we may have some very cold winters.”

Elliott then cites the ice-cold winters of 2009 and 2010 as early signs.

JP then cites at length Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who needs no introduction:

Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300. … Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun’s activity will also have influence the coming many years. … The unusual thing right now is that sun’s activity is decreasing while there’s a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in a time of decreasing solar activity. … The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.”

JP also quotes Svensmark on the subject of the IPCC: “…many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. … The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don’t think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.

Where did all the heat go?

JP_2In the second part (see right) of the JP’s feature story on climate science, the daily asks whatever happened to all the missing warming?

Despite predictions that the temperature on the globe should rise with a huge speed, nothing has really happened the last 10-15 years. However climate scientists are insisting we are in the middle of the heaviest global warming maybe ever, and that the temperature will rise with at least 2-4 degrees towards the year 2100.”

JP asks scientist Sebastian Mernild of the Glaciology and Climate Change Laboratory Center for Scientific Studies in Chile, who insists that ocean currents have taken the heat “down to the deep sea”.

Once unthinkable just a few years ago, the European media and JP are now starting to admit the oceans are a poorly understood wild card in the climate equation after all. JP openly states, “The oceans are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.” Jylland Posten ends its 2-page feature story with questions and comments by Svensmark:

How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”


Special thanks to Arne Garbøl who brought this report to my attention, translated the content, and assisted me in putting this NTZ post up.


79 thoughts on “Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!”

  1. There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record, species appear suddenly but Joe Public thinks evolution is completely real. Let this be a warning to all those who believe that the myth of CO2 warming will soon go away……………… wont.

    1. Joe public, much like you, doesn’t understand what evolution is. Just like you just did, they confuse Darwin’s theory with evolution. Evolution is simply any change in a given system in response to external pressures acting upon it. That is all evolution is and we see it in our every day lives. Darwin’s theory tries to explain the origin of the immense biodiversity we enjoy on our planet in terms of evolution and natural selection. Two different things.

    2. Explain your definition of evolution. The fossil record is incomplete and always will be that way. There are multitudes of evidence outside the fossil record that support the theory of evolution. Evolution is the gradual change in a population over time either structurally or behavioral due to the best adapted of the species ‘ reproducing more successfully thereby increasing the number of the speciesthat carries the trait or behavior.

      Not surprising that you appear to absolutely support the notion that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. Just like evolution and the fossil record, warming is a bit more complicated than one factor. After all there is this really hot thing called the Sun which is in the middle of a solar maximum.

    3. Those comments are so ignorant that I’m surprised you have the ability to compose and post anything at all.

    4. really – – – – the fossil record is incomplete was we have only found a what is left after a million years or more – – –

      suddenly in fossil record is 10’s of thousands of years – – – if not 100’s of thousands of years – – –

      they are always finding something new or different – – which changes the time line of when things happened.

      as for the myth – – – CO2 effect is very small – – just go outside and fell the heat of the sun – – a small change 1% will cause an effect of on earth.

      the myth will continue for years and years and years – – – that is the way of life and now with the internet

      Jim P

      1. Consider also the simple arithmetic. The odds of a plentiful species leaving a fossil or two are much higher than that a scarce, transitional form will. Since necessarily only a few animals (or plants) in a specific lineage will be evolving in the particular way that eventually “wins out”, early in the process, the chances of one such happening to get fossilized are very low. So the overwhelming odds are that we will find samples only of the precursor and next successful and plentiful stable form in the sequence, and none of the intermediates.

    5. “There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record, species appear suddenly ”

      Please look into Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium”. It explains that. Genetic changes can accumulate as regressive genes without changing the phenotype. After x trials (via crossover in sexual reproduction) they suddenly can manifest in large phenotypical changes (when the crossover produces a lucky combination), and so cross a local maximum in the fitness function (like a tunneling quantum).

      Gives the appearance of sudden changes; and can be demonstrated in genetic algorithms.

      1. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is the biggest climb down in scientific history it is an admission that the original theory of evolution is wrong but so is the new theories. Nobody yet knows how species appeared.

    6. And besides; evidence for genetic macro evolution does not contradict belief in a creator, as running an evolution could be called the way that the creator uses to create. There has to be some way he influences the world; why not via re-arranging genes. That’s how *I* influence the evolutions running on my machines… when I feel like it; otherwise I just let’em run on their own.

      A word about Darwin: Darwin didn’t even know what a gene is. That was Mendel. Darwin and Mendel were contemporaries but never heard of the other’s work.

      Today’s Darwinism is actually Neo-Darwinism – a combination of Darwin’s and Mendel’s work.

      1. Considering that God was made up by humans, you can always make Him do whatever you want including gene mutations and genomic rearrangements (or even miracles).
        I strongly doubt that Gregor Mendel never had heard of Darwin’s work during his life, taking into account that Mendel died 25 year after ‘On the Origin of Species’ were first published.

      2. On the other hand, Gregor Mendel didn’t know what was a gene either.
        Mendel only was able to elucidate the way in which genes are transmitted from one generation to the next, but he knew nothing about DNA, DNA sequences, genetic code, gene mutations (for him they all were just allelic variants), regulation of gene expression, etc.
        Mendel never referred to quantitative traits in his work (unlike Darwin), those traits that are the result of the effect of many genes (although he might have become aware of them), nor even about co-dominance or partial dominance (phenomena dependent on the effect of just a single gene). So Mendel was far from knowing what actually genes are.

        1. Yes you are right, I was imprecise. He proved that there were hereditary factors and analyzed it statistically, but he didn’t call those factors genes.

    7. “Species appear suddenly” The delusional state at which a human mind is capable of functioning never ceases to amaze me. When you upload to YouTube some footage of a new species suddenly appearing right before your very eyes please send me a link Tony.

      1. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record.

        Paleontologists have done wonders with plascticine and araldite but the new theory of “spontaneous evolution” is a sad recognition of their failures.

        1. Please don’t get me wrong, I am just saying we don’t yet know how species came to be but that most people believe they evolved which is clearly not true according to the fossil record. Just as most people believe that CO2 will cause runaway warming even though there is no evidence this will happen.

          Myths can persist for centuries and I believe the CO2 myth will be the same.

  2. It’s about time that someone looks at the fact that there is no credible experiment that proves the “greenhouse gas effect” exists. After 188 years since the Hypotheses was proposed by Fourier no one has come up with a way to demonstrate how CO2 can heat the atmosphere. Every “jar” test that has been done is an example of “confined space heat” this is not the “greenhouse gas effect”.
    Many physicists have shown that the concept of the GHGE violates fundamental of physics and thermodynamic. Now that Astrophysicists are showing with the help of the weather that CO2 or any other trace gas that absorbs IR is not the cause of average global temperatures changes its time to believe the physicists that told us all along that the GHGE is a fu-king hoax.
    There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D physicists (at least 4). Ph.D. Chemical engineers (at least 2 at last count) and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”

    The Greenhouse Effect Explored
    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”

    Another important website is www. The Great Climate -G3 The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
    When major university physics departments are afraid to tell the truth that the “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven with “credible experiments & data” We are in trouble.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company,
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme .

    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons
    from: at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    May 2010

    1. Also check out Jinan Cao. He points out that the atmosphere, by definition, depends on GHG gas to generate OLR, and cannot cool otherwise. IOW, GHGs keep the atmosphere from superheating!

      1. IF the atmosphere had NO component that interacted in the IR spectrum, ALL energy emitted by the greybody surface would directly reach space. The atmosphere would not be heated by radiation passing through it; only by contact with the surface. There would be no lapse rate; and basically no weather; the atmosphere would have the same temperature everywhere, at every height, day and night.

        It would heat up to surface level but no further.

  3. The Sun seems to be getting a lot of press lately in Europe. I wonder how much is thanks to Die kalte Sonne and how much to people talking about the lame solar cycle. Or is it simply because everyone is shivering this summer?

    1. Most definitely the latter. As long as it was warm the EU media bloc was able to uphold the magic of their fantasy world. They must now steer back or lose all remaining trust; they can’t afford that, though, as they have two other lies to maintain; so they must preserve some of their usefulness (the two lies being a) the Euro works b) Multiculti is so fun! )

  4. Even if we were plunged into another Little Ice Age they will insist that their hypothesis is correct, they are not wrong, the heat is in the deep blue sea. People and the media will draw their own conclusions and simply ignore these climate clowns are they have started to do.

  5. The AGW believer will not stop believing unless there is an ice age, if at all.

    It doesn’t matter how long the temperature is not rising. They will use anything to explain that the temperature will in the end increase. They just say that this is only a delay and after that delay the temperature will catch up.

  6. O/T Pierre, this might be of interest to you and any other EU citizen; as it is not being reported by state media. Maybe “embargo”ed until after German elections.

    I hear different things, like the EU made a “law”, or they made a “proposal”, on AUG 1, to expropriate even parts of bank deposits including stocks deposited at a EU bank in case of bank bankruptcy, and introduce in such a case Cyprus style capital controls. This will affect even capital under 100,000 EUR !!!

    I am not sure whether it is already in force. I would suspect them to bend their own rules though.

    Take care.

    1. Dirk,
      I don’t know about Europe but I do know our incompetent Australian Labor Government has been floating a policy of a tax on deposits to insure against bank failure. A local economist has estimated that should one of our second tier banks go under it would take 45 years of the proposed tax to pay back those deposits. This government however can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar so we all think it’s just a grab just as I suspect the EU tax would be. Besides we have excellent bank laws and oversight here so collapse of one is highly unlikely. Only one bank, the Agricultural bank, some 50 years ago had a liquidity problem and depositors lost one half cent on the dollar or a half percent. Luckily the current government is for the chop in just four weeks time and the incoming mob are far more financially astute.

      1. Oz is far less indebted than the EU. Eurozone banks are leveraged to a factor of 26. Meaning, a four percent decline in the value of their assets WIPES THEM OUT.

        The Euro banking system is a tinderbox. Oz looks pretty safe from here.

        1. Has this bit of EU legislation had any coverage in other parts of Europe

          This is the only reference I’ve seen, would not otherwise have known about it.

          Passed on August 1st 2013 “In future, taxpayers will not be called upon to bail banks out. It will be down to the creditors and the owners”.

          I have a bank account, that makes me a bank creditor

          Looks like the Cpriot solution to a banking crisis has been passed into EU law.

          1. Yes. Diesel-Boom had announced it after Cyprus, calling Cyprus the template.
            It is very disconcerting to see the EXTENT of the censorship. Censorship has been growing over the years, starting with the CO2AGW movement, and now covers the EU completely. They will now not tell us even the laws they have made to rob us; while maintaining that we have to obey laws they never told us about.

            Just tried top propaganda organ Euronews. Nothing to be found.

  7. JP also quotes Svensmark on the subject of the IPCC: “…many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. … The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don’t think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.”

    They do not have our real Sun, they have substituted an imaginary cold star of only 6,000°C, the same temp as the real Earth’s innards..

    AGW, and so CAGW also, is built on the science fraud of the Greenhouse Effect.

    This energy budget of “shortwave in longwave out” is science fraud.

    Trenberth’s missing heat is hidden in his comic cartoon Greenhouse Effect energy budget – several things at play here.

    Firstly, AGWScienceFiction has taken out the direct radiant heat from the Sun, which is the Sun’s thermal energy transferred by radiation, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, and given this to “shortwave in at TOA”, mainly visible light, (a bit of uv and near infrared either side, infrared 1% of the total).

    Visible light from the Sun interacts with matter on the electronic transition level, not on the molecular vibrational level, it cannot heat matter.

    Traditional up to date physics has known since Herschel’s time that the great heat energy we receive from the Sun is invisible, which we feel as heat and which is physically capable of heating up matter on the whole molecular vibrational level, and has since divided that invisible infrared into thermal and non-thermal. Shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is not heat energy, it is not hot, we cannot feel it at all. Ditto visible and uv in “shortwave in”, these are not thermal energies, we cannot feel them.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect has no heat at all from the Sun.

    They give two reasons why “no longwave infrared heat from the Sun reaches the surface”.

    The original, which I have been told is the CAGW view, that there is “an invisible barrier at TOA like the glass of a greenhouse which prevents longwave infrared from from the Sun entering. This “invisible barrier at TOA” is unknown to traditional physics.

    The AGW version is that the Sun radiates “insignificant longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaches us”.

    They have clearly been so brainwashed by the impossible physics of the meme “visible light from the Sun is the heat we feel and heats the Earth’s surface”, that they have no idea they have taken out all the direct heat from the Sun..

    This second version is even more absurd than their classic greenhouse barrier, they have calculated the Sun’s temperature by some weird planckian manipulation to be 6000°C on the thin, 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the Sun, from which they say they get their heat. They do not have the physics nous to see just how absurd that is and not even common sense to see they are claiming our millions of degree hot Sun is a cold star..

    AGWSF has put this fictional fisics in place for one reason only, so they can use the real world measurements of downwelling direct from the Sun longwave infrared heat and attribute it to their “backradiation by greenhouse gases from the atmosphere under TOA”.

    Secondly, they have taken the Solar Constant which is in real world physics is calculated on the amount the Sun’s thermal energy heats the surface, and given it to their “shortwave in at TOA” .

    So we have as in Trenberth’s cartoon, the amount of shortwave finally being absorbed by the surface and thereby claimed to be heating it, producing upwelling heat from the surface three times more than is absorbed.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect has changed physics and substituted nonsense in its place in order to promote AGW, there are few teaching traditional physics basics outside of specialised applied science in various fields.

    That the heat we receive from the Sun is longwave infrared used to be standard junior level physics basics a few decades ago as this traditional page from NASA shows:

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

    “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    We cannot feel shortwaves, they are not thermal energies.

    This tradition teaching from NASA directly contradicts the GHE “shortwave in longwave out, longwave infrared heat from the Sun absent”.

    1. “Visible light cannot heat matter.” Haven’t we been through this too many times before? If light gets absorbed by a dark surface, where does the energy go? Into the ocean’s depths?

      1. Ric Werme
        10. August 2013 at 21:35 | “Visible light cannot heat matter.” Haven’t we been through this too many times before? If light gets absorbed by a dark surface, where does the energy go? Into the ocean’s depths?

        Ric – re-read that NASA quote I posted. It comes from traditional physics as still taught to some, it contradicts the KT97 and ilk Greenhouse Effect energy budget of “shortwave in longwave out, and no longwave infrared from the Sun getting through TOA”

        Try walking before you run off the point I am making..

        There is no “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse preventing entry of direct longwave thermal infrared heat from the Sun”.

        There is no “Sun of 6000°C from which visible light atmosphere we do not get any longwave infrared heat”.

        That temperature is around the same as our Earth’s innards, are you really claiming that our millions of degrees hot Sun is a cold star?

        You can take these AGW Greenhouse Effect properties and processes as real if you so desire, just do not expect anyone with background in real physics basics to take you seriously.

        The confusion is because AGWScienceFiction has introduced this into the general education system and these ‘memes’ of fake fisics are taken as real basics, few bother to examine the claims about the properties and processes of the Greenhouse Effect so for the most part the ludicrousness of them goes unnoticed.

        Tell me, should we sue the manufacturers of glass and film for windows which maximise entry of visible light from the Sun and minimise entry of longwave infrared heat direct from the Sun, in order to keep rooms cool and save on air conditioning costs?

        Real world physics, which is as that NASA page teaches in up to date traditional physics, knows very well the difference between heat and light from the Sun. Knows the difference in size between them, knows the differences in their interactions with matter.

        Get to know the differences between them – the AGW meme “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all create heat on being absorbed” is physics fraud.

        Here, something I wrote earlier which might help:

        You have missed the import of what I am saying. I am arguing from well known, well empirically tested, used in countless industries and applications world wide, basic real physics. It is no longer taught in general education because the Greenhouse Effect fake fisics has replaced it..

        For example, the GHE “shortwave in” which claims visible light from the Sun heats the surface land and water.

        Visible light works on the electronic transition level, this is on the level of electrons, not on the level of the whole molecule which has to be moved to vibration to heat it up, which is why it is called the molecular vibrational level. Vibration, is heat, aka internal kinetic energy. All this is extremely well known in industries, Thermodynamics has been with us a long time.., if you want to find out about visible light go to Optics, or, Biology.

        If you re-read the NASA page I gave, you will see that there is a difference in size between shortwave infrared (which is classed in with Light not Heat, with Reflective not Thermal) and the longer wavelengths which are thermal, which are heat, which we feel as heat. Visible light is even smaller than near infrared.. That is all highly energetic means, because all the wavelengths travel at the same speed the greater the frequency in wave the smaller it gets – there is a rather large difference between gamma rays and radio waves, radio waves can be as big as a house and several football pitches long.. Visible light is much, much smaller than longwave thermal infrared, so it works on the smaller electron level, not on the larger whole molecule level. If infrared was not invisible we still would not be able to see shortwave infrared, it is microscopic, we would be able to see the bigger longwave infrared heat waves.

        Now, the atmosphere is not transparent to visible light as claimed by GHE, it is opaque – that is why you do not see the stars during the day. What you are seeing is visible light being bounced around by the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen, blue visible being more energetic, think more nervy pin ball, gets bounced around more hence our blue sky.

        When electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen absorb visible light from the Sun they get briefly energised, and electrons always wanting to return to their ground state do so, in doing so they emit the same energy they absorbed, blue light in blue light out. This is called reflection/scattering.

        Visible light from the Sun does not knock the electron out of its orbit, it is non-ionising, because it is too weak, but, for example, some uv does this, this is called ionising uv. This affects the skin on the DNA level, will damage the skin, so our bodies produce melanin to absorb it preventing damage. That is how we get our tans. We get burned when our melanin production cannot keep pace with our stupidity, when we expose ourselves to more Sun than we are used to.. Acclimatise slowly. UV is not a thermal energy, it is not hot, it does not heat our skin, it scrambles our DNA.

        So, visible light from the Sun is not capable of heating matter, the claimed heating surface land of GHE, because it is not big enough, does not pack enough punch to move whole molecules into vibration, but also, visible light is claimed to heat the water in ocean in the GHE, but it cannot do this because water really is a transparent medium for visible light, it does not absorb visible light but gets transmitted through unchanged. You can see this in clear water, you can see through water to the visible light bouncing back from the bottom of a stream for example.

        Still on the electronic transition level, which is the smaller level visible light operates on, the molecules of a transparent medium do not absorb visible light at all, they do not get in to play with the electrons as they do in the real gas medium of air molecules. They try, and this delays them a little, but they are passed along and so transmitted through the transparent medium unchanged.

        If visible light from the Sun heated the water in the ocean then we would have no life as we know it, we are carbon life forms from the photosynthesis which began in the oceans. Visible light is used by plants to convert to chemical energy, not heat energy, in the production of sugars from carbon dioxide and water.

        This is basic physics from real world traditional physics, still taught to some and particularly in relevant applied science fields. We really do know a great deal about the properties and processes of matter and energy – that is why the electromagnetic spectrum has been divided up and given different names, and put into different categories. We have come a long way from Herschel’s first brilliant discovery that the great heat we feel from the Sun is invisible infrared. His measurements were crude then, he moved his solid glass prism by hand at the edge of the table.. We now know that there is a great difference in size, relating to frequency, so the visible light he was measuring was getting overlap from the bigger longwave thermal infrared heat waves/photons which are packets of particles.

        As I have already explained, the AGW Greenhouse Effect has taken out the direct longwave infrared heat we get direct from the Sun in order to claim that real world measurements of this are from “backradiation by greenhouse gases from the atmosphere under TOA”.

        This is simple science fraud by sleight of hand. The KT97 and ilk GHE energy budget is science fraud, Trenberth needs to go back to traditional physics to find his missing heat..

        1. Where has Kevin Trenberth ever said that incoming solar IR does not reach the ground? His energy balance states incoming sunlight with an average of 161 W/m^2 reaching the ground. I didn’t look how exactly he breaks that down, but in the diagram, no distinction is made between solar shortwave and Solar IR.

          Half the insolation is IR. Even the wikipedia admits that. I think you are fighting your own strawman. Or do you have a link with the statements you criticize?

          1. DirkH
            12. August 2013 at 12:49 | Where has Kevin Trenberth ever said that incoming solar IR does not reach the ground? His energy balance states incoming sunlight with an average of 161 W/m^2 reaching the ground. I didn’t look how exactly he breaks that down, but in the diagram, no distinction is made between solar shortwave and Solar IR.

            The AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, KT and all the rest, are built on the fake fisics meme “shortwave in longwave out”. The “shortwave in” is often called just “solar”. It is mainly visible light with a bit of shortwave uv and shortwave infrared either side. The shortwave infrared is 1% of the total “shortwave in”.

            The shortwave uv and infrared either side are usually considered insignificant and so usually the “solar” is simply called visible, which is the main component of it.

            This is standard Greenhouse Effect energy budget as infiltrated into the general education system and which is used by Trenberth, it is the official Greenhouse Effect energy budget. My bold.


            “The greenhouse effect
            The average surface temperature of Earth is maintained by a balance of various forms of solar and terrestrial radiation. Solar radiation is often called “shortwave” radiation because the frequencies of the radiation are relatively high and the wavelengths relatively short—close to the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Terrestrial radiation, on the other hand, is often called “longwave” radiation because the frequencies are relatively low and the wavelengths relatively long—somewhere in the infrared part of the spectrum.”


            “Solar radiation is relatively unaffected in its journey from the Sun to the top of Earth’s atmosphere. As it travels through the atmosphere, some wavelengths, like ultraviolet light, are selectively absorbed, so what reaches the surface is mostly visible light with wavelengths between ~380 – 700 nanometers (10-9 meter), often referred to as shortwave energy.”

            Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.”

            “Common Questions about Climate Change
            Trenberth, K.E., et. al. 1997

            “Fundamentally, climate is controlled by the long-term balance of energy of the Earth and its atmosphere. Incoming radiation from the sun, mainly in the form of visible light, is absorbed at the Earth’s surface and in the atmosphere above. On average, absorbed radiation is balanced by the amount of energy returned to space in the form of infrared “heat” radiation. Greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide, as well as clouds and small particles (called aerosols), trap some heat in the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is called the greenhouse effect. If there were no natural greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be about 34°C (61°F) colder than it is today.”

            So, the official GHE energy budget is “shortwave in longwave out”.

            There are two reasons given for no longwave infrared heat radiation reaching us from the Sun, the original ”classic’, which I have been told is the CAGW version, and the ‘planckian Sun’ version which I have been told is AGW, who are rather disdainful of the CAGW..

            Both these version are given for the same reason, to explain their claim that there is no direct longwave infrared heat radiation reaching us from the Sun.

            The first posits the well known “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at Top of Atmosphere (TOA) which blocks longwave infrared but lets through shortwave visible light, some of which then reaches the surface to heat it.

            The second says that the Sun produces insignificant amounts of longwave infrared heat radiation, this is calculated by ‘planckian’ maths on the thin 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the Sun, the Photosphere [in real physics this is the atmosphere around the Sun, in the GHE fake fisics they call this the Sun’s surface..]. By this ‘planckian’ contortion they say the Sun is 6000°C and produces insignificant amount of longwave infrared radiant heat.

            Both these are utterly, completely, ludicrous in the real world..

            There is no “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse blocking the direct longwave infrared radiant heat from the Sun”

            The Sun is not a cold 6000°C star producing insignificant amounts of longwave infrared radiant heat.

            This is what is officially claimed to the Greenhouse Effect, it has been introduced into the general education system and is now ‘believed’ to be real physics basics, and this is what I am arguing against. As I said earlier:

            Traditional physics based on the real properties and processes of matter and energy in the real world Earth around us with our real Sun a blazing millions of degrees hot Star, teaches, still if you can find it.., as I have given in the NASA quote: that the heat we feel direct from our real Sun is longwave infrared radiant heat. Also called thermal, because it is a description of the actual wavelength, not, as the fake fisics of AGWs GHE claims, that it refers to the source. That we cannot feel shortwaves at all, they are not hot, they are not thermal energies.

            Traditional up to date physics has known since Herschel’s time that the great heat energy we receive from the Sun is invisible, which we feel as heat and which is physically capable of heating up matter on the whole molecular vibrational level, and has since divided that invisible infrared into thermal and non-thermal. Shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is not heat energy, it is not hot, we cannot feel it at all. Ditto visible and uv in “shortwave in”, these are not thermal energies, we cannot feel them.

            The AGW Greenhouse Effect has no heat at all from the Sun.

            Because, visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter, not in the real world, so the claimed “shortwave in mainly visible heating the surface land and water” is fake fisics.

            The GHE has taken out completely the real world direct longwave infrared heat radiation from the Sun.

            So it has no heat at all.

            The AGW/CAGW Greenhouse Effect is built on an entirely imaginary world with impossible physics with imaginary invisible barriers and a cold sun, I am sorry this will come as a shock to you, the fake fisics memes have become ubiquitous outside of real traditional physics teaching. All I am trying to do here is to show what they have done to change the properties and processes to create their fictional world.

            Half the insolation is IR. Even the wikipedia admits that. I think you are fighting your own strawman. Or do you have a link with the statements you criticize?

            Wiki, especially by Connolly’s (sp?) editing, gives the official version of shortwave in as I have quoted above, mainly visible, but it still contains some information from the real world physics. The around 53% split into infrared is from real world physics – as you can see from the official versions I have given, the infrared in the GHE is rarely bothered with, it is 1% of their claimed “solar shortwave in”.

            Unless you know both real world physics and the GHE fake fisics, you will not see what they have done here, it serves to confuse on cursory reading, which is the whole object of the GHE exercise anyway.. That over half infrared real world figures includes the direct thermal longwave infrared from the Sun, direct heat, which they have taken out in their GHE.

            When you can see the difference, you will be able to appreciate why they have done this, it is so they can take real world measurements of direct from the real Sun longwave infrared heat radiation and pretend it all comes from their claimed “backradiation from the atmosphere under TOA by greenhouse gases”.

            These are magicians tricks, they are subtle and designed to deceive…

            Further, and a bit more complicated, the figure they give for “shortwave solar insolation at TOA” is the real world Solar Constant figure, and they have given it all to shortwave which in the real world cannot heat matter.

            In real world physics this Solar Constant is calculated on the amount the powerful radiant longwave infrared heat energy direct from our millions of degrees hot Sun heats the surface matter. It is a measurement at the surface, not at TOA.

            This is where it becomes even funnier if you take a look at Trenberth’s cartoon –

            he begins with the misattributed Solar Constant at TOA and takes off bits for reflection and so on and his final amount of the claimed shortwave heating the surface is much reduced.., yet, the amount upwelling of longwave infrared heat from the surface is some three times the energy he puts in at the surface..


            Where can I get this for my central heating system…?

            Because this faked fisics was introduced into the education system in order to promote the fake concept of AGW, they are taken as if real basics and, few bother to look at them in detail.

            When you do look at them, at all their claimed physical properties and processes, you will find that they are impossible physics, complete fantasy. If someone was writing a fantasy novel it is the kind of tweaks to physics they might do to create an imaginary world. The problem, of course, is that they pass it off a describing the real physical world around us. And that is Science Fraud.

            And, it is now at the highest level of our education system and promoted by our our once great science bodies.

            That NASA page I posted used to be standard junior level physics, that the heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible longwave infrared, simply called heat from the Sun in contrast to light from the Sun. It was removed from their main pages a year or so ago, and replaced by confusing information, but someone at NASA managed to keep it available. There are still many teaching real traditional physics, and you can tell the difference because real physics is rational, it has joined up logic, the parts fit the whole.

            AGW Greenhouse Effect fake fisics just do not make any rational sense, as I have given here, they end up with a cold star for their Sun, the temperature no hotter than our real Earth’s innards. Does that make sense to you?

            If you care to look into it further you will see they have no Water Cycle, no rain in their Carbon Cycle, in fact, because they have substituted the propertyless ‘ideal’ gas for real gas, they do not have any atmosphere at all – only empty space. And they have not the real world physics basics to be able to extrapolate from that to see they have no weather at all in their world, no climate.., and they cannot see they have no sound in their world.

            I hope you can hear this..

          2. Notice that Kevin says “MAINLY shortwave”, so as usual he has a way out, which is what it is all about when you’re a IPCC climate scientist. So; I agree with you that it’s a lot of handwaving, but you can’t really nail them down. They take much care to not say anything definitive. Like journalists, actually.

  8. My astronomy friends and I have watched the low sunspot activity this solar maximum with amazement and some alarm.

    One does not need fancy equipment to notice this. Just regular access to SOHO or a backyard telescope, good historical data, and five solar cycles of experience will do.

  9. I read Svensmark’s book, “The Chilling Stars” a couple of years ago and was very intrigued and impressed. Particularly his introducing to me the subject of Muons (highly charged electrons) and their effect on cloud densities in the upper part of the mid-atmosphere. Interestingly, he develops a model of the heliosphere in which the magnetic field produced by the Sun protects us from excessive cosmic radiation, which in turn controls the numbers of muons in our water vapor shield and blanket. Add to this the announcement by NASA, following the most recent solar storm that their own satellite, which monitored the event noted that the CO2 in the upper atmosphere combined with the NO2 in the upper atmosphere to repel 95% of the energy associated with the flare up. This was caused, according to this report, by these molecules acting as mirrors, reflecting the energy back into Space. So, Co2 warms down here, but cools up there! Such interesting paradoxes. Back in 1956, Time Magazine had a front cover article by two scientist, Ewing and Dunn, on the effect of the oceans and the manner in which they distribute rainfall into the polar regions, which combined with certain geological factors in the oceans’ flooring could be the dominant influence over climate change and the cycle of ice ages. The Serbian astrophysicist, Milankovic, developed a model of climate change based on the wobble in the axial rotation of the earth. We are only now completing our mapping of the ocean floor, and to our surprise are finding it filled with volcanic activity, which may be influenced by the cycles of lunar proximity to our planet. What I walk away with is that there is one hell of a lot of stuff to sift through here. The attempt to over simplify, which our political masters would like to do to achieve their immoral ends, should be rejected. A subject this vast and complex requires the most open minded attention. We must dedicate ourselves to be the most objective observers we are capable of. In my opinion, it may take the next century to figure this thing out.

  10. been an engineer for 40 years

    not the first time that I have seen doctored data to prove a result that is wanted.

    but this is the first time that I have seen or heard about it taken to this level of detail – – – change constants, change the meanings so as to discredit aspect and not have to include them

    but note even with the wrong sun temperature – – – – they are not allowing for any variation in the suns output – – – no place in the model – – their formulas to allow this factor – – — – so all of the so called researchers do not realize the bais in their calculations – – modelling – – – – and the work to dig deep enough to find or realize this and then make the changes – – – – – beyond most abilities. – – –

    1. Climate scientists are actually very bad with models, especially with testing for predictive skill, and assessing the impact of incomplete knowledge. AND with understanding chaos. I talked to a mathematician who modeled long term behaviour of Li-Ion batteries; aging etc., and told him how the cybernetic models used in the 80ies to simulate ecosystems went ever more chaotic the more real data the researchers fed into the models – it turned out that there is no equilibrium in an ecosystem but that it violently flips from state to state. I mentioned the analogy to climate models. He said earnestly, Oh, I’d like to do those models. He obviously didn’t understand what I was trying to explain – that it is a futile task – given current mathematical knowledge – to forecast systems of this complexity over longer intervals of time.

      I think they’re all very naive; or cynical rent-seekers playing the game, knowing full well that they’re charlatans.

      1. One cute way I’ve found of saying this is that the more exact and realistic the models get, the more they will be dominated by chaos and fundamental uncertainties, and the wilder and less reliable they will become.

    1. The danish newpapers calls this global cooling. It should be noted that we experts on the left have long cancelled the term Glbal Warming and replaced it with Climate change. Now let me explain this cooling effect. I am a scientist of the left, an Obama supporter who saw the Messiah, the Baracka, the Obama, say to the people of America that he will make the tides recede and lower the sea levels. He has also made the earth cool. Now this same Messiah who was the favorite of leftist Europe and who looked at the normal Americans (not the elite, the really stupid, the leftist media, those who are dependent and deviant, the secular progressives, the drones, the dupes of society, the evolutionist, the global warming alarmist) has shown his mettle. We in fly-over country, the God-fearing, the ones who cling to our guns and religion are really surprised at this global cooling. we thought we were stupid, and you Eurpoeans and the Obama-americans were brillant and you knew global warming was going to destroy the planet in a decade or two. Even some of us started believing. But you Europeans and Canadians are so bright, no wonder you have no growth in your economy and you quit believing in God.

  11. The transformation from Global Warming to Climate Change is still underway.
    If temperatures start to plummet, the Changelings (formerly known as warmists) will continue to gloat and preach.
    “We told you in the 70’s about the coming Ice Age but you ignored us”
    The new, improved null hypothesis is that the sins of Mankind are leading us to Hell and whether this is a fiery or frigid future is an irrelevance!
    Zealots are never, ever wrong.
    We’ll never find a cure for their madness for it is based on an unshakeable certainty; temporary containment is the best we can hope for.
    PS-excuse my pessimism but I’ve just finished reading comments on the UK Guardian environmental ‘Comment is Free’ section:)

  12. I’m not a scientist, but I do believe I understand a little bit about common observation. I grew up in the very eastern part, almost dead center north/south, of the state of Ohio in the USA. Above my state is 5 giant lakes, called The Great Lakes; these stretch above, from the state of New York to the east to the western border of the the state of Wisconsin (a distance I would guesstimate at 800-1000 miles. The surface area of these 5 lakes is almost equal in size to the United Kingdom.
    They only started forming 10,000 years ago with the retreating/melting of the glaciers found there in the last “ice age”. It’s estimated the “maximum” of that “ice age” was 22,000 years ago…
    Then they slowly started to melt and have continued to do so.
    Doesn’t logic or just plain common sense dictate that “global warming” has been going on for 10-22,000 years?

    Could one also assume that the earth’s 22.1° to 24.5° “wobble” of a 61,000 year period (or Milankovitch theory) also greatly contribute to heating & cooling cycles on our planet?

    And lastly, I have a bit of trouble believing data from a 100 years ago without adding big + &/or – signs to hand blown, glass themomators.

  13. Doom!!! Despair!!! Global Warming!!! Buy the carbon offsets I’ve heavily invested in. Doom! Despair!


    There are five (5) primary facts necessary when considering the impossibility of so-called “anthropogenic (man caused) atmospheric CO2 increase posing a danger to the world!

    FACT 1: Increases in atmospheric CO2 occur AFTER earth temperatures rise, not before!

    FACT 2: 95% of so-called “greenhouse gases” consist of atomospheric water vapor!

    FACT 3: CO2 from all sources (man-caused, animal produced, vegetation rotting, ocean produced, etc., etc.) comprise less than 3% of the total amount of atmospheric “greenhouse gases.”

    FACT 4: Man caused CO2 comprises only about .03% of TOTAL atmospheric CO2, a very tiny contribution to the present amount of about 380 ppm. A three-fold increase of CO2 to over 1000 ppm from all sources would actually be “lost in the noise” with hardly a measurable increase in atmospheric temperature.

    FACT 5: Pertubations in the sun’s output, relation of earth-to-sun distance and various orbital considerations, actually including our solar system’s location within the slowly rotating Milky Way Galaxy are the actual causes of “global-warming.”

    Hang onto your wallets because the “Global Warming Mafia” is coming!

  15. “The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons

    I kinda stopped reading after the claim that all gases can’t absorb heat. Its almost like saying, do gases have temperature or not. One cannot be that sloppy regarding heat and radiation when trying to make an argument about a fairly subtle point such as this.
    That said, it got me thinking. An earth without any atmosphere or one with only N2 and O2 would radiate heat from the surface straight through the atmosphere. If one makes to atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation, the radiating surface will move to the top of the atmosphere where again the radiation is able to escape the earth, essentially moving the CO2 free surface temperature to the top of the atmosphere. From that loosely defined height the surface temperate will follow from the (downward) integrated lapse rate. An increase in IR absorption will increase the lapse rate integral down to the surface although this effect will show a low dependence on mean free path for IR photons (due to CO2 increase). Water vapour does the same thing of course. The water content of the atmosphere is interesting by it self since it bring the lapse down from 10C/km for dry atmospehre to 7C/km. Since equilibrium requires that the last radiating surface maintains a temperature given by the solar constant (1365W), increasing the “wet” path and decreasing the “dry or adiabatic” path will decrease the surface temperature. This at least sounds like an arm waving argument for the thermostat hypothesis. If I’m rambling, please forgive, this is the first time I’ve found any effect that would explain to me why the surface temperature seems to be so insensitive to CO2 content or even the “faint sun” in the early days of earth history.

    1. Londo
      10. August 2013 at 16:15 | Permalink | Reply
      “The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons

      Your link doesn’t work, here another:

      I kinda stopped reading after the claim that all gases can’t absorb heat. Its almost like saying, do gases have temperature or not. One cannot be that sloppy regarding heat and radiation when trying to make an argument about a fairly subtle point such as this.

      It is important to note what they say, because it shows that the AGW Greenhouse Effect has no weather at all, and on delving further, no atmosphere at all…

      I’ll try to cover some of this. They say:

      “Insulated by an outer crust, the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its heat from the sun. The only exit for this heat to take is through a door marked “Radiation.” And therein lies a tale… ”

      This is because they have replaced our real gas atmosphere with real properties and process by the imaginary “ideal gas”, which has its uses in calculations once all the missing bits are put in, especially van der Waals, but is a ‘theoretical’ gas with no mass, therefore no weight under gravity, no volume, therefore incapable of expanding and condensing when heated and cooled, no attraction, therefore their ideal gas which they misname carbon dioxide does not form carbonic acid in the atmosphere, they have no rain in their Greenhouse Effect. Actually, they’ve taken out all the Water Cycle, but that’s another story.

      They give their ideal gas the same names as real gases, which is what confuses here. Our real atmosphere is a heavy ocean of gas, gases and liquids are fluids, weighing down on us around 14lbs/sq.inch, a ton on our shoulders. They do not have this. They have instead “empty space with massless hard dots of nothing ideal gas miles apart from each other zooming around at great speeds thoroughly mixing by bouncing off each other and the container wall”.

      They have not thought this through.., they do not see that they have no sound in their world.

      What they should have notice however, is that they have no weather in their Greenhouse Effect, therefore no climate..

      What we have with real gases is real mass which under gravity gives weight, the norm of gases is against ‘air’, for example methane is lighter than air and carbon dioxide heavier, so lighter than air gases will rise and heavier than air gases will sink.

      When real gases which are not hard dots of nothing but have volume (Van der Waals), and as these get heated they expand and become lighter than surrounding air and rise, (this is transfer of heat by convection) and when cooled again they become heavier and so sink, displacing rising hot air (forming convection currents, winds).

      These gases, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, our gas Air, is first heated by conduction at the surface, they use this heat for their own processes, in expansion of their individual volumes. As they expand they take up more room so there are less of them individually in the same space, so that combined volume of gases weighs less, their weight is spread out further. These combined areas of expanded heated gases are called low pressure areas because their weight is less heavy on us. When cooled these individual volumes of gases condense, so they take up less room, there are more of them in the same space. These combined volumes of cooled heavier than air gases are called high pressure areas, because they exert more weight on us, press down on us more.

      Ideal gases, imaginary remember they do not actually exist, no real gas obeys ideal gas law, having no properties and so no processes, is empty space. That is why the Greenhouse Effect has no convection, it has no real gases able to convect, not in transferring heat by convection nor in condensing forming winds which flow from high pressure to low pressure areas.

      This is basic meteorology – the mnemonics which you most likely have heard at least the first: Hot air rises, Cold air sinks, and, Winds flow from High to Low.

      So, their Greenhouse Effect fantasy world’s heat’s ‘only exit is radiation’.., from the Earth’s surface straight to their empty space ideal gas.

      They also, just to throw this in, have an invisible container around the Earth stopping their ideal gas from zooming at great speeds to the ends of the universe…, because of course, their massless imaginary hard dots are not subject to gravity..

      They have this because their Greenhouse Effect is based on a science fraud which necessitates taking out real gases and giving the thermal blanket effect to a trace gas instead of the whole heavy volume of the real gases which comprise our atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen.

      Take a look at the very basic premise of the AGW Greenhouse Effect – “that greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the minus18° it would be without them” – this is science fraud.

      From real physics:

      Temperature of Earth with voluminous real gas atmosphere with mass therefore weight under gravity, mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C

      Temperature of Earth without atmosphere: -18°C

      Compare with the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C

      Temperature of the Earth with real gas atmosphere of mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen, but, without water, think deserts: 67°C

      Which is the real “thermal blanket” around the Earth?

      Where is the physical process of the Greenhouse Effect claim that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them”?

      Our real thermal blanket of the heavy real gases nitrogen and oxygen have a two fold role in Earth’s real greenhouse, real greenhouses both warm and cool unlike AGW’s GHE which only warms..

      These act a an insulating blanket preventing our Earth from going to the extremes of cold which happens on the Moon without an atmosphere, and also, because they are condensable gases, the GHE says they are not, these also expand when heated and tranfer heat away from the suface and then condensing cold air sinks to the surface. The Water Cycle of course, water with its very high heat capacity, is the prime cooling mechanism, bringing the temps down to 15°C as it takes heat away from the surface in evaporation and condensing in the cold heights to liquid water or ice precipitates out to return to the surface. Bringing any carbon dioxide around with it..

      So you see, they have had to take out real gases with volume, and the whole of the Water Cycle, but in doing so they have created a completely different world with no weather and no sound, as well as no heat from their cold star..

    2. Real gases in Local thermal equilibrium thermalize and dethermalize to equal amounts. (Kirchhoff’s Law). That means that they do not overall trap heat and do not overall act as “receivers” of radiative energy with which they increase the kinetic energy of the molecules around them.

      Rather they reveice AND transmit equal amounts of photons. No net heating by LWIR passing through the atmosphere.

      (water droplets are blackbodies and have a different behaviour)

  16. ..theres been talk of variation and notions of adaptation at various levels but there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record so we must admit that nobody yet knows how species appeared. Work harder. Don’t rely on Paleontology because their job is to catalogue species and describe how they lived, their musings on evolution are fantasy only.


    Myths have been at the heart of all culture and clearly still are.

  17. In his article, Crazy over climate, Peter Foster comments that:- The attempt to link skepticism to bizarre beliefs or conspiracy theories has become a staple tactic of the warmist industry…

    And true to form Tony Lear, a shrill (paid troll of the AGW mafia) opens the comments with an elephant trap – look the Skeptics are anti-science and don’t believe in evolution! How CO2 Warming and evolution are linked, correlated, and ties together is a puzzlement!

    Fortunately, nobody is biting, even though we all realise that the Lears are not descendants from monkeys, but slugs!

    1. So you say he’s a plant; looking whether he finds unscientific types to respond here? Interesting idea. Now that failed badly.

      1. Yes.

        Why else go off topic like that?

        The want to find and show that the the 6-day creation, 6 millennium ago, creationists are in cahoots with the people refusing to swallow the AGW rubbish.

    2. There is a link. Why do you believe in somethiong there is no evidence for? Take a carefull look at the theories of evolution, the “evidence” is shakey and not worthy of belief. It is wiser to reserve your judgement.

  18. Its natural for people to balk when their beliefs are wrong. The reality of no evidence of evolution in the fossil record is immutable. This is a gigantic shock to the system.
    This is the example I set in motion to wake up those of us in the anti- AGW world…..the real world.
    Warmists will find it extremely hard to cross over to reality. For instance a cooler world due to a Solar Minimum will be celebrated as a “lucky break” giving us time to stop CO2 “Pollution”.

    1. Tony, I can think of many ways to dispute current theories about the origin of life, but none against macro evolution.
      Nature does not care about the term species; either offspring comes about, maybe even fertile, or not, when two creatures mate.

  19. Oh Dear, the quiescent sun is going to take us all the way back to the perishingly cold climate of… the 1990s. How will we ever survive?

  20. No tricks…
    I commented here earlier… it never showed… at least, that I could locate.
    What did I say wrong???

  21. Facts and observed outcomes should have already caused the rejection of the general global warming theorem as all of its models have failed to correlate with fact. There is no modeling system that I know that fits with actual data that could be honestly said to support the CO2 mantras that have been espoused. Time to release a new model and projection that fits with facts in evidence instead of trying the case in the court of the incompetent.

  22. The COOLING of the past 15 years is in relation to the high temperature 1998 – since then NO YEAR has been as warm.

    It is like walking towards a mountain – you come to ridges and valleys, but overall the progression is to gain altitude

    From 1880 until 1998, temperatures went up and down, but overall the trend is very obvious – temperatures went up. Since 1998, the temperatures have all been warmer than any year except 1998 – the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th warmest years since 1880 occured since 1998 [which takes 1st place].

    Therefore, it could be said that “the world has been cooling since 1998″, but really it has been warming since 1880.

    It really doesn’t make much sense to say “15 years of cooling”.

    1. No question that the world today is warmer than it was 100 years ago. The question is why has temperature not warmed in more than 15 years, defying 98% of the models? According to the models, it’s supposed to be 0.3°C warmer today then it actually is. Even scientists say they are missing lots of heat and admit natural factors are at play after all. CO2 climate sensitivity has been exaggerated. That is the only point.

    2. Ellin Callvis
      5. September 2013 at 06:29 | Permalink | Reply
      “Therefore, it could be said that “the world has been cooling since 1998″, but really it has been warming since 1880.

      It really doesn’t make much sense to say “15 years of cooling”.”

      I could cite the peak of the MWP or the peak of the Holocene optimum and tell you that we’ve been cooling for a thousand or 8,000 years.

Comments are closed.