108 Graphs From 89 New Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmth

During 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped — nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.  We are a little over halfway through 2018 and already  108 graphs from 89 scientific papers undermine claims that modern era warming is climatically unusual.

For the sake of brevity, just 13 (15%) of the 89 new papers are displayed below.

The rest of the non-hockey-stick scientific papers and graphs published thus far in 2018 can be viewed by clicking the link below.

Non-Global Warming Graphs (2018 & 2017)

The list is also readily available on the NoTricksZone sidebar menu for easy reference.


Wang et al., 2018   

The average RAN15-MAAT of 18.4°C over the most recent part of the record (<0.8 ka BP) [the last 800 years BP] overlaps with the range of MAATs, ca. 16.2°C to 18.7°C (av. 17.5°C) measured since 1952 at the nearest meteorological station (Yichang, located ca. 100 km away) and is very close to the av. MAAT of 18°C measured directly outside the cave by a temperature logger between 2004 and 2007 (Hu et al., 2008a). This agreement between reconstructed temperatures and instrumental measurements increases our confidence in the potential of the RAN15 proxy. RAN15-MAATs in HS4 vary from 16.5°C to 20.6°C (av. 19°C), during the last 9 ka BP, and broadly follow a long-term trend of declining temperatures in line with declining solar insolation at 30°N in July (Laskar et al., 2004). … Interestingly, the most recent 0.9 ka BP [900 years BP] is distinguished by greater variability with the highest (20.5°C) and lowest (16.5°C) RAN15-MAATs occurring consecutively at 0.6 ka BP [600 years BP] and 0.5 ka BP [500 years BP].” [Surface temperatures dropped by -4.0°C within ~100 years.]


Badino et al., 2018     

Between ca. 8.4-4 ka cal BP [8,400 to 4,000 years before present], our site [Italian Alps] experienced a mean TJuly of ca. 12.4 °C, i.e. 3.1 °C warmer than today [9.3 °C]. … Between 7400 and 3600 yrs cal BP, an higher-than-today forest line position persisted under favorable growing conditions (i.e. TJuly at ca. 12 °C).”


Haddam et al., 2018

“The MD07-3100 SSST [summer sea surface temperature] reconstruction displays values ranging from 8° to 17°C over the last 21 kyr. Lowest temperatures are recorded at 18 kyr just before the onset of the deglaciation, while the warmest ones are recorded at 15 kyr (15-17°C), from 11 to 10 kyr and from 4.7 to 3 kyr. After 6.5 kyr, SSSTs stay mostly 15°C and are marked by two short-term warming events up to ~18°C, at 4.7 and 3.1 kyr respectively until reaching the present-day summer temperature values at the core location. … Core MD07-3088 displays SSST values ranging from 7 to 18°C over the last 21.4 kyr. The lowest values are observed from 18.3 to 16.5 kyr, while the highest are recorded during the middle to late Holocene (at 5.7, 1.5 and 0.7 kyr respectively). The Early Holocene, from 11.5 kyr to 10 kyr, is characterized by SSST values at around 13°C followed by a progressive 1.5°C decreasing trend until 7.7 kyr. Then a sharp SSST increase culminated at 5.8 kyr (~16°C) before decreasing again at 4.5 kyr. … The UK 37 SST reconstructions for core MD07-3088 show similar trends compared to MAT-SSST displaying the lowest and highly variable temperatures between 21 and 18 kyr. [A] sharp SST increase (~5°C) marks the Early Holocene (~10.4 kyr). Between 10.4 and 6.5 kyr, SST decreased again, followed by a plateau until 3 kyr with mean values of 13°C. Finally, after an abrupt SST rise (~2°C) centered at 1.5 kyr, UK 37 SST decrease until present-day. … The MAT SSST reconstruction of core MD07-3082 shows values ranging from 9°C to 13°C over the last 22 kyr. The lowest temperatures are recorded between 22 and 20.5 kyr, whereas a progressive SSST increase representing the last deglaciation culminates at 14.3 kyr. A two-step SSST lowering of about 3°C is recorded between 14.3 and 12.9 kyr and attributed to the ACR before reaching stable values at 12°C during the Holocene.”


Wu et al., 2018

“Summer temperatures (MJT) at Xingyun Lake in the late glacial were low, increased during the early Holocene, were highest during the middle Holocene, and then decreased during the late Holocene. The range of inferred values [for the Holocene] was 21.0°- 26.5°C. The pollen inferred temperature derived from surface samples (21.2°C), is close to the modern instrumental July temperature in Kunming (22°C), supporting the reliability of reconstructions from down-core pollen assemblages.” [Modern temperatures are 1.0°C above the coldest of the last 14,000 years, and 4.5°C cooler than the warmest temperatures of the last 14,000 years.] 


Zheng et al., 2018

“In this study we present a detailed GDGT data set covering the last 13,000 years from a peat sequence in the Changbai Mountain in NE China. The brGDGT-based temperature reconstruction from Gushantun peat indicates that mean annual air temperatures in NE China during the early Holocene were 5–7°C higher than today.  Furthermore, MAAT records from the Chinese Loess Plateau also suggested temperature maxima 7–9°C higher than modern during the early Holocene (Peterse et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2012; Jia et al., 2013). Consequently, we consider the temperatures obtained using the global peat calibration to be representative of climate in (NE) China. … The highest temperatures occurred between ca. 8 and 6.8 kyr BP, with occasional annual mean temperatures >8.0 ± 4.7°C, compared to the modern-day MAAT of 3°C.”


Ramos-Román et al., 2018


Stelling et al., 2018


Løvstrand Svarva et al., 2018

“A ring-width Pinus sylvestris chronology from Sogndal in western Norway was created, covering the period AD 1240–2008 and allowing for reconstruction of monthly mean July temperatures. This reconstruction is the first of its kind from western Norway and it aims to densify the existing network of temperature-sensitive tree-ring proxy series to better understand past temperature variability in the ‘Little Ice Age’ and diminish the spatial uncertainty. Spatial correlation reveals strong agreement with temperatures in southern Norway, especially on the western side of the Scandinavian Mountains. Five prominent cold periods are identified on a decadal timescale, centred on 1480, 1580, 1635, 1709 and 1784 and ‘Little Ice Age’ cooling spanning from 1450 to the early 18th century. High interannual and decadal agreement is found with an independent temperature reconstruction from western Norway, which is based on data from grain harvests and terminal moraines.”


Grieman et al., 2018


Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018

“In locations best sheltered and protected against ocean air influence, the vast majority of thermometers worldwide trends show temperatures in recent decades rather similar to the 1920–1950 period. This indicates that the present-day atmosphere and heat balance over the Earth cannot warm areas – typically valleys – worldwide in good shelter from ocean trends notably more than the atmosphere could in the 1920–1950 period. … [T]he lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.”


Kullman, 2018 (Scandes, Northern Sweden)

“The present paper reports results from an extensive project aiming at improved understanding of postglacial subalpine/alpine vegetation, treeline, glacier and climate history in the Scandes of northern Sweden. The main methodology is analyses of mega fossil tree remnants, i.e. trunks, roots and cones, recently exposed at the fringe of receding glaciers and snow/ice patches. This approach has a spatial resolution and accuracy, which exceeds any other option for tree cover reconstruction in high-altitude mountain landscapes. …  All recovered tree specimens originate from exceptionally high elevations, about 600-700 m atop of modern treeline positions. … Conservatively drawing on the latter figure and a summer temperature lapse rate of 0.6 °C per 100 m elevation (Laaksonen 1976), could a priori mean that, summer temperatures were at least 4.2 °C warmer than present around 9500 year before present. However, glacio-isostatic land uplift by at least 100 m since that time (Möller 1987; Påsse & Anderson 2005) implies that this figure has to be reduced to 3.6 °C higher than present-day levels, i.e. first decades of the 21st century. Evidently, this was the warmth peak of the Holocene, hitherto. This inference concurs with paleoclimatic reconstructions from Europe and Greenland (Korhola et al. 2002; Bigler et al. 2003; Paus 2013; Luoto et al. 2014; Väliranta et al. 2015).”


McFarlin et al., 2018 (Greenland/Baffin Bay)

“(Greenland)  Early Holocene peak warmth has been quantified at only a few sites, and terrestrial sedimentary records of prior interglacials are exceptionally rare due to glacial erosion during the last glacial period. Here, we discuss findings from a lacustrine archive that records both the Holocene and the Last Interglacial (LIG) from Greenland, allowing for direct comparison between two interglacials. Sedimentary chironomid assemblages indicate peak July temperatures [Greenland] 4.0 to 7.0 °C warmer than modern during the Early Holocene maximum [10,000 to 8,000 years ago] in summer insolation. Chaoborus and chironomids in LIG sediments indicate July temperatures at least 5.5 to 8.5 °C warmer than modern.”


Bartels et al., 2018  (North Atlantic Region)

“During summer, AW [Atlantic Water] rises up to waterdepths as shallow as ~55 m. … Summer surface temperatures [1955-2012] range between up to 3°C at the northern mouth and <-1.5 °C at the southern mouth of the Hinlopen Strait, while winter surface temperatures vary between 0.5 and <~1.5°C (averaged, 1955–2012; Locarnini et al. 2013). … Increased summer insolation probably amplified the surface melting of the glaciers resulting in enhanced meltwater production and in a very high accumulation of finegrained sediments within the fjord […].  In addition, during the mild early Holocene conditions, summer sea-surface temperatures probably reaching 8–10°C [5 – 9.5°C warmer than 1955-2012] (indicated by M. edulis findings as discussed in Hansen et al. 2011) may have contributed to reducing the number of glaciers that entered the fjord directly as tidewater glaciers and thus causing a diminished IRD input.  … In lake sediments from northwestern Spitsbergen a temperature drop of ~6°C is recorded between c. 7.8 and c. 7 ka [-0.8°C per century], which has been connected to a stronger influence of Arctic Water and expanding sea ice (van der Bilt et al. 2018).”

125 responses to “108 Graphs From 89 New Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmth”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    So the “science is settled”?
    You would think the media and “enquiring” journalists would be all over this.
    But no.
    They have all, with few exceptions, (James Delingpole and David Rose in the UK)
    being drinking the green kool-aid.

    1. Yonason

      Turtles “feeling the heat” this past January, in the Gulf of Mexico.

      https://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/pensacola/beaches/2018/01/04/sea-turtles-cold-stunned-weather-risk-during-cold-snap/1003400001/

      http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20180103/its-so-cold-sea-turtles-are-freezing-in-water

      …pay no attention to the anomalous cold. It’s caused by the excess heat of global warming, which is caused by a tiny fractional increase in atmospheric CO2. Well, that’s what they tell us, anyway.

  2. SebastianH

    Sometimes I wonder how much more the temperature has to increase so you guys stop this deceptive behaviour of pulling out graphs from some location and claiming that since they don’t look like hockey sticks it isn’t warming at all. And if it warms, at no circumstance is it warmer today than the last 1000 or so years, right?

    Let’s suppose you would all be living until 2100 and let’s imagine that climate scientists were right and we failed to do anything to prevent a 3°C warming. Will you then still claim that there is no “hockey stick”? That the warming is not unprecendented?

    In short: what will it take that you accept what very different groups of climate scientists have measured and predict for the future? A warming of 10 degrees maybe? Is it even possible to convince you guys of anything?

    1. Newminster

      Seb, can you explain why over 200 papers peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals over the last 18 months should be ignored just because they run contrary to your cult beliefs?

      Is science not to be done by investigation and the exchange of ideas — in some cases unpopular with the scientific establishment — any more? Are we now to dismiss out of hand 200 pieces of research (and that’s just since the beginning of last year; there were lots before that!!) because they conflict with some manufactured “consensus”?

      Are you suggesting that the conclusions or the graphs are wrong? Or lies? Are these scientists cheats? Because if they aren’t then whatever warming there is isn’t global, is it?

      1. SebastianH

        Why should we dismiss those papers? Take them as what they are. Same as you are hopefully not asking the rest of us to ignore thousands of research papers demonstrating that global warming is happening and that the recent warming is caused by the increased CO2 concentration.

        The name global warming doesn’t mean that the planet is warming uniformly and it also doesn’t mean that is is warming everywhere. Same as the term Greenhouse Effect doesn’t actually describe a glass greenhouse. You don’t want to be the guy who tries to argue against these concepts by attacking the term itself. That’s just lame. Or do you think it shouldn’t be called „Kids menu“ if there are no actual children in the food?

        1. spike55

          “thousands of research papers demonstrating that global warming is happening”

          That is HILARIOUS considering you have never been able to cite even ONE of them to answer two simple questions,..

          WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE, seb????

          You know you don’t have any.

          Your mindless scientifically unsupportable statements are just lonely, PATHETIC, attention-seeking attempts at trolling, aren’t they.

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          1. SebastianH

            Your mindless scientifically unsupportable statements are just lonely, PATHETIC, attention-seeking attempts at trolling, aren’t they.

            Speaking for yourself, are you?

          2. spike55

            Your attempts at EVASION and NON-ANSWERS are getting more and more CHILDISH by the day.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        2. Nwminster

          Glad you don’t dismiss them, Seb. Just as we don’t “dismiss” the papers that you rely on.

          Also glad to know you agree that warming is not actually global, since there is more than enough evidence to support that position.

          Just one more small jump and we are there. Some parts of the planet are warming, some aren’t. CO2 is a well-mixed gas, we’re told. So it can’t be the main driver, can it? So the planetary heating (all barely measurable 1° of it — with error bars) must be mainly due to something else. Natural variation, perhaps. Not much evidence around to support any other hypothesis at the moment.

          1. SebastianH

            Just one more small jump and we are there. Some parts of the planet are warming, some aren’t.

            On average, the whole planet is warming. That’s why it is called global warming. Not because every location on the globe warms.

            CO2 is a well-mixed gas, we’re told. So it can’t be the main driver, can it?

            This is not how an increased greenhouse effect affects temperatures. The general effect is an imbalance that manifests itself in increasing heat content. That “stored energy” gets distributed in various ways on our planet. Circulation pattern might change and some places will rapidly cool or warm because of that. If the heat content would stay the same and some places would warm and others cool, it would not be a global warming at all …

            Is that too hard to understand?

            So the planetary heating (all barely measurable 1° of it — with error bars) must be mainly due to something else. Natural variation, perhaps. Not much evidence around to support any other hypothesis at the moment.

            Nope. All evidence points to the increased greenhouse effect. The Sun is currently weakening and by currently I mean in the last decades. Skeptics like Kenneth will argue it is the changing cloud cover … but they are contradicting themselves with claims of a decreasing cloud cover while the Sun weakens and on the other hand claiming cloud cover increases due to more cosmic rays when the Sun becomes weaker.

            Being a skeptic is weird. As soon as you make a claim you basically contradict yourself. While the side skeptics are arguing against is pretty consistent. Not in the skeptic’s eye of course. Without a basic understanding of the mechanisms involved, it all sounds pretty unbelievable to them 😉 I bet modern microprocessors are equally as mystical to skeptics … or how the internet actually works. Yet I am sure they have a strong opinion about these things too 😉

          2. spike55

            “All evidence points to the increased greenhouse effect.”

            ROFLMAO… seb drifts off to fantasy land, yet again.

            Where is your EVIDENCE, seb?

            You continue to be TOTALLY DEVOID of any.

            Come on seb, some of this EVIDENCE please.

            Q. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            cue yet another empty zero-evidence headless chook response.

          3. SebastianH

            Only in “climate science” is it claimed to work as SebastianH describes.

            Nope, it works this way all the time.

            Devide a room into two halfs and put a refrigerator in the devider. The cold side points to one half and the warm side to the other half. Half of the room will cool and the other half will warm. Yet globally the room will be warming. That’s how these definitions of words work. You as a pedantic being who always want people to repeat the exact words you wrote down should be able to understand it. The fact that you don’t want to in this case is pretty telling.

            It would not be called global warming if the heat content of this globe did not change.

            the areas where it’s been warming have, on net, ever so slightly (i.e., 0.02°C between 1994-2013) exceeded the areas where it’s been cooling

            The 0-2000m layer warmed by 0.064°C (link) and the 0-700m layer warmed by 0.117°C in that time (link). It warmed in both hemispheres.

            would it be semantically correct (or even accurate) to claim that “both of the polar ice caps have been warming”?

            Both warmed … https://imgur.com/a/1vYZq52

            And yet this same phenomenon occurs every time people like SebastianH claim “the whole planet has been warming”. They know it’s not true. And yet they say/write it anyway.

            No, it’s what normal people say. If it were cooling globally I am pretty sure you would not object. But we are dealing with you guys who try to convince themselves that is has not been warming because there was a temperature spike some years ago where it was comparably warm on this planet or that the ice isn’t melting because there was on downwards spike in the ice extent a few years ago and it hasn’t gone below that extent since then.

            It’s kind of a distorted world view … this grasping of straws to somehow imagine stable or even cooling conditions in a warming world.

            Actually, no. There was a hiatus in the CO2 greenhouse effect’s influence on temperatures during 1992-2014 according to scientists.

            I wonder how this works for skeptics. In one instance they argue there is no such thing as a GHE and it can’t be measured and on the other hand they come up with a paper that seems to have detailed measurements.

            I also find it strange that you refer to this paper as describing a hiatus of the CO2 greenhouse effect when the only mention of CO2 is on page 1. Besides, those graphs visualize that the anomaly has not increased further … that is not the the same as saying that heat didn’t accumulate in that period. I hope you understand this. It’s like saying the car didn’t accelerate further and calling that a hiatus of the acceleration effect when you are still driving at 200 km/h.

          4. spike55

            “cue yet another empty zero-evidence headless chook response.”

            Yep, and there it is from seb. Ranting mantra
            ZERO-evidence

            and poor seb,reduced to mindless irrelevant analogies again.

            There is NO EVIDENCE of any warming effect of CO2 anywhere, especially no on the oceans.

            You can fantasises all you want, seb, but the reality I that the global oceans have only warmed by less than 0.1C

            While this represents a lot of solar energy accumulation from the Grand Solar Maximum, it is never the less a very small amount of warming.

            The oceans were MUCH warmer, by WHOLE DEGREES, earlier in the Holocene, and the world has only warmed very slightly since it lost all that energy in the lead up to the LIA.

            You can see just how TINY the current warming has been in this graph…

            https://s19.postimg.cc/vwyiy1q2r/OHC_steeper.png

            And not even a tiny fraction of that TINY warming is caused by CO2

            There is NO EVIDENCE of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime.

          5. spike55

            “I bet modern microprocessors are equally as mystical to skeptics “

            You do know that Tony Heller was heavily involved with the development of Intel microprocessors, don’t you.

            I would bet that he knows several magnitudes more about microprocessors than you would ever be capable of learning.

            I would also surmise that most REALISTS know far more than you do about basically everything.

            Certainly seems that way from your posts.

            Most of what you pretend to know, is basically anti-knowledge, diametrically opposed to reality. The rest is just an EMPTY hole with a wilful lack of awareness.

          6. John Brown

            SebH says and rightly so:

            “If the heat content would stay the same and some places would warm and others cool, it would not be a global warming at all”

            John now thinks SebH does understand what means No global warming.

            He says that cold and warm unevenly distributed. So if not mean warming then John thinks there no problem.

            SebH says so.

            When SebH sending John link for 2 degree goal. John waiting.

          7. John Brown

            SebH also needs explain his wrong physics:

            “A refrigerator in a room is the perfect example to explain this concept. You have increasing heat content in the room that is caused by external forcing (the electricity that the device consumes) ”

            This not describe refridgerator. The refriderator get less heat content after electric work applied.
            What CO2 does to work and distribute heat in atmosphere SebH thinks?
            There no fridge in atmosphere. CO2 no does work in atmosphere.
            SebH has wrong thinking.

          8. SebastianH

            “I bet modern microprocessors are equally as mystical to skeptics “

            You do know that Tony Heller was heavily involved with the development of Intel microprocessors, don’t you.

            I would bet that he knows several magnitudes more about microprocessors than you would ever be capable of learning.

            #facepalm … spikey, you are in no position to judge anybody’s knowledge about anything. You are the clown here who pretends nonsense is true and fantasizes about physics.

            P.S.: I doubt a geology/electrical engineering guy was ever heavily involved with Intel microprocessors. He is just a fraud and you are falling for his nonsense.

            This not describe refridgerator. The refriderator get less heat content after electric work applied.

            No.

            What CO2 does to work and distribute heat in atmosphere SebH thinks?

            See the comment you quoted from here:
            http://notrickszone.com/2018/08/02/108-graphs-from-89-new-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/comment-page-1/#comment-1270233

            There no fridge in atmosphere. CO2 no does work in atmosphere.

            ???

          9. spike55

            Poor seb,needs a bigger towel the wipe the egg and BS off his face.

            I doubt you ever got passed junior in any of the hard sciences.

            There is ZERO evidence to support that farcical idea.

            Then and again, you have ZERO EVIDENCE to support any of your wacked out anti-science idea.

            You are an EVIDENCE-FREE-DRONE.

            Your childish but baseless arrogance won’t let you admit that you really are in the lower 50% when it comes to rational thought and intelligence.

            You do know that Tony Heller was heavily involved with the development of Intel microprocessors, don’t you.

            He MOST CERTAINLY knows FAR MORE than you will EVER be capable of knowing.

            Basically anyone here would know more than you are capable of knowing, because you have to overcome all your anti-knowledge before you can ever start, and you have shown zero propensity for actually learning anything.

            Your ego won’t let you.

          10. spike55

            “you are in no position to judge anybody’s knowledge about anything. “

            I am very much in a position to judge your lack of intelligence, and lack of evidence.

            You have been given AMPLE opportunity to show us the evidence of CO2 warming, but have MANIFESTLY FAILED at every step.

            You have been your own judge, I am just the messenger, and you FAILED yourself, and I bet that inside, you fully realise that FACT.

            You have shown over and over and over again that your knowledge of science and physics is RUDIMENTARY at best, and that you are basically existing in an intellectual VOID of your own egotistical making.

            You have FAILED TOTALLY at every attempt to provide proof of anything you rant about.

            You have been judge by ALL, and have been found to be totally WANTING.

            But are STUCK here. 🙂

            You CANNOT escape.

            DOOMED to manifest self-inflicted FAILURE at every step.

            And its hilarious to watch. 🙂

          11. SebastianH

            The only hilarious thing to watch here, are your replies, Spikey.

          12. spike55

            The REALLY hilarious thing to watch is your INCOMPETENCE and INCAPABILITY of answering two simple questions.

            Your manic contortions in evasion and your headless chook routine in actually facing them with any science, make you the LAUGHING STOCK of AGW cultism.

            You are a manifest FAILURE at every point in your pathetic existence, seb.. and you KNOW it.

            You have sent the AGW agenda scurrying into a deep fetid hole by your absolute incompetence in supporting that junk science.

            We thank you for continuing to do so.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        3. spike55

          “the term Greenhouse Effect”..

          .. describes an imaginary concept that has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

          The idiots how actually invented the name, had zero concept how the atmosphere works, otherwise they would have called it the “gravity-thermal” effect or the “atmospheric-pressure” effect

    2. Kurt in Switzerland

      Seb,

      What part of “… not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped — nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability…” do you have difficulty grasping?

      Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
      (Go for it, now’s your chance for glory!)

      In short: what will it take to convince you that your heroes are rather crappy at predicting the future? Worse than useless results? More than a factor of two off the mark? Missing the lower threshold of GMST warming for “Business as Usual Emissions” (even though actual emissions were 1/3 greater than the Business as Usual Scenario?

      … Oh, wait… We’ve already seen that, haven’t we.

      Or are you merely a parishioner in the Church of Global Warming, so questioning the clergy would be tantamount to blasphemy…

      1. SebastianH

        The actual emissions are lower than the RCP8.5 scenario. The predictions are pretty good, even those made decades ago. And the unprecedented part is the cause. Otherwise you could always go back as long as you want and find a (reconstructed) event that did exceed what we currently see happening.

        The reasoning „it happened naturally before, therefore it isn’t us this time“ or the other skeptic argument „it‘s within natural variability (of the past), therefore could as well be natural“ … are illogical.

        1. spike55

          ” are illogical.”

          The ONLY illogic around here is from YOU, seb

          There is NO EVIDENCE to show any human cause whatsoever (apart from data adjustment)

          And there is NO REASON to assume that the minor , less than 1C of warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years, is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL.

          Do you have ANY evidence it is anything but natural?

          Do you have ANY evidence of humans causing global warming??

          Do you have any answers to two simple questions….

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          Or will you just adopt your NO ANSWER, NO EVIDENCE headless chook routine as always.

          1. tom0mason

            Yes spike55,

            And where’s the evidence for current CO2 levels being ‘unnatural’? What is the ‘natural’ level for CO2, and where is the indisputable observed evidence that CO2 levels should be whatever they wish to say?

            Given what is known about atmospheric CO2 levels rising after a warm period, is not the current rise perfectly normal and natural? … Or maybe our pet cAGW advocate can show some evidence that it is not natural.

          2. SebastianH

            And where’s the evidence for current CO2 levels being ‘unnatural’? What is the ‘natural’ level for CO2, and where is the indisputable observed evidence that CO2 levels should be whatever they wish to say?

            Is that a serious question? The natural level for CO2 is the level where the partial pressure in the oceans match the partial pressure in the atmosphere. The level where concentrations are in balance.

            Given what is known about atmospheric CO2 levels rising after a warm period, is not the current rise perfectly normal and natural?

            Again, are you serious? The warming we observe can’t raise the level like we are observing. That is physically impossible.

            Or maybe our pet cAGW advocate can show some evidence that it is not natural.

            Go visit a physics calls at your local university and ask the teacher those question. Be prepared and write down what they’ll tell you. Maybe you’ll learn something and be a better skeptic. Who knows ..

          3. spike55

            Zero evidence seb rants yet again.

            There is no evidence of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime.

            There is NO EVIDENCE that the very small but highly beneficial warming since the LIA is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL.

            You can yap all you want, seb, but without evidence, you have NOTHING.

            Let’s start by you answering two simple questions.. and try really hard not to produce yet another headless chook evasion routine…

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            ps.. we will definitely avoid your physics teachers,

            SO MUCH of what you think you know is irretrievably WRONG.

            A sort of negative science/physics education

            You seem to have a weird mixed of fantasy and that warped, twisted science and physics that only comes from a social science degree or similar

          4. tom0mason

            @SebastianH 6. August 2018 at 10:16 AM |

            As usual empty rhetoric and no answers .

            “Is that a serious question? The natural level for CO2 is the level where the partial pressure in the oceans match the partial pressure in the atmosphere.”

            Is that your serious answer? Dull and empty comment attempting to make you sound sciency while NOT answering all the actual questions.

            So let try stressing your feeble mind again seb, —

            “And where’s the evidence for current CO2 levels being ‘unnatural’? What is the ‘natural’ level for CO2, and where is the indisputable observed evidence that CO2 levels should be whatever they wish to say?”

            In other words what level is natural given your fantastic belief in (unnatural) man-made CO2 dominates as the driving force of climate change.

            Or can you not answer such direct questions as your vanity drives you on with your dull senseless comments.

        2. spike55

          “The predictions are pretty good,”

          NOPE, they are downright AWFUL.

          Even the tip of the recent El Nino only got to just above the RCP4.5 CHIMP5 mean.

          And RCP4.5 is hardly representative of the LARGE increase in worldwide CO2, which is actually pretty close to RCP8.5, despite what AGW stall-warts try yo say (they are embarrassed and trying to hide their utter failure)

          https://s19.postimg.cc/hz5lgm6hv/biggestfail2.png

    3. Barbara McKenzie

      “how much more the temperature has to increase”. I presume this is based on the hot summer in parts of the northern hemisphere – not as hot as other years (UK’s was hotter in 1976 eg) but hey!

      There are signs that the world is headed for a mini-ice age. I can well believe it – we are having an extremely cold winter here in the southern hemisphere. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/05/coldest-winter-in-years-on-its-way-metservice.html

      And not just in the southern hemisphere – it’s been pretty cool in Siberia too: https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-in-siberia/

      I’m looking forward to the experts putting the ice age down to global warming.

      1. SebastianH

        No, not based on the current weather. Are you familiar with the 2 degree goal that everyone is talking about when discussing limiting our emissions? That the basis of my question. Will you guys recognize a 2 degree increase as probably not natural? Would it have to be 3 degrees? 4? More? How large does the anomaly need to be so you recognize it as a Hockeystick?

        1. spike55

          “Are you familiar with the 2 degree goal that everyone is talking “

          You mean the one Shellenhubber (or whoever) ADMITS to pulling out of thin air?

          That meaningless unsubstantiated load of puerile fantasy !!!

          3 or 4 degree would take us back part way towards the Holocene Optimum.

          Current warming is less than 1C since the late 1800s

          Peaked around 1940, then cooled ,then climbed back up to about the same as the 1940’s

          Anything else is pure FANTASY

          1. Yonason

            Isn’t it interesting, spike, how no matter what the CO2 concentration has been in the atmosphere, the avg world temperature has never exceeded 25 DegC (except maybe VERY briefly and then only slightly).
            https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

            When I saw that, I knew that they were trying to put one over on us, and haven’t trusted them since.

          2. tom0mason

            “Are you familiar with the 2 degree goal that everyone is talking “

            And if this planet could reach that temperature it is very arguable that nothing alarming would happen. In the real world we have been there before when nothing catastrophic happened, in fact the biosphere flourished. The null argument wins out, there is little reason to be alarmed if it came to pass, life would go on, probably the NW passage would open, free trade, growing food, etc., would become easier.

            So why are cAGW advocates so afraid of 2°C rise? Because they do not pay attention to history, they believe (for that is all they have) in the prognostications of idiots who can only see change as a threat.

          3. spike55

            “So why are cAGW advocates so afraid of 2°C rise? Because they do not pay attention to history”

            They are in fact, the ULTIMATE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS

          4. SebastianH

            And if this planet could reach that temperature it is very arguable that nothing alarming would happen.

            Seriously, I want what you are having now. Must be hell of a drug …

            In the real world we have been there before when nothing catastrophic happened, in fact the biosphere flourished. The null argument wins out, there is little reason to be alarmed if it came to pass, life would go on, probably the NW passage would open, free trade, growing food, etc., would become easier.

            Must be some kind of hallucinogen.

            So why are cAGW advocates so afraid of 2°C rise?

            Nobody is afraid. That a set limit and there is no doubt we will reach it. The people who seem to be afraid is you guys … afraid of change.

            idiots who can only see change as a threat.

            Well said … thank you. Recognizing your own problems is the first step. Now go out and learn something … visit some physics courses at your local university maybe. Learn how the second is defined. Etc.

          5. spike55

            “I want what you are having now. Must be hell of a drug “

            Seems you have been experimenting with several sorts of fantasy producing hallucinogenics for a long time, seb.

            None of them have been able to help you fantasise any science to backup the myth of CO2 warming, though.

          6. spike55

            The really funny thing is that seb is actually the only real CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER on the blog

            Everyone here realises that climate changes NATURALLY

            We don’t try to DENY that the climate has been warmer than now for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.

            We don’t DENY the natural cooling and warming cycles, with current temperatures being similar to the 1940s and that the late 1970s was basically the coldest period since the LIA.

            We don’t DENY that Arctic sea ice is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

            We don’t deny the existence of Antarctic volcanoes melting glaciers from underneath, and try to PRETEND that the glacier are warming from a TINY rise in ocean temperature.

            We don’t DENY that there is a gravity based thermal gradient that helps keep the surface temperature warm

            We don’t DENY that there is zero empirical evidence of CO2 warming.

            We don’t DENY that changes in Solar radiation and the ocean currents is more than enough to cause all the small warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

            We don’t DENY that wind and solar are totally UNRELIABLE sources of energy that only exist because of massive politically based subsides and preferential feed-in treatment.

            Seems that seb is the only CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER around here.

            Poor little fella is living in a world of FANTASY and DENIAL

        2. John Brown

          SebH should state, what he assumes, is the average calculated temperature that we shall not exceed.
          What is the basis for the 2 degree? 14.8 or 14 or the optimal 15 degree C?

          Is this goal based on the current reported average temperature or which year do we take? Do the 2 degree include the natural variation or is this only human attributed temperature change?

          1. SebastianH

            SebH should state, what he assumes, is the average calculated temperature that we shall not exceed.
            What is the basis for the 2 degree? 14.8 or 14 or the optimal 15 degree C?

            Talking about an anomaly here, not absolute values that should not be exceeded.

            Is this goal based on the current reported average temperature or which year do we take?

            You don’t know what the 2 degree limit refers to? Wow.

          2. spike55

            Seems that seb is UNAWARE where the 2C mantra came from.

            Ignorance.. YET AGAIN.

            UNAWAREMESS seems to be the poor chicken-little’s only evidence.

          3. John Brown

            SebH wants to say which anomaly. Everyday temperature change is more than 2 degrees.

            So anomaly needs definition. Is yearly? Is per month. Over 30 years? Starting which year?

            No Wow, because how can John know if not clearly defined? SebH knows definition, he sends John link. Thanks

          4. John Brown

            SebH no answer. He not know?

            He says he knows. John not knows.

            Please send definition.

      2. Robert Folkerts

        Coldest winter in NZ?
        Certainly there was a bit of cold weather late autumn. However the talk lately is of mild Temps throughout winter.
        We are halfway through winter now, and where I live in the Waikato it is mild Temps and generally wet. Third warm and wet winter in a row.
        We are about 150m above the surrounding landscape and here have only experienced one frost of any significance this year.
        Significant to me, very little wind so far this winter.

        1. M E

          Very cold often overnight in Christchurch South Island and frosty mornings.
          New Zealand has two main islands.
          Warm days are caused by the fohn effect of N W winds which deposit rain on the West Coast and effect the province of Canterbury. The warmth is in the middle of the day for a very short time but that skews the weather reports.
          Wearing two sweaters and warm boots in the house quite normal here.
          https://www.metservice.com/towns-cities/christchurch/christchurch-city

    4. spike55

      Yet another EVIDENCE-FREE rant from seb

      World is barely 1ºC out of the coldest period in 10,000 years, well below most of the first 8000+ years of the current interglacial.

      We are living in a COOLER part of the Holocene.

      And with the current solar slump, there is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that the slight, highly beneficial warming will continue.

      There is NO EVIDENCE that humans can affect the global climate with atmospheric plant food.

      You have shown us time after time after time, that there has been NO scientifically provable CO2 forced change in the period where we have reasonable temperature data.

      You think you have evidence, the surly, its time to produce it, I’ll even guide you a bit, by asking two simple questions.

      Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

      Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

    5. spike55

      “Is it even possible to convince you guys of anything?”

      You have been given that opportunity to at least make an attempt, but you just keep running away like a headless chook.

      Its as though you aren’t even willing to even try, because you know you just DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

      Let’s try again seb…

      Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

      Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

      1. Yonason
    6. spike55

      “let’s imagine “

      and let’s just “believe” despite the lack of evidence

      Its called FANTASY and GULLIBILITY

      Seb’s life.

  3. CO2isLife

    Ground measurements are a tool of the alarmists and are corrupted by water vapor and the urban heat island effect. To isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures you have to control for water vapor and the Urban Heat Island Effect. When you do that, you discover there is no warming trend in the atmosphere.

    Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/isolating-the-impact-of-co2-on-atmospheric-temperatures-conclusion-is-co2-has-no-measurable-impact/

    Ceteris Paribus and Global Warming; Ground Measurements are Garbage
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/ceteris-paribus-and-global-warming-ground-measurements-are-garbage/

  4. David Gunn

    The media have sold their soul to the political establishment to make life easier for themselves. They no longer have to investigate stories, they just keep recycling the same old tosh. Therefore, governments are free to use “Climate Change” as an excuse for raising tax, no questions asked.

    1. Steve

      Totally Correct David !

  5. 108 Graphs From 89 New Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmth | Un hobby...

    […] K. Richard, August 2, 2018 in […]

  6. Steve

    What part of Non Toxic CO2 does SebH not comprehend?

    1. SebastianH

      Who said something about it being toxic?

    2. Yonason

      @Steve

      For the record, the Obama’s rogue activist EPA did.
      “The EPA administrator ruled that six greenhouse gases constitute toxic air pollution and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. “

      Anyone who supports them and their agenda can, IMO, be accused of believing that nonsense, even if he/she/it/whatever has never used the adjective “toxic” to describe CO2.

      So, yeah, you nailed it. The only way he might be able to wriggle out of this is to show us where, in the past, he has explicitly stated that CO2 is NOT toxic. Let’s see if he can do that.

      1. SebastianH

        A truly #facepalm worthy reply …

        Permission to use the same “logic” on you? Just want to see if you understand the problem with this statement 🙂

        1. spike55

          “A truly #facepalm worthy reply …”

          Great title for your post, seb

          Except you should use #faceplant, when referring to yourself.

          I have never seen one post of yours that could EVER be classed as anything remotely resembling “logic”

          1. Yonason

            @spike

            Interesting defensive posture he has – like those little animals that urinate and defecate when they feel threatened. Typical SebH “logic.”.

  7. Yonason
  8. Yonason

    While the following link was included in the material I linked to in my previous post, I think it deserves special attention all by itself.
    https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/a-disgrace-to-the-profession/

    “many prominent scientists in the IPCC knew the hockey stick was “crap” to quote Professor Simon Tett, Chair of Earth System Dynamics, University of Edinburgh, formerly with Met Offices Hadley Climate Research Unit or CRU. And they knew it as early as 2001, but no one said anything.”

    1. Mike Spilligan

      Yon2: That reads as though it could be the start of a lawsuit – “IPCC Knew”. (Not seriously.)
      More generally, we must be grateful to Seb as he brings out the best in Pierre’s / Kenneth’s well-informed, rational commenters.

      1. Yonason

        Right, M.S., they only sue the oil companies for “hiding” the dangeros of warming.

        Also, yes, that Kenneth is especially good at exposing the troll’s all encompasing ignorance, as well as his narrow minded activism. And yet he keeps coming back for more.

  9. Rosco

    As this post is on the subject of graphs I’ll chip in with a couple of graphs from NASA and quote from the first one:-

    “When it comes to climate and climate change, the Earth’s radiation budget is what makes it all happen. Swathed in its protective blanket of atmospheric gases against the boiling Sun and frigid space, the Earth maintains its life-friendly temperature by reflecting, absorbing, and re-emitting just the right amount of solar radiation. To maintain a certain average global temperature, the Earth must emit as much radiation as it absorbs. If, for example, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause Earth to absorb more than it re-radiates, the planet will warm up.”

    Here is the graph from 40 years of Nimbus Satellite data – although why they exclude the first 15 years of data is a mystery.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php

    Some obvious points :-

    1. The graph shows a POSITIVE anomaly for almost all of the period from 1979 to 2004. Simply put this means the atmosphere is NOT trapping radiation – MORE radiation is escaping to space. This is also represented in ALL of the satellite temperature graphs. How could the satellites detect increased temperatures if greenhouse gases are preventing thr infra-red radiation escaping ? Doesn’t make any sense at all.

    How can greenhouse gases cause Earth to emit less when the anomaly is positive ?

    2. “Frigid space” ??

    Come on, pull the other one. Earth’s average orbital distance from the Sun means there is ALWAYS about 1361 W/m2 solar radiation irradiating any object in this locality no matter where it is in 3 dimensional space !

    How can that be rationally described as “frigid” ??

    Simply – it can’t.

    3. The believers quote this nonsense – “Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).”

    That anyone can be gullible enough to believe this simply astounds me.

    https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Climate/Diviner/6-1%20Diviner_Lev3_BTG_Final_013.png?role=personal

    Notice that the Lunar surfaces heat up to over 390 Kelvin or about 117°C and not a single greenhouse gas in sight.

    And before some fool points out the obvious low temperatures, remember that a “Lunar hour” represents more that 29 Earth hours. The eighteen “Lunar hours” between maximum and minimum represent more than 3 weeks Earth time.

    One week with the input being less than the output plus 2 weeks of total darkness and it is easy to understand why the Moon gets so cold BUT that would not occur if the Moon had a 24 hour period.

    Imagine if the Moon had a 24 hour period – plenty of time to heat up to similar temperatures during 12 daylight hours as the reduction in temperature during 12 hours night would be nothing like what happens presently.

    And why is it you can calulate the temperature for all planets using nothing more than the Universal Gas Laws as I show here :-

    https://www.dropbox.com/home/Articles?preview=Analysis+of+Blackbody+Temperatures+versus+Universal+Gas+Laws.docx

    Again – not a single greenhouse gas in sight.

    Finally NASA say that :-

    “The temperature in the clouds of Jupiter is about minus 145 degrees Celsius (minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit). The temperature near the planet’s center is much, much hotter. The core temperature may be about 24,000 degrees Celsius (43,000 degrees Fahrenheit). That’s hotter than the surface of the sun!”

    How does that happen from 50.26 W/m2 solar irradiation and an atmosphere almost completely devoid of any greenhouse gas ?

    Or perhaps NASA lie ?

    The public has been well and truly hoodwinked by some dubious propaganda.

    Our atmosphere shields us from the power of the Sun’s radiation which would easily kill us all if we were exposed to its full power.

    1. tom0mason

      And as Ragnaar shows in his comment and linked video shows (HERE), chaos is not amenable to reductionists’ methods — like the IPCC lack of mathematical ability is the driving force of cAGW, their reductionist ideal of measurement just having noise, and that noise is reduced by averaging is profoundly wrong.
      As Ragnaar says “The punchline is, variability or noise, is the system. To lead everything with CO2 plus noise isn’t understanding the system. ”
      This means that there is no simple noise reduction method that will not distort the analysis of the (climate) system. There can never be enough measured accuracy or precision to which all climate processes and parameters to be able to elucidate any accurate long term predictability. We can at best only infer probabilities for future events but then only if ALL the climate processes (terrestrial and extraterrestrial) are accurately understood, and all measurements are done to the very highest accuracy — no fudge factors and no approximation! For as inaccuracies creep in then the loci of the calculated probabilities (within a chaotic system) will drift away from the actuality, away from what will really happen.

      1. tom0mason

        So, can you average out the noise in a chaotic system to gain meaningful probable trends, or worthwhile predictions?
        NO!

        And yet that is precisely what SebastianH believes you can do.
        SebastianH is PROFOUNDLY WRONG in that idea because of a complete lack of understanding about chaotic systems.

  10. It’s Not Climate Change that is Fueling Destructive Wildfires | American Elephants

    […] 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating that modern temperatures are Not unprecedented, […]

  11. Michelle Strohm

    It’s too bad I couldn’t forward this to facebook, to try and educate some true believers of all the fake news …but I heard years ago of a scientist(James Taylor) wanted to talk with the committee that hypes all this propaganda and funny they would never meet with these other scientists… maybe because they would be exposed… all I know is there are a lot of brainwashed stupid sorry to use that word but when you show facts they don’t even wasn’t to look at it… so that word applies to the small minded that don’t even listen

  12. Proselytizing The Global Warming Religion – Lexington Libertarian

    […] The Climate Depot reports: […]

  13. CO2isLife

    Here are some non-hockeystick charts that are pretty hard to deny debunk the CO2 causes warming theory.

    Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/isolating-the-impact-of-co2-on-atmospheric-temperatures-conclusion-is-co2-has-no-measurable-impact/

  14. Heutzutage geht der treue Unter­tan zur Bürgeruni, um seine konforme Desinfor­mation zu empfangen – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

    […] notrickszone 2. August 2018: 108 Graphs From 89 New Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern […]

  15. Climate Change Hysteria Articles like "Hothouse Earth" and… | Virtual-Strategy Magazine

    […] to numerous peer-reviewed papers summarized on the No Tricks Zone blog of Aug. 2, 2018, 89 new papers invalidate claims that the current warm is unusual; previous […]

  16. Climate Change Hysteria Articles like “Hothouse Earth” and… | March for America | MFA News

    […] to numerous peer-reviewed papers summarized on the No Tricks Zone blog of Aug. 2, 2018, 89 new papers invalidate claims that the current warm is unusual; previous […]

  17. Climate Change Hysteria Articles like “Hothouse Earth” and… – My WordPress Website

    […] to numerous peer-reviewed papers summarized on the No Tricks Zone blog of Aug. 2, 2018, 89 new papers invalidate claims that the current warm is unusual; previous […]

  18. Climate Change Hysteria Articles like “Hothouse Earth” and… – user's Blog!

    […] to numerous peer-reviewed papers summarized on the No Tricks Zone blog of Aug. 2, 2018, 89 new papers invalidate claims that the current warm is unusual; previous […]

  19. Climate Change Hysteria Articles like “Hothouse Earth” and… – NaijaLi

    […] to numerous peer-reviewed papers summarized on the No Tricks Zone blog of Aug. 2, 2018, 89 new papers invalidate claims that the current warm is unusual; previous […]

  20. Climate Alarmism is Certainly Fraudulent – barbaramckenzie

    […] pointing to higher temperatures in the 30s, and a cooling since 1998.   During 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, […]

  21. Climate Alarmism is a Scam and a Hoax – barbaramckenzie

    […] pointing to higher temperatures in the 30s, and a cooling since 1998.   During 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, […]

  22. Dozens of Scientific Papers Case Doubt on Global Warming Dogma | Health and Science Headlines

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close