Intelligent Readers and the Climate Crisis

climateperil_berger_coverJust in time for Halloween comes one of the scariest and thought-provoking reads ever, and it’s not about zombies, vampires, Ebola or ISIS—it’s about climate change.

John Berger, author of Climate Peril: The Intelligent Reader’s Guide to Understanding the Climate Crisis takes the reader on a tour of all of the dangers facing the planet if nothing—or not enough—is done to address the impacts of climate change. This is a stark, necessary, heartbreaking and in the end, cautionary and hopeful book.

In succinct and accessible language, this short but powerful book pulls no punches: Climate change is the most critical threat to the planet today, and also the most complicated global issue. And, “like any critical threat it requires an emergency response.”

Life may seem normal now but rapid climate change “is already altering the world in ways that are truly alarming,” writes Berger, who has a PhD in Ecology and has advised the National Research Council. “But long before 2100 AD, it will profoundly affect our health, our homes, our businesses, and our farms, as well as our water, power, and transportation systems. Calling attention to the real dangers now is both a moral obligation and an essential part of the struggle to avert these consequences.”

Current climate change trends reveal that the world is almost certainly going to surpass an average warming of 3.6°F (2°C), probably in about 40 years or so, on its way to much higher temperatures, he says. “While at first 3.6°F may not sound like much, it is nonetheless about two and a half times the warming that the Earth has already experienced since preindustrial times.”

Berger calls what has happened to date a “colossal global policy failure.” Meanwhile, over the past decade of failed negotiations, “astonishing and alarming global climate changes have already begun in response to only 1.4°F of average global surface temperature warming. Thus, 3.6°F of warming—rather than a safety threshold—is a nebulous transition zone between highly dangerous and extremely dangerous climate change…we have created a new world atmosphere.”

The impacts of climate change are not limited to easily recognizable extreme weather events, such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, or droughts, Berger notes. The impacts “also include other dire consequences,” such as:

  • Heat waves
  • Dying forests
  • Abnormally large wildfires
  • Habitat destruction
  • Accelerating rates of extinction
  • Altered seasons and disruption of normal seasonal ecological relationships
  • Invasive species encroaching deeper into once-intact ecosystems
  • Lethal diseases fanning out from the tropics
  • Island nations about to be obliterated
  • Disappearing sea ice and glaciers
  • Rising seas
  • Acidifying oceans
  • Declining ocean plankton
  • Melting permafrost and Arctic wetlands

“These phenomena are undeniable, although their causes are still disputed by climate science deniers,” Berger says.

In Chapter 1 he takes the reader on a trip to the future that fleshes out in some detail the impact of those “dire consequences” in 2100.

For example, the world’s average temperature has risen more than 10°F by that year, but that’s an average. In the Arctic the temperature rise might be 14-20°F. So, by 2100 the Arctic Ocean is virtually ice free. This amplifies global warming because the reflective ice is replaced by darker water which absorbs more heat. With the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, the Arctic ecosystem collapses. The seemingly boundless fisheries are a “distant memory.” Arctic commercial fishing has ended.

The Great Melting
Then there’s the great the Greenland ice melt: In 2000, Greenland was losing about 180 billion tons of ice a year. The melting was adding nearly three hundredths of an inch a year to sea level by 2013. Over the next 87 years, however, the loss accelerates greatly. Thousands of billions of tons of Greenland ice melt and cascade into the ocean. Along with contributions from the West Antarctic Peninsula, average sea level rises four feet by 2100. Sea-level rise is not uniform everywhere. The overall resulting net average rise in sea level by 2100 has a catastrophic impact on coastal and near-coastal areas around the world:

  • Tremendous changes have occurred along the coastlines of Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Rhode Island. Many less important populated areas have simply been abandoned to the ocean and are now under water.
  • Superstorm Sandy in 2012 proves to be a foretaste of the large hurricanes that come with increasing frequency in the decades that follow. With average sea level elevated by more than three feet, 3 percent of Boston is below sea level along with 7 percent of both New York City and Jacksonville, Florida. Nine percent of Norfolk, VA is under water. In Florida, 15 percent of Tampa and 18 percent of Miami are submerged. The tip of Florida is entirely submerged; more than 90 percent of New Orleans is below sea level.
  • In the Pacific Ocean, the nations of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Marshall Islands disappear into the sea. The same thing happens to other “stepping stones” across the Pacific. Some of the larger Solomon Islands survive, but are now smaller and partially evacuated. Most of the world’s tropical coral has died or is dying by 2100.
    • Between 2070 and 2095, several million people were displaced by sea-level rise and flooding in coastal areas of Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam, as well as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia.

The Great Parching
Roughly 30 percent of the world’s land area is afflicted with some degree of drought at any given time in 2100. In the United States, droughts are more frequent in the Midwest, Southwest, and heavily populated parts of the East. Heat waves are also more frequent, prolonged, and ferociously hot. Farms are failing and food prices skyrocket. Miles of once-productive farmland in California’s Imperial and Coachella Valleys lay hot, dry, and fallow. Parched by decades of drought, the Colorado River basin is no longer able to provide the one million acre-feet of water it used to send to California’s Metropolitan Water District. In hotter areas of California, temperatures approach 120°F in severe heat waves.

Economic Failure, Disease, Political Turmoil Mass Extinctions

  • The national debt jumps to unprecedented levels as the United States reels from climate-related disasters and the ensuing fiscal strain. Simultaneously, the U.S. is at last belatedly spending heavily on new energy and transportation infrastructure while also trying to extend economic aid to climate-battered developing nations.
  • Across the Pacific, the rapid climate change of the past century has spread disease in many areas. Malaria now threatens 60 percent of the world’s residents, many of whom live in Asia. More Asian people are falling victim to bonebreak fever, river blindness, encephalitis, cholera, yellow fever, and waterborne intestinal illnesses.
  • Global strife, hunger, instability, and worsening ecological collapse increase. It’s an overpopulated planet where billions depend on—and struggle for—a shrinking natural resource base.
  • If the current emissions trajectory continues, “a quarter of all land plant and animal species will likely be gone within just 50 years—far less than a human life span. Then by 2100, half of all the species on Earth would likely disappear—a catastrophe unprecedented in human history.”

Frightening stuff indeed. “We currently have no quick, affordable way to scrub vast amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere,” Berger writes. Thus, if we do not radically slash our heat-trapping gas emissions, “We are destined not just to exceed, but to greatly exceed a 3.6°F average global heating…The world will therefore be exposed to a very large risk of crossing a climate threshold from which the Earth will not recover for thousands of years.”

On a somewhat hopeful note, he says, “The technology to constrain emissions is definitely here, and the world definitely has the resources to tackle the challenge.” Berger’s next book, Climate Solutions: Turning Climate Crisis Into Jobs, Prosperity, and a Sustainable Future will provide “an overview of the technologies available for mitigating climate change and the strategies plus tactics required to ensure that essential climate policies are implemented, despite even the most formidable obstacles.”

On a personal note, if all goes well, my grandson Wyatt Russell, born Sept. 3 this year, will be an old man in 2100, having lived through a continuing catastrophe and probably damning us for turning our backs on him and his children when we had the chance to do something to at least mitigate the climate change crisis, rather than electing clueless, feckless leaders who do the bidding of fossil fuel companies.

So yes, climate change is global and personal, not business as usual or something for further debate and study, and it should be personal for everyone.

Image: Climate Peril cover

writer, editor, reader and general good (ok mostly good, well sometimes good) guy trying to get by

352 responses

  1. Please, we have cut emissions from our cars, altered the gas to reduce pollutants, turned down our thermostats, use crummy light bulbs that take forever to warm up, We recycle paper, plastic and glass, we compost our veggie leavings, use reusable bags. So, how come climate change keeps getting worse? Are our efforts a waste of time and money? Where are the results? And before someone jumps all over me, it isn’t just me, it’s millions of people in many countries that reuse, repurpose, and clean up our world.

    1. ummm… where to begin…. china keeps building new coal fired plants for starters…. too much to go into.

    2. Good question Loreen. I’ve asked this before of AGW cultists. If the world is going to burn because of their personal actions, where is the their personal response?
      Where is the emergency response from countries?
      Where is Johnny Appleseed?
      Where are the MSRs?
      Where are the grassroots movements?
      We are all supposedly going to burst into flames as we drown, yet no one is doing anything meaningful.

    3. The change is due to increased amounts of Carbon Dioxide from burning fossil fuels and increased amount of Methane from melting tundra and cow burbs. Individual actions make little difference. Your actions should be upon elected officials to put a price upon these gasses and the sources of them.

    4. Loreen—-The results are in the Al Gore’s of the world. The government funded agencies such as NOAA,NASA,EPA, etc.,etc., and UN-IPCC, WHO are all in the same extortion business of scamming everyone for their own agendas and are using the false premise of AGW dreamed up by scientists and researchers that get highly rewarded for their research that confirms the governments agenda for increased taxpayers funding for further regulating industries and businesses. Every day new regulations are destroying our economy by job loses and higher coasts of energy and products. With the government budget broke and in the red and the national debt nearly18 trillion dollars America is going the way of the Roman Empire only faster. The way our politicians are running this nation and world you won’t have to worry about global warming and it’s future effects on the next generation as they will have caused a nuclear winter in a matter of minutes in the near future.

        1. Man made Global Warming in and of itself is the made up conspiracy theory.
          It was made up by liberals. Who are liberals enemies?
          Big Oil, big corporations, big businesses, individualism, individual liberty and freedom.
          What better way to demonize those things than by claiming that they’re all destroying the earth?

        2. It takes strong people to admit when they are mistaken about reality. The corporations are getting ready for a carbon tax.
          All walks of life are needed in this. CO2 is the reality that we all need to deal with before we hurt ourselves and our future generations.

        3. The solution is to go to zero carbon emissions this century. The earth will reabsorb co2 but will have a long fat tail that will last for 1000’s of years.

        4. Once again you are falling for propaganda. The Earth is absorbing about 2.5 ppm/year of our current emissions. Why would this stop if we stopped emitting CO2? At that rate it would only take 20 years to absorb 50 ppm and get back to the supposed “safe” level of 350 ppm. Why do you always believe what you are told to believe when it is in direct contradiction to observations?

        5. The co2 does not absorb linearly. There is a quick absorbtion for about the first 40 years and then there are centuries of slower absorption called the long fat tail.

        6. how about some Truth in Advertising? Instead of “renewableguy”, try “whoring for government subsidies guy”. Since that’s the only way “renewables” ever work.


          – You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.

          – If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.

          – If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.

          – If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.

          – You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.

          – You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.

          – You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.

          Don’t be an anti-science climate denier.

        8. – You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.

          Hmmm there are 4 sources for this statement.

          The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols

        9. renewableguy—-And they all are parroting UN-IPCC agenda and failed scientists models, graphs and charts.

        10. The IPCC AR5 is a review of 9200 peer reviewed science papers. How is it that about 3000 people cheat in coordination to pull this off?
          Science is as close to the truth as you can get.
          It beats making things up out of imagination.

        11. If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air

          Maybe then this science is just plain wrong.
          If so, how so?

          The study presents multiple lines of evidence, incorporating 40 years of observations that indicate the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica “have passed the point of no return,” according to glaciologist and lead author Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new study has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

          These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.

        12. You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.

          Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. – See more at:

          Here is a model that simulated the trend.
          Figure 2 Temperature evolution in a model simulation with the MRI model. Other models also show comparable “hiatuses” due to natural climate variability. This is one of the standard simulations carried out within the framework of CMIP3 for the IPCC 2007 report. Graph: Roger Jones. – See more at:

        13. You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2

          Water vapor and co2 work hand in hand.

          Water vapor feedback[edit]

          Main article: Water vapor feedback

          If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop

        14. – You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.

          The insurance companies are dealing with the increased problems of climate change.

          Disaster risk mitigation and climate adaptation are keys to strengthening the resilience of communities around the world. Re/insurance plays an important role in achieving this goal.

          Swiss Re understands the relationship between climate and natural disaster risk and the societal impact of both. We’ve been shaping the global climate agenda through dialogue with our public and private sector partners, cutting-edge research and innovative risk transfer solutions for over two decades.

        15. There’s the Rub on this entire thing. A proposed Carbon Tax, along with the implimentation of “Carbon Credits” which can be bought, sold & traded on an exchange by the corporate powers who are in the business of creating the very emissions this action is purported to abate. The unit’s value will fluctuate constantly, depending on the amount of recent transactions. The spot price will reflect any current political or legislative actions brewing in regards to governing & control of the exchange’s procedures. The concept sound vaguely familiar?
          Just another commodity to buy, sell & speculate on. An old recipe, designed for the reaping of massive profits. The rich roll out fatter than ever, as the rank & file honestly think they are saving the planet. Say what you will about creating conspiracies. In this case, There isn’t one. The groundwork has already been done & the pieces being assembled.

        16. renewableguy—-Like the Al. Gore’s , UN=IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc., etc. Check the facts . Broke government -(US has to borrow money for national budget, mostly from China). National debt nearly 18trillion dollars ( accumulated Money borrowed from the citizens and other nations). I did not make up a conspiracy but stated what I believe may occur. Look up conspiracy. Sorry for your lack of reading comprehension.

      1. Well said. “Report From Iron Mountain” and “The Creature From Jekyll Island” both aptly document the climate fraud, and the role of government and media in that fraud.

        1. Steve –I have the book “Report From Iron Mountain” and read it many years ago and is right on . There is no transparency in anything the government or officials are doing. This is why the country continues to go down the drain. One wonders how much further the US will be a world power.

  2. Global warming is just a hoax to pass carbon taxes and make someone rich! ISIS and Obama and the LIE of evolution scare me a lot more than global warming ever could.

    1. We aren’t able to work together meaning conservatives and liberals simply from the carbon kingdom influencing our cultures.
      All walks of life in the sciences have come to an agreement that humans have warmed the earth. Now all we have to do is head to zero carbon emissions.

      1. You can give up your life style and walk every where you go or ride a bike. I like my car and will continue using it if you don’t mind!

        1. To be completely honest, and correct, there is no such thing as “renewable energy”. It is a misnomer at best and at worst a deliberate deception. Once energy is used, it cannot be used again, until it is converted to matter once more. The best example of renewable energy would be coal. Coal was once a carbon life form and is now renewed as energy. Natural gas, while it has some trace gasses mixed in, is methane. That is the part of the gas we use to generate energy. But methane, while carbon based, is found all over the universe. Not just on earth. There a planets and moons which have their entire atmosphere composed of methane.

        2. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat.[2]

        3. That is exactly what I mean. The term is a misnomer. And if you look at the ability of the so called renewable energies right now, there is enough resources to power about 4 million homes. Now figure up how many acres of land is required for these power plants. Now just figure up how much land you need to power 40 million homes. Not to mention the businesses. How many solar panels to power the 8 to 10 welders on a new construction site? While it has its place, it is a waste of time and money to try to cultivate these to replace conventional power plants.

        4. renewableguy—–Every one of your so called renewable energy sources need conventional sources of energy to make and add heat, destroy animal habitats and pose further dangers to the environment. Nothing is free, cheaper or more environmental friendly when it concerns energy production. Fossil fuels will be here until the earth runs out of them. Carbon taxes will not stop fossil fuel usage or do anything to change the climate. The money governments and the UN collected will only be squandered as usual on worthless studies and projects

        5. renewableguy—-Yes, but they got a long way to go. Unfortunately fossil fuels will be around for a long time. More CO2 for plants to suck up and produce bigger fruits.

        6. Back to radiative balance, Renewable Energy is an important part of the game to get the earth back to something more hospitable.

        7. Yep, wind and solar are already up to nearly 4% in the US. Germany gave it a very expensive try and it failed horribly. They pay twice what we do for their electricity and their exports are dropping like a rock.

        8. There are 5 different sources on this. Germany is moving ahead.

          Germany’s renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3% of the national total in 2000 to about 30% in the first half of 2014.[1] In 2011, 20.5% (123.5 TWh) of Germany’s electricity supply (603 TWh) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.[2][3] During the first six months of 2014, almost 31% of German electric power came from renewable sources, mainly wind, biogas, and solar; this was more than came from brown coal.[4] In 2010, investments totaling 26 billion euros were made in Germany’s renewable energies sector. Germany has been called “the world’s first major renewable energy economy”.[5]

        9. renewableguy—–You need to keep up with current news instead of spending your valuable time on useless AGW biased sites. I believe you are thoroughly brainwashed.

        10. You need to update yourself on genrmany if truth matters to you.
          Spain, germany and others are now paying for that failed experiment

        11. renewableguy—renewable energy is impossible . May be you can be renewable but you will have to die first. Energy on earth is produced by conversion of matter. The law of physics states that matter or energy is neither created or destroyed but only converted by the Einstein derived law E=MC^2. How energy and matter got here in the Universe is still debated among scientists religions and philosophers but that is another subject. It takes work to convert matter into energy and that requires heat and the energy is used to produce further work or heat. All actions and life processes produce heat and add to the warming of the environment but AGW and CO2 is only a small part player in any climate change factor controlling earth’s weather. The natural cycles of hydrological, atmospheric, astronomical and solar variations as well as the earth’s geographical and axial tilt causing seasonal changes are the primary climate changers. The past few decades of weather changes are not enough observe that the climate is changing as that takes more then 30-100yrs. of accurate temperature as well as other weather information to make such a determination. Just remember that the entropy of the Universe is increasing and someday the Universe will run down and everything will be cold -459 degrees, but before that the Earth and inner planets will have been evaporated by

        12. Renewable energy is well defined and you don’t have it. It appears you are just making things up.

        13. renewableguy——I don’t make things up. These are basic physics and science subjects much too complex for your limited brain comprehend.

        14. Renewable energy is easily possible and even more desireable than a fossil fuel system. Health will be improved, premature death will be reduced, and man made global warming will no longer be a problem.

          Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of its Atmosphere and Energy Program says producing all new energy with wind power, solar power, and hydropower by 2030 is feasible and existing energy supply arrangements could be replaced by 2050. Barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be “primarily social and political, not technological or economic”. Jacobson says that energy costs with a wind, solar, water system should be similar to today’s energy costs.[4]

        15. Have to put more fuel in my gnerator soon almost out. Several weeks of heavy raid has impacted my solar systems. You have no ideas do you just repeating the agenda. Can not aford to let the frozen food rot.

        16. Your lifestyle will not change but you may end up saving more money! Cars are not the problem, it is their fuel. Electric cars are the future and range is getting better every year.

        17. They are charged with power from coal and natural gas. Wind and solar provide only 4% of our electricity. Just exchanging the tailpipe for the smoke stack, But it makes you feel so superior in your ignorance.

        18. Well, 2 1/2 BILLION people on earth cook and heat with wood and animal dung. The problem is that fossil fuel is concentrated energy where wind and solar are diffuse, The miracle of the industrial revolution this concentration of energy has allowed mankind to succeed. We have doubled our life expectancy and drastically dropped our infant mortality. The third world has not had this and they are going to get it no matter what we do. It is going to happen no matter what. we say or think. You can not tell a third world Mother that 45 years is fine and keep on cooking with cow dung. It is silly to think you can. We need population control if you want to reduce fossil fuel usage.

        19. co2 is a ghg and reradiates infrared back to the earth’s surface.
          More co2 reradiation of infrared.

        20. Nonsense renew. CO2 is not a complex molecule. While is absorbs heat, it also releases the heat quickly when the heat source is removed. In other words, it cools, (loses its heat), when the sun goes down. CO2 is a bit player and we stand at under 400ppm. 1200 ppm would be optimum CO2 levels and it would have to be higher, by magnitudes, than it is now to have any affect on the climate. In reality, the last 10,000 years or so, we have been really lucky in the climate stability. It has been perfect for humans to flourish. And in time the planet will cool again and New York will again be under a mile of ice. The earth has spent more time in climate flux than you seem to think. If any thing, what we are experiencing now is not normal for the planet. Generally the planet has been either tropical or iced over. Where we are now is in between. And nothing anyone can do is going to change the climate and make it remain static. Not you or any of your political buddies that seem to want us to believe we can control the climate. We cant and we never will.

        21. Like it or not, that is the science. Not the science that your political sites like think progress or skeptic, but the real honest to goodness science. Do you even know how long a CO2 molecule remains in the atmosphere? Call it the life span of a CO2 molecule, just to keep it simple for you.

        22. About 2 and a half years, maybe 4 at the very maximum. That is the most a CO2 molecule lasts in the atmosphere before it is recycled and broken down into its components. Oxygen and Carbon. It cannot last any longer than that in the CO2 state. It is not bound that tightly. So I see your chemistry skills need sharpening up to.


          Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[29] The atmospheric lifetime of CO
          2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.[30] This figure accounts for CO
          2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO
          2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.[31] While more than half of the CO
          2 emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO
          2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[32][33][34] Similar issues apply to other greenhouse gases, many of which have longer mean lifetimes than CO
          2. E.g., N2O has a mean atmospheric lifetime of 114 years.[21]

        24. don’t tell me. Wiki, right? Cause if you read it on the internet it has to be true. They cant put it on the internet if its not true. Well, maybe they only tweaked it a little bit, uh?

        25. Its a condensed source to start the discussion. They provide sources to most of the information they provide.
          If you can provide something besides your opinion or paranoia I’m listening.

        26. Denier imagination is highly wrong 99% of the time. WIKI has mistakes about 2% to 3% which compares with encyclopedias.

        27. Atmospheric oxygen can be created without plant life. University of California, Davis has found that CO2 exposed to VUV is broken down into C and O2. Simple exposure to sun light breaks down the CO2 molecule. This is a recent discovery, ( Zhou Lu, of UC Davis). Wiki, as does the IPCC uses the Bern model, which uses four different time constants and combining these produces a decay curve that is not exponential. They ignore a whole lot of factors this way. Truth be known, there is a lot that is unknown about CO2 sequestration rates from the atmosphere. At any rate of decay and sequestration, the CO2 molecule cannot last any longer than about 12 years. If it is exposed to the upper atmosphere to the VUV light, its life span it radically reduced and will only last a few minutes after that.

        28. University of California, Davis, a study done by Zhou Lu, of UC Davis, the lead author, published in Oct of 2014. I would call that pretty recent data. I cant understand how you missed that in the above post though. It is all right there, except the date. Is your reading comprehension also lacking?

        29. This would be the upper atmosphere.

          Zhou used a vacuum ultraviolet laser to irradiate CO2 in the laboratory. Vacuum ultraviolet light is so-called because it has a wavelength below 200 nanometers and is typically absorbed by air. The experiments were performed by using a unique ion imaging apparatus developed at UC Davis.

          Such one-step oxygen formation could be happening now as carbon dioxide increases in the region of the upper atmosphere, where high energy vacuum ultraviolet light from the Sun hits Earth or other planets. It is the first time that such a reaction has been shown in the laboratory. According to one of the scientists who reviewed the paper for Science, Zhou’s work means that models of the evolution of planetary atmospheres will now have to be adjusted to take this into account.

        30. I see you read about it. Good first step. Did you go and read his research? Really enlightening stuff there. Brilliant work on his part. And the VUV light is between 10nm and 200nm. So strictly speaking it is not just “below 200 nanometers”. That is a misstatement.

        31. They reference well and if you have a beef, go to their reference. They condense information well for my discussion on here. The fewer the words the better.

        32. renewableguy—The earth’s atmosphere is composed of approx.78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen and the rest including H2O, CC2, methane and all the rest are the total blanket that causes the so called green house effect in other words re-radiates heat from the sun, Without the atmosphere to keep the heat in we would freeze at night and scorch in the day. No life as we know it today would be possible. The 400ppm in relation to the rest of the atmosphere is too small to contribute anything other than very minimal warming. Nitrogen is 700,000ppm-Oxygen is 210,000ppm. If CO2 is 400ppm then that is 910400ppm total of the 3 and the rest including H2O must equal 89600ppm. Now you provide me scientific evidence that 400ppm is has anything other than minor global warming potentials. Prove it by chemistry , physics and scientific laws not by some biased AGW articles.

        33. renewableguy—–That article does not explain all the other complex factors that contribute to the warming and cooling of the atmosphere. You can not use formulas and models that are static to explain dynamic continuous processes that are occurring on the earth’s climate system. That is why scientists fail in their computer models , graphs and charts in predictions of future weather and climate phenomena.

        34. All the basics are in there. Read and be educated. Static computations are ok for teaching students in college to get them started. The models do this on a dynamic basis down to a grid covering the entire earth.
          If you really want to get down to brass tacks about the process, this is an excellent place to start.
          If you are just running away because you can’t handle it, well I don’t expect you to even be able to discuss it.

        35. renewableguy—I see your scientific ignorance is based upon your faulty perception of models and the garbage that put out. That is because of the garbage put in. The models have been fed data in hindsight and still produced faulty models, graphs and charts that come any near to what current weather observations show. I don’t think you have the brain power to comprehend though. Keep trying though. Good luck.

          If take human co2 out of the picture, the models show present day temperatures as slightly cooling from the past.
          Put the human co2 back in and the models hindcast the warming trend we are in.
          Long term modeling with co2 shows the radiative balance of earth increasing in warmth.
          We stay on our path of present pollution with co2, we are going to get a whole lot warmer than we are today. If you even think the world will just not get warmer with more co2, think again.
          It is the scientific basis of explaining the past or explaining the future. If society refuses to accept and act on this knowledge, the consequences are clearly laid out in the science.

        1. 150 years ago 3 out of every 10,000 air molecules was CO2. Now it is 4 out of every 10,000, No big deal. Water vapor provides 95% of green house gases. The only reason CO2 is singled out is the human element and the liberal politicians who control the money can blame it on those evil humans. Mammals evolved when CO2 was over 2,000 ppm. US nuclear sub are kept at 2,000 ppm for 6 months at a time. There is no problem.

        2. Not sure what you mean? Water vapor provides almost all of the earth’s green house affect. Water vapor is affected greatly by cosmic radiation from the sun which is the big powerhouse of our climate. Did you see the report today that they have been able to print out the photos from the 1969 Nimbus satellite and the North Pole had a 300 sq mile open area. At times both the arctic and Antarctic had substantially less ice cover that found with the current satellite data (launched in 1979.). This shoots down all of the alarmist ice fear mongering.

        3. That more than 4 year old article on positive feedback has been discredited in the interim. Positive feed backs are extremely rare in nature. Think about it, it would lead to runaways. This positive feedback is what gives all climate models the increase in temps. They have been lowering the feedback sensitivity drastically in the IPPC models. Many think it is 1.0.

        4. That is according to the climate models that have never been right or even close to right. If it is above 1.0 then why have we not had run away global warming when it has been about several thousand in the past? Hard question to answer isn’t it.


          The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.”[4] This is a change from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which said it was likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[5] The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) said it was “likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C”.[6] Other estimates of climate sensitivity are discussed later on.

        6. Sorry, I never click on any Wiki link. Your first link was directly from “Dr” Hansen, father of global warming, mentor to AlGore and fudger of data. The IPCC is a political organization. Now with positive feedbacks of CO2 as alarmist claim, how come we have never had run away climate change when CO2 was well into the thousands of ppm. This means that doubling of CO2 can not increase temps. We have had a doubling of CO2 in the last several hundred years and have had higher and lower temps than we have now. How can that be? The 1930’s was the hottest decade. Have you ever looked at surface stations dot org and seen the sorry state of our monitor systems. over 80% of the stations are substandard. Many of the former rural stations are now surrounded by air conditioner units and heat sink buildings and parking lots. The temp record is a joke. The RSS satellite data shows almost no warming since launched in 1979. It is a scam.

        7. Paranoia does not count.
          Wiki sources their articles if you want to go further.
          2.0 to 4.5 is a common discussion of climate sensitivity as I have pointed out above.

        8. You have to be an agent of that special interest agenda of AGW as facts seem not to matter to you. Facts do matter truth is important.

        9. My truth is backed by facts your is fiction.
          How is your religion of AGW working out for you?
          You can start by listing your sources and being completely transparent.

        10. Only among those who make a living from the government grants available only to those believing in AGW, You can’t explain the satellite data including the recent Ninbus data.

        11. Science all over the world comes to the same conclusion ours does. Humans are warming the earth with our pollution. Is the whole world science community as corrupt as you say or are you being conspiratorial?

          Have the whole world’s scientists conspired in a well orchestrated lie?

        12. You get that all scientist around the world from your alarmist only views. That is totally untrue. You just refuse to look at anything that disagrees with you preset views. The opposing views are there if you want to see them or are you happy just seeing things that you agree with?

        13. The IPCC does that for me. They look at validity of all the different views and consider the evidence. If the evidence is not there, they report that.

        14. The natural system is in balance with the earth’s carbon system. We are throwing off that balance which is the reason that the co2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

          Burning fossil fuels is a primary source of greenhouse gases caused by man; as the chemical energy in a hydrocarbon-rich fossil fuel is converted into heat, carbon dioxide is produced as a byproduct. Forest clearing – or deforestation – and the burning of solid waste, wood, and wood products are also sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

        15. What happened after the last 7 ice ages. DUH, global warming. Did mankind cause that to or was it a natural process?

        16. You have to be an agent of that special interest agenda of AGW as facts seem not to matter to you.

      1. No I see the truth and know the lies when I see them! How about you? are you in a Obama coma?

        1. Is science true?
          If so, people of all walks of life can trust it.
          Climate scientists have worked out enough truth to say humans did it (warming of the earth).
          Why can’t you trust it?

        2. It is not science I do not trust! it is the individuals that try to use the science to control your money or how you live. we have had a wonderful summer where I live,plenty of rain and sunshine,but if an unscrupulous person wanted to pass some bad law that would cost you money,if he could fan the flames of fear in your heart,he could pass it without objection from you,because you are panicking about the environment! that is exactly what we must fight against.What if it would double your electric bill,or double your gas price,or triple it even? The people who passed it would get richer while you get poorer and panic. Them knowing full well that all the money your giving does not do a bit of good for the environment.I do not see any warming where I’m at it is normal temps. Their are Many scientist that do not believe in global is just like the lie of evolution they say it and simpletons believe it without question. Well, I implore you don’t fall for it or the lies. stand opposed and don’t panic because that is what they want!

        3. Thank you very much,I try to be real and not fake about what I worry about.I do believe what I say has some merit.thank you for checking it out.

        4. Climate scientists have not said any such thing. The IPCC has reached a consensus. The IPCC is composed of half scientists and half politicians. The consensus comes from politics. Not science. There is not a place for consensus in science. It is, or it is not. You have never seen where science reached a consensus that E=MC2. And you never will. It was proven to be true. But there was never a consensus that it was. How about gravity? F=Gm1m2/r2? Consensus or not? Not. Science. If you see the word consensus and science used in the same sentence, it is not science. It is politics trying to eliminate debate on subject because, under scrutiny, their evidence for consensus cannot hold up.

        5. scientific consensus is a valid process based on data.

          Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

          Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the ‘normal’ debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the “inside” to the “outside” of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

        6. Well now. I had no idea that science was done on a consensus vote. Consensus is a political tool. No one can agree on every thing so a consensus is formed. It is a political point of agreement. In science, it is or it is not. Just because you and some of your buddies decide you have a consensus on something, that merely means you agree on some points and not on others. Science is no longer science when you find consensus used. In science you can theorize and hypothesize but consensus is politics. All they are saying when the form a consensus is that they think but don’t really know.

        7. “Scientists” are as prone to corruption as people in any other vocation. As long as their financial needs are dependent on their jobs there will be greed and agendas at play.

        8. Bullshit. You mean like corporate CEOs, right. Surely a “scientist” would never lie to promote their careers. You are such a lying pussy. LOL. BIOB.

        9. There is no established science to trust. Those making such claims are lying. There is a raging debate. Climate science is in its infancy. Once lemmings like yourself finally figure out the truth you will no longer ask such silly questions.

        10. It’s called lies of omission. They only look and report on subject matter related to their mission. Have you ever looked at their mission? No? Didn’t think so.

        11. Maybe because it’s mathematical modeling (not science) using variables that aren’t clearly understood (in many cases) and the predictions of occurrences that haven’t/are not happening. Virtually everything the alarmists have warned about (more hurricanes, more tornadoes, rapidly rising seas, melting Arctic ice, etc. haven’t occurred (as the models predicted). There hasn’t been any warming for the past 18 years and many scientists are now saying that the Earth is actually cooling.

        12. Species evolve over time, or they die off. That has been proven, and so has the effects of greenhouse gasses on the climate. If you think Obama made it up to get your money, you should check if there’s a warranty on yr brain.. you may be able to return it.

        13. ekofreek—–I see you have little brain to begin with a moniker with freek in it. Tells a lot. The only thing proven about greenhouse gasses is they can cause a warming in a greenhouse. A greenhouse does not contain all the gases in the atmosphere in the same proportions as the atmosphere or have the same interactions as the earth’s does on the GHG’s and pollutants of the earth’s atmosphere. The greenhouse does not have 71 % oceanic environment and biotic life forms as earth. The atmosphere is not a glass enclosed container. There are many differences in experimental static models compared to real life events and only show a comparison of single variables and not many with complex interactions acting with many other environmental factors involved. Also Obama is to dumb to make anything stupid as this AGW scam. That is why he appoints more intelligent stupid ones to do his front work and blame them when things go wrong. Your warranty was rejected because you failed to have the requisite to apply. That is a brain.

  3. The title of this article reveals how hoaxers get the simple-minded to join their cause. They stroke their egos…it’s the usual pack of lies tied up in a pretty bow that compliments the liberal into thinking they’re so much more intelligent than those who aren’t buying it.

    1. Actually start looking into who is sourcing the information about climate being doubtful. Heritage foundation being the main one, wall street journal, fox news, etc.
      They are all non science sources trying to keep confusion alive.
      The problem is very real and the solution is better than the old system we are in.

      1. renewableguy—-One only needs to look at who is sourcing the AGW scientists and that is the US government and the UN-IPCC. Both corrupt and lying organizations out for their own agendas. NOAA , EPA, NASA and many other US government agencies are funded by our government with tax-payers money The UN’s agenda is clearly redistribution of wealth and is using the hoax of AGW to scam the wealthy nations.

        1. Anything with the gov shouldn’t be trusted?
          NASA got us to the moon, but now they are liars?
          I await your solid sources on this.

        2. Look at the difference in leadership between the NASA that went to the moon, and the NASA today. NASA follows the instructions they are given, much like the military.

        3. renewableguy—–NASA scientists didn’t get us to the moon > It was the many contracted private contractors employed by the government that made the project possible .NASA role was only in the training and schedule. Look at the accident record of NASA. 3 Astronauts were burned to death in O2 filled capsule . 14 dead in 2 space shuttle accidents . Brilliant record for government agencies. Is that source good enough or do I have to call your attention to more government boondoggles and waste with many more lives lost. Wake up and see what is happening in the real world.

        4. Are you able to separate politics from science?
          I’m observing that you are blurring the lines. You won’t know the truth when it is right in front of you.

        5. Yes, I am very aware of what science is. I am also very aware of what politics are. And you seem to be right where they want you. Using Wiki as a reference tool is very telling of a persons knowledge base. Wiki is about the only place where you will find consensus in science. I am not aware of any where else you can find such a reference. I would like to know how many times science has been settled and proven by consensus. Wiki, in you example said there were several. I would like to be informed of 2 scientific facts that were proven by consensus.

        1. Find another way. Science is as true as we can get. Got a better way..
          Imagination with no sources doesn’t cut it.

        2. How convenient for you. You are truely the “way, the truth, and the light”. I have been a scientist for more years than I care to count, but have not developed your level of arrogance or self importance. Oh well guess I could work on it. Good night Gramps.

        3. Goodness. How do you know what you perceive is true?
          Your turn to answer the question.
          How do you test your opinions?

        4. I owe you no answer to anything , but . I have seen so many silly claims from lying ass hats that I can honestly say I have more respect for the Catholic clergy than people like them.. “No more snow in five years”. Sillly statements like that which get reported as fact by our Media. Doesn’t take a scientific method to realize that is s crock. So many alarmist claims don’t hold up to even common sense.
          When science becomes politicized by “scientists” it loses all validity.

        5. You can discuss this any way you want. CO2 is still a significant ghg gas presence. The science has a very close idea of how it warms our atmosphere. Increasing co2 is not a benign safe process for life on earth.

        6. First step: Pass data through common sense/ BS detector. Example: There will be no more snow in five years. Action: Resist urge to cancell future ski trips. Ask: Why is this being presented as fact.

        7. OK, but co2 is still a ghg that we increased enormously. We have to deal with that. Ignoring it has consequences spelled out by the IPCC and other science organizations.

      2. It’s bunk. And the solution is to pick our pockets and control us with our meek submission. No thanks.

        1. Its about 2% cost to get the earth onto a good future we can live in. Its larger than 20% gdp if we ignor it, and still have to mitigate to get off of co2 emissions. The adaptation to sea level arise alone is huge and will be very damaging the more we let it go.

    2. iamcrm, there’s no thinking to it. We ARE so much smarter than people like you. It’s hard not to be.

    3. Great observation. Tell the troglodytes they are “intelligent” and they will follow you all the way to the Koolaid trough.

  4. the magnetic poles are changing too, are we going to blame man for that as well? While we are at it, the moon is 1 inch further away from us every year, should we blame man for that too?

    1. Why even go there?
      We put the co2 in the air changing the atmosphere by 120 ppm since 1850.
      Why not start there?
      How do you think that will change how things work on earth?

      1. renewableguy—-Thanks to the added 120ppm the grain crops this year have been the largest , tallest, greenest and more productive then anytime in history. My friend, a grape farmer has also benefitted the past few years from great grape harvests. More CO2 will be a benefit for all life on earth. The climate and biotic life will continue to co-operate and modulate the earth for optimal life conditions. To bad the scientists , politicians and the rest of the fear mongers don’t understand what is going on. May be if they would get their head out of the sand they could observe what is really happening.

        1. Interesting opinion.
          But I’m wondering how based in reality you are when you show no science to back up what you say?

      2. Best estimates suggest that the amount of man-made CO2 is only about 0.075% of the total make-up of the atmosphere. And yet they insist that this is a major factor, even larger than all other factors combined. What kind of science supports THAT?

        Why not start there, renewableguy?

        1. Poisons are effective at the concentrations you suggest.
          CO2 is also highly effective at the concentrations you are talking about.
          The even lower concentrations of co2 are quite helpful in keeping us warmer than the average temperature of the moon.

        2. Are you suggesting that CO2 a poison? And where does this nonsense come from that CO2 constitutes a factor larger than all other factors combined?

        3. Are you suggesting that CO2 a poison?

          It is a poison at higher concentrations. What I am saying is small amounts of material can be highly effective. You take aspirin to relieve your headache.

          And where does this nonsense come from that CO2 constitutes a factor larger than all other factors combined?

          I have not said that.. It is the reason we have the Holocene on earth. We are now moving out of the Holocene due to our emissions.

        4. Here’s what you said:
          “We put the co2 in the air changing the atmosphere by 120 ppm since 1850.
          Why not start there?
          How do you think that will change how things work on earth?”

          First of all, the change in CO2 levels over any period of time is not entirely attributable to man. Next, a direct causal relationship between CO2 levels and the earth’s temperature has never been scientifically established.

          So, tell me, renewableguy, what do YOU think is the consequence of changing CO2 levels (since YOU are the one to bring it up)?

  5. Biographical note : The author has a degree in politics and a lifelong career in extreme left-wing political activism. Only later in life did he acquire a degree in “ecology”. He has developed a lucrative career in authoring left wing and trend-science books and articles, mostly anti-nuclear and anti free-market society, turning almost exclusively to Global Warming in the years since Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth video.
    I am sure readers here will agree this profile makes him uniquely qualified to determine which readers are “intelligent” and which are not.

    1. How are you going to know what is true?
      Anything and everything coming from a liberal is a lie?
      How are going to solve problems when so much paranoia is built into a large group of people’s thinking?

  6. I am still weighting for this to happen 35 years latter……..

    Earth Day, 1970:

    “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
    • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

    “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
    • Life Magazine

    “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
    • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

    “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
    • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

    “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
    • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
    • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
    • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

    1. If you choose to confuse yourself as to what is true, you will never find what is true.
      If you choose to understand the science of climate, simply more co2 makes for a warmer earth.
      CO2 being a ghg is so ingrained in the science and found to be solidly true. You cannot even begin to work it otherwise.
      100% renewable energy is the path to a better earth than we have on fossil fuels today.

      1. Government Will Control You Before It Controls Climate
        May 7, 2014 – 5:24 AM
        By Terence P. Jeffrey

        Ultimately, it will not matter if people in government cynically promote the theory that human activity is destroying the global climate as a means of taking control of your life, or if they take control of your life because they sincerely believe human activity is destroying the global climate.

        Either way, government will control of your life.

        The National Climate Assessment the Obama administration released this week describes in Sisyphean terms the task government faces in limiting carbon dioxide emissions, which the assessment says make up 84 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions it holds guilty of artificially warming our planet.

        “Of the carbon dioxide emitted from human activities in a year, about half is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes within a century, but around 20 percent continues to circulate and to effect atmospheric concentrations for thousands of years,” says the report. “Stabilizing or reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, therefore, require very deep reductions in future emissions — ultimately approaching zero — to compensate for past emissions that are still circulating in the Earth system.”

        How would government start down the road to achieving zero carbon dioxide emissions from human activities?

        “The two dominant production sectors responsible for these emissions are electric power generation (coal and gas) and transportation (petroleum),” says the assessment.

        “Over the period 1963-2008,” says the assessment, “annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions slightly more than doubled, because growth in emissions potential attributable to increases in population and GDP per person outweighed reductions contributed by lowered energy and carbon intensity and changes in economic structure.”

        In sum, America had too many people enjoying too much wealth while traveling too freely and using too much electricity.

        Some jerk with a wife, three kids and a station wagon went on too many long drives back in 1965, recklessly spitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, some of which will still be there long after Barack Obama has surrendered the Oval Office.

        Worse, each of the station wagon drivers’ three kids now own an air-conditioned home with a two-car garage, housing a minivan and an SUV.

        At a United Nations conference in Mexico in 2010, the Obama Administration pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent less than what they were in 2005. That, however, would get the United States nowhere near zero — let alone where we were in 1965.

        And, even if the U.S. government prohibited Americans from emitting a single burp of CO2, what would it matter if China and India and Indonesia and Pakistan continued to grow their own economies and populations and concomitant emissions?

        Hurricanes would whip Florida, tornadoes would torment Kansas, and the sea level would threaten low-lying areas of New York and New Jersey — as Americans huddled in their hot, humid hovels — because environmentally insensitive peoples in Shanghai and Islamabad were still buying new cars and turning up their air-conditioning.

        White House science adviser John P. Holdren — who, along with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator Kathryn Sullivan, released the administration’s climate assessment — has been thinking about problems like this for decades.

        Forty-one years ago, he published “Human Ecology: Problems and Solution,” co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, who had written “The Population Bomb.”

        “Environmental degradation is not the sum of independent causes, it is the multiplicative product of interconnected ones,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote. “The relation can be written as a mathematical equation: total environmental damage equals population, times the level of material affluence per person, times the environmental damage done by the technology we use to supply each bit of affluence.”

        “Halting population growth must be done, but that alone would not be enough,” they wrote. “Stabilizing or reducing the per capita consumption of resources in the United States is necessary, but not sufficient. Attempts to reduce technology’s impact on the environment are essential, but ultimately will be futile if population and affluence grow unchecked.”

        “Clearly,” they said, “if there is to be any chance of success, simultaneous attacks must be mounted on all components of the problem.”

        “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” they concluded.

        “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they said. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

        Two decades later, in an essay published by the World Bank, Holdren, Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of Stanford University, reiterated this analysis. “We know for certain, for example,” they wrote, ” No form of material growth (including population growth), is sustainable.”

        “This is enough,” they said, “to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person).”

        In a nation where government can de-develop the economy, stop population growth and redistribute wealth both inside and outside its borders, there will still be droughts, floods and hot summer nights.

        But there will be no freedom.

      2. And just a few more science facts on CO2 for the anti-science, Agenda 21, BIG GREEN MONEY leftists: Per Dr. E.G. Beck

        “Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published. From 1829 the concentration of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today, 2006 to 380 ppm. Accurate measurements had been done amongst others by de Saussure 1826, Pettenkofer/v.Gilm 1857, Schulze 1864/71, Farsky 1874, ffelmann 1886, Letts und Blake 1897, Krogh and Haldane 1904, Benedict 1912, Lundegardh 1920, van Slyke 1929, Dürst and Kreutz 1934 alternatively 1940, Misra 1942 or Scholander 1946 with measuring instruments through which from 1857 (Pettenkofer) an accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol% =~3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926) was achieved. These pioneers of chemistry, biology, botany,medicine and physiology constituted the modern knowledge of metabolism, nutrition science, biochemistry and ecology. Modern climatology ignored their work till today even though it is the basis of all textbooks of the mentioned faculties and was honoured with several Nobel prizes. In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180 year gave the following results:

        1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a varying CO2-content of air following the climate. E.g. around 1940 there was a
        maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.

        2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-
        concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the
        average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338 ppm.

        3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known
        several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in
        the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420
        pmm in 1942.

        4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored
        reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.

        5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse
        theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big
        part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of
        their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors
        discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a
        faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without
        having dealt with its chemical basis.

        6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air ice cores from Antarctica had been used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere.

        As Ian Nunn writes, “one does not have to be a climate scientist to draw certain conclusions from the graph of temperature and CO2 concentrations derived from the Vostock ice core project (and the primary source of proxy data used by the warmists) (source:

        The first conclusion that (anyone) would draw, is in fact noted by the scientists working with the data, namely Barnola, Raynaud, Lorius and Barkov: The CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. The importance of this is that CO2 concentration does not drive temperature, the reverse is true. The second observation that is almost totally ignored, is that we’ve been here before, particularly temperature wise.The third observation is that there is a natural periodicity to the two data series with a lot of “noise” or volatility. One should read from this that short-term observations of change made over a decade or even a millennium are statistically irrelevant on this scale. One should naturally wonder what the NATURAL mechanisms are that drive the periodicity. Climate scientists have theories but no major answer that I am aware of.”

        1. The importance of this is that CO2 concentration does not drive temperature, the reverse is true.

          Why would co2 stop being a ghg because it cam after the initial warming?

          The second observation that is almost totally ignored, is that we’ve been here before, particularly temperature wise.

          Scientists don’t even ignor skeptics. Do you know the make up of the climate factors in the time the author is talking about? The level of ghg’s in that time period would be crtical for the explanation of the past climate.

          One should naturally wonder what the NATURAL mechanisms are that drive the periodicity. Climate scientists have theories but no major answer that I am aware of.”
          The temperatures have shot up so quickly that the 1000 year scale is not relevant for today.
          Which one of these factors has caused the warming in the last 150 years besides humans.

          human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

          Solar activity

          Volcanic activity

          Human aerosol emissions

          The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

      3. Renewable has been fought for years by the same people that now are screaming about AGW. You know them…the NIMBY folks. The Hypocrits, the A#$%s that want you and me to change, but want to keep theirs. Weather you believe in AGW or natural or a combination….preparing for change instead of fighting it is what people should be doing

        1. CO2 is a ghg that we taught China to use. Now we are paying the price. It’s what will happen if we all don’t work together or if we all work together. The difference in how the earth will be is huge.

    2. Just wish I could be around in 2100. People will be starving and freezing due to the ice-age starting. How will the scientists and politicians propose to stop an ice-age. More taxes I presume where they can spend the money collected to construct roads and bridges to no where and bonuses and raises for their paltry salaries ($250,000-500,000).

  7. “Just in time for Halloween”
    I still think the Dracula story was scarier than the Global Warming one, but GW is probably on a level with the Creature from the Black Lagoon…

    1. Halloween is imagination and gw is all to real.
      Our whole Holocene is what it is because of co2 and other ghg’s.
      Wouldn’t increasing the ghg’s in our atmosphere cause more warmth?

      1. renewableguy—Our Holocene is what it is because of the climate not the CO2 and other ghg’s. CO2 and other ghg’s in the atmosphere have little effect in global warming. The primary warming of the planet is solar and the seasonal changes are caused by the obliquity of the poles and the variance of the distance of the earth =sun distances during the yearly revolution of the earth around the sun. There are many other complex variables also operating to effect the weather and climatic changes on earth.

        1. renewableguy—-Both of those web sites give unreliable data. The answer is the global temperatures have not risen as per scientific models have predicted for 18yrs. It is only when AGW scientists and your crowd believe the adjusted temperatures are showing global warming that make global warming appear real in your eyes. Can you explain where the heat has gone these last decades while the CO2 levels have increased and added billions of tons of additional CO2 to the total. NO! You can’t and neither can the researchers as they scramble over each other to come up with many different opinions based on no scientific fact. Sorry but you will never convince me that global warming is caused by AGW. Climate is natural caused and over long term. What we are experiencing is normal weather within a warm climate period.

        2. renewableguy–I see where you get your science from. Both web sites contain AGW biased propaganda and of no true scientific evidence to support their opinions and articles. I do not get my opinion from biased reports and form my opinion from reviews of proven science, history and facts backed by observational data. These are things you could do to if you explored other unbiased sites and educated yourself in the many science disciplines where you could make up your own mind instead of being mislead by other opinionated people.

  8. Truly intelligent readers have gone beyond the headlines and the hype and have spent time researching the issue. What they have found, if the are, in fact , intelligent, is that there is no “climate crisis.” There is only natural variation in climate and weather.

    1. Then they did not do any “research”. They just refuse to believe what the vast majority of real scientists are saying about man caused CC being a real threat. Go read this book!

  9. Look this incredibly telling fact if you don’t believe me. Of the total land area of the United States we have only developed 5.5 percent of it. Our impact is minimal at the most and this entire hoax is about people control and the enrichment of a very small club.

  10. Remove subsidies for animal agriculture!

    With 60+ BILLION food animals on the planet our best chance to mitigate climate change is to severely reduce consumption of animal foods. More than 1/3 of human induced warming is attributable to animal agriculture. Methane is 24 times more potent than CO2 but takes only 7 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. CO2 takes around 100 years to come out. Human pursuit of animal protein is the leading cause of methane release and a primary cause of CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere. Check the facts and act!

    “As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.” Worldwatch Institute, “Is Meat Sustainable?”

    “If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains… the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

    “A 1% reduction in world-wide meat intake has the same benefit as a three trillion-dollar investment in solar energy.” ~ Chris Mentzel, CEO of Clean Energy

    There is one single industry destroying the planet more than any other. But no one wants to talk about it…

    Step by Step Guide: How to Transition to a Vegan Diet

  11. The idea that the complicated climate of this planet rests upon the function of a single parameter like 4/100th of 1% of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which the Global Warming Lunatics would have you believe; is not only absurdly implausible it is absolutely ludicrous!

    The Earth’s Climate as Historical, Geological and Scientific Fact exhibits will inevitably change, it will Wax and Wane between long frigid Glacial periods (appx. 100,000 years)
    and shorter warm Interglacial periods (appx. 20,000 years); Glaciers and Ice sheets will advance and retreat, Oceans will rise and fall, new Species will appear and others will become extinct and all of these Liberal and Progressive Climate Change Lunatics can wring their hands, gnash their teeth, tear out their hair or run around in circles flailing their arms screaming “the earth is melting” or “the sky is falling” like Chicken Little but there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change the interaction of the Planetary forces responsible for Climate Change or prevent the inevitability of Climate Change.

    Our present warm climate (Holocene Interglacial Period) amounts to nothing more than a passing moment in the history of an otherwise Frigid Planet Earth. Ice Age temperatures (Quaternary Period) have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years.

    It is beyond “ALL” human control and all of these scientists are acutely aware of that

    1. You can source whatever you want to imagine the kind of world you would like to have. But then that is why we have Disney World. But Disney does not deny reality. By going to 100% renewable energy we get a better world than the outdated dirty polluting fossil fuels.
      The answer is clear. All people on earth are capable of living in a better world than the present one.

      1. I never stated that I was against alternative energy sources. I favor any viable source of alternate energy that is cost efficient!

        Solyndra (Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)
        Ener 1 (Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)
        Beacon Power (Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)
        Abound Solar (Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)
        Amonix Solar (Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)
        Spectra Watt (Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)
        Eastern Energy (Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)
        Evergreen Energy ( Bankrupt, Dismal Failure)

        I merely alluded to the indisputable fact that the Earth’s Climate as Historical, Geological and Scientific Fact exhibits will inevitably change and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change the interaction of the Planetary forces responsible for that Change and that the ridiculous notion that 4/100th of 1% of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which the Global Warming Lunatics would have you believe somehow magically precipitates climate change is not only absurdly implausible it is absolutely ludicrous!
        Global Warming is a fallacy and like the above mentioned failed Solar companies involved in the alternative energy fraud amounts to nothing more at the moment than a transfer of wealth scheme!

        1. Global Warming is a fallacy and like the above mentioned failed Solar companies involved in the alternative energy fraud amounts to nothing more at the moment than a transfer of wealth scheme!
          Somehow you haven’t convinced the 97% of climate scientists about that

        2. I don’t have to! Do a little research!
          As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”

          When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.

          In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

        3. I know the process used to get 31000. Lol. Anybody and everybody qualifies in this guy’s list. Not peer reviewd either.

          The studies I have referred to in previous posts are peer reviewd.

        4. Although there have been several studies claiming that there is a consensus that 97% of Scientists agree Global Warming exists and is anthropogenic, all are extremely misleading, none of them are peer reviewed!
          For example, the ‘97% of scientists’ so erroneously referenced is cited in the 2009 Peter Doran Survey “EoS, Transactions American
          Geophysical Union” paper that was actually derived from an MSc thesis entitled “The Consensus on the Consensus” by Maggie Kendall Zimmermann who was Peter Doran’s graduate student at the University of Illinois (and the EoS paper’s co-author) where a
          survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 self-proclaimed expert researchers to arrive at the 97% figure, all based on just two very simple questions that even the majority of Global Warming skeptics might agree with.

          One fact that is missing from the Doran EoS paper is that over 96% of the scientists that responded to the survey were from North America (90% USA, 6.2% Canada), with 9% from California alone. According to Zimmerman 90% (2833) of respondents were from the United States, while the remaining 10% (313) came from 22 other countries. Respondents from Canada accounted for 62% of the international

          Then there is Australian Global Warming Lunatic John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science who published a paper with several other Global Warming Lunatics claiming they
          reviewed nearly 12,000 “abstracts” of studies published in peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on Anthropogenic Global Warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are responsible for Global Warming.”

          Critiques of the Cook study indicate that Cook’s data was seriously flawed. Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s entourage of Global Warming Lunatics purportedly evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position.

          That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent. Moreover, the Cook study used parameters designed to provide an otherwise unobtainable outcome in favour of the alarmist position as is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming. The survey question had absolutely
          nothing to do with any hypotheses regarding global warming. The survey question Cook and his entourage of Global Warming Lunatics simply asked is if it was believed that humans have caused “some” global warming.

          Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition
          Project, a group of Physicists and Physical Chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures with more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause any catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

          Global Warming is a fallacy and the ridiculous notion that Global Warming precipitates Climate Change is pure unadulterated Bullshit; in fact, a rational individual would have to grow wings to stay above it! A consensus has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a hypothesis is correct and the hypotheses presented by the Global Warming Lunatics defy the Laws of Physics and are defeated by their own assumptions.

        5. Global warming is a theory. The field of radiative physics is about 200 years old. Global warming is based in evidence, not belief.

          A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[

          Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of Earth’s climate system.[2] Since 1971, 90% of the increased energy has been stored in the oceans, mostly in the 0 to 700m region.[3] Despite the oceans’ dominant role in energy storage, the term “global warming” is also used to refer to increases in average temperature of the air and sea at Earth’s surface.[4] Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[5] Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.[6]

        6. Stop wasting my time with gibberish obtained through falsified and manipulated data that otherwise would not support these global warming claims.

          It has been discovered what not surprisingly appears to be a rather surreptitious discrepancy with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) temperature data. NOAA’s US Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) has been “adjusting” its temperature record data by replacing real temperatures with data fabricated by their computer models in order produce a specific desired outcome to support their otherwise unsupportable claims that the temperature of the planet was increasing.

          When the currently published temperature graphs are compared with previous graphs based only on temperatures measured at the time, they indicate that the US has actually been cooling since
          the 1930’s; whereas their latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming in order to coincide with the IPCC computer generated climate models!

          It should be noted that the actual warmer land temperatures of the 1930s have been intentionally adjusted downward in all of the databases in order to create the illusion that the rate of warming in the latter 20th century was higher than it actually was, making
          it appear as though today’s temperatures indicate an unprecedented increase over the last 150 years.

          It should also be noted, that since these allegations arose NOAA has quietly revised their revised data that 1998 was the warmest year on record and reinstated their previous temperature records which actually took place back in the 1930’s!

          There are other discrepancies with regards to the methodology of NOAA, NASA and the UEA/CRU temperature data collection stemming from allegations of poorly located temperature stations that cause increased temperature data, poorly maintained temperature stations that also cause increased temperature data and temperature stations that although they have been shut down or abandoned, are somehow still mysteriously providing
          temperature data at those locations.

          It has also been discovered that NOAA has been unscientifically “ESTIMATING” temperatures at those abandoned stations based on data supplied by other temperature stations.

          According to reports acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), several scientists affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have stated that their own
          temperature data has more flaws than the temperature data from the University of East Anglia/Climatic Research Unit (UEA/CRU), which in itself is alarming and of course, as by now everyone
          should be aware that the UEA/CRU is the British Institution at the center of the United Nations- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC”) “CLIMATEGATE” and CLIMATEGATE 2.0″ scandals entailing the manipulation of data that otherwise would not support their global warming claims.

          When one considers the IPCC/UEA “CLIMATEGATE” scandals and
          puts that in perspective or context with statements made by UEA/CRU programmer Ian Harris, that their (CRU) database has no uniform data integrity, or Phil Jones Director of the UEA/CRU, who stated in a BBC interview that “his surface temperature data are in such disarray that they probably cannot be verified or replicated and then consider that most of the data in their CRU archive is the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive which is relied upon by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center” (NCDC) and that NASA uses the GHCN as a data source for their NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data then a rational and intelligent individual must not only question the
          validity of these Institutions and their data but also the integrity of the scientists who not only knowingly continue to rely on the flawed data but continue to insist their flawed data is correct!

          Now, to compound matters add Michael Mann’s ridiculous hockey stick graph (considered by many to be the most laughable and widely discredited object in the history of bad science) which apparently because the Tree Ring Temperature data upon which he relied contradicted the Global Warming trend which he desired had to be manipulated with the help of IPCC/UEA/CRU scientists (CLIMATEGATE) in order to support his otherwise unsupportable global warming claims indicated by his ridiculous graph!

          Apparently, Mann has now decided to litigate against anyone
          who dares to question or criticize his Hockey Stick graph in what appears to be a blatant attempt on his part to silence his critics even though he has refused innumerable requests to provide any of his scientific data that would support his hypothesis!

          One might consider all of this as nothing more than a coincidence; however, there is no such thing as a coincidence when governments
          are involved, especially when those governments are in dire need of generating additional revenues through an iniquitous “CARBON TAX” by falsely indicting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as the reason for nonexistent Global Warming with the assistance of the same institutions and scientists for whom they provide funding.

          If the phenomenon of Global Warming were in fact real then there would be absolutely no need for these supposedly men of science or the institutions they represent to manipulate or conceal their data in order to prove a nonexistent phenomenon and there would be no
          need to continually disparage those who legitimately question those results unless the data was in fact flawed or knowingly being manipulated!

          In science, when an individual postulates a scientific hypothesis or posits a scientific theory those assumptions are not accepted prima facie and any and all concerns, conflicts, disputes or disagreements
          surrounding the phenomenon in question were usually resolved through an adversarial review process in order to substantiate the premise upon which the assumption is predicated, that is until the fallacy of Global Warming was presented during the latter part of the 1980’s and rather than welcome the adversarial process, there has been a concerted effort to disparage any and all who would dare to question those theories in what appears to be an attempt to
          dissuade any and all who disagree from further analogy or review!

          Incidentally, radiation when striking an object converts to thermal energy and you cannot increase the thermal energy of an object by exposing it to an equivalent amount of radiation.

          Just like temperature, radiant energy flows do not add. Mixing two 100 Deg. Pans of water together doesn’t result in an increase in the temperature of the water, nor do 288 watts per square meter supposedly beaming back onto a body that’s radiating 288 watts increase the amount of Watts.

          That defies the Law of energy conservation and specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics!

          Furthermore; the earth cannot be heated by ‘back-radiation’ (a term that does not exist anywhere within the Laws of Physics) from CO2, inasmuch that radiation from a cooler source (Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide) cannot convert to thermal energy when that radiation strikes a warmer surface (Earth).
          That would defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
          Throughout this ridiculous argument the Global Warming Lunatics Completely ignore the Law of Convection. You know, warm gases rise and discharge their excess thermal energy into the cold void of space and then descend back to the surface.

  12. Pure utter garbage there is not a shred of even statistical evidence to support any of these claims. There is also not one scientific paper which proves a link between CO2 and global temperatures in terms of actual scientific argument using the laws of science instead of a collection of computer generated statistics and computer models.

  13. It sounds like the world is going to end and man cannot stop it.
    You can always study and debate things, what kind of Quack is this writer?
    ” not business as usual or something for further debate and study,”

  14. Not being the sharpest tool in the shed, I’m going to wait for Climate Change for Dummies to come out.

  15. The title features an ad hominen attack on those who question the methods, results, and motivation of research supporting man-made climate change. Lucky for us, there is a solution to climate change. If it is warm this winter then we will have global warming!

  16. Farmer’s Almanac predicts a pretty bad winter and they have a track record far greater in accuracy than NOAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. Another perpetrator of the great “climate change” FRAUD. There has been absolutely NO rise in global temperatures in over 18 years, as admitted to by the UN IPCC, and a total temperature increase of 2/10 of 1 degree Farenheit since 1904, yes 1904. The manmade global warming scammers are running out of time. The average man on the street has figured out the only place there is global warming is in the computers of the phony scientists and politicians. This article is one steamy pile of bull excrement. Just an example, like tropical storm Sandy, which wasn’t even a hurricane when it hit the New Jersey/New York area. It just happened to interact with another storm system which increased its’ rainfall to make more flooding. It also hit the area at high tide. had Sandy hit 6 hours later,at low tide, it would have been just a local story and gotten about 2 days national news and then gone away. This pales by comparison to the hurricane of 1938 which put the downtown of Providence Rhode Island under 14 feet of water. The book has lots of “maybe’s” “could’s” and other qualifiers, with predictions for 85 years from now. It is easy to make predictions that won’t even “possibly” come true until the author is long gone and so is your money and freedom. Real science has no consensus, and it has shown the “climate change” hucksters to be nothing more than money grabbing frauds. The con has gone on too long and the scammers know they are pushing the tail end of the fraud. They keep making more outrageous claims to try to scare the public out of their money and freedom, but there are now only 2 types of people pushing the scam. There are those making money off the scam, like this author, and those too stupid to realize it is nothing but a scam. There are no others

    1. So 1000’s of scientists world wide are in a conspiracy to defraud you by making you believe in climate change? How does this scare you out of your money and freedom? So the NOAA, NASA and IPCC are all using fraudulent data and part of this world wide scam to grab money? A more logical concept would be that the world is indeed warming up and that people should pay attention instead of just trying to ignore it, attack those who say we should pay attention, and hoping it is not true.

      1. So, common sense, are you in on the fraud or just too stupid to realize it is a fraud? Maybe you should REALLY read what I just posted. Your vaunted UN IPCC has admitted there has been NO increase in global temperatures in over 18 years. The observed temperatures are hard to argue with, as 31,000 scientists around the world agree. They are wise to the scam that global warming only exists in faulty computer programs. But you can also ask the farmers in the Midwest US who have just had the 3rd shortest growing season since 1879. The other 2 were in 1903 and 1912. The ask the orange growers in Florida. In the 1960’s orange crops were grown as far north as Jacksonville. Now commercial orange farming is not done much above Orlando, about 100 miles further south. The you can ask the Antarctic global warming scientists from Australia who got stuck in the nonexistent ice earlier this year, as did the ice breakers that cam to rescue them, and the Antarctic sea ice has broken siz records for several months in a row. And you might ask NASA whose satelites are showing the arctic sea ice growing at the rate of 1 Manhattan every hour right now.
        Yes, it is a giant fraud, for these Chicken Littles would all be out of jobs if there’s no global warming to scare the public. The fraud is them telling the world that by giving them money, and giving up your way of life, they can save you from yourself, which is nothing but a fraud that makes Bernie Madoff look honest.

        1. This shows a serious warming trend. The scientists say it is us that did it with our emissions of ghg’s. Do you have a better explanation than the scientists do?

          HADCRUT4 hybrid

          Trend calculation:Start date:2000 End date:2014

          Trend: 0.105 ±0.176 °C/decade (2σ)

          1995 to 2014

          Trend: 0.140 ±0.116 °C/decade (2σ)

          1990 to 2014

          Trend: 0.170 ±0.086 °C/decade (2σ)

          1984 to 2014

          Trend: 0.192 ±0.060 °C/decade (2σ)

        2. The data you cited does not explain why global temperature
          decreases or doesn’t change while CO2 increases.

          The earth was warmer 1, 2, 4 and 8,000 years ago. The earth
          has steadily cooled by 1.5C in the last 8,000 years while CO2 has risen from 255 ppm to about 400 ppm. Global temperature has increased about 0.8C since the end of the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). The official government and university global temperature databases reveal a 61.5 year heating/cooling cycle. It warmed from 1850 to 1879, 1910 to 1942 and 1972 to 2002. It was cooling from 1879 to 1910, 1942 to 1972 and from 2002 to now while CO2 was increasing. The 61.5 year cycle can be traced back several thousand years. The 61.5 year cycle cannot be reproduced by any of 114 simulations of 37 CMIP5 climate models.

          A better explanation follows.
          The 60 year cycle corresponds to a 59.6 solar system center of gravity cycle. The Jupiter/Saturn Tri-Synodic Cycle is 59.6 years. It takes 59.6 years for the Earth / Jupiter / Saturn to reach the same relative alignment around the sun. When Jupiter and Saturn are in alignment the sun is drawn closer to ALL the inner planets warming ALL of them. Hemispheric exposure varies accordingly.

          A harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multi-decadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.

        3. Astro climatology?
          I have clearly shown the earth warming in the last 30 years. The alignment of the planets just don’t do it.
          The sun has decreased slightly and the earth has warmed faster than in any time in earth’s recorded history. Natural variation does not do that.

        4. There is no dispute that the earth has warmed in the last 30 years. There is no dispute that global temperature has not changed for 18 years. What does a 30 year anomaly have to do with hundreds or thousands of years of data?

          A fuller explanation and the data showing the correspondence between the Solar System Center of Gravity cycle and global climate is available at:

          Do you having any DATA disputing this?
          You may want to examine the results of the C.L.O.U.D experiment funded by the IPCC.

          For rapid increases in global temperature see the

        5. There is no dispute that global temperature has not changed for 18 years. What does a 30 year anomaly have to do with hundreds or thousands of years of data?

          This is a strong warming trend in 18 years

          HADCRUT4 hybrid

          Trend calculation:Start date:1996 End date:2014

          Trend: 0.141 ±0.127 °C/decade (2σ)

  18. The co-founder of weather channel has denounced climate change, co-founder of greenpeace has denounced climate change and the founding father of man-made global warming Claude Allegre has renounced his position on man-made climate change.

      1. Claude:
        Good for you for admitting you are too incompetent to search for facts that you are totally ignorant of.

        Weather Channel founder:
        “Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

        “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.
        “Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather
        effects have failed.

        “There has been no warming over 18 years.”

        Greenpeace co-founder:
        “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he told a US Senate Committee
        “If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No
        actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

        Claude Allegre’s editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L’Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. In his editorial, Allegre accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

  19. Should change the title to something more honest, like “The dumb ass’s guide to being used like a 2 dollar whore.”

      1. Fair enough. All of our models have failed miserably. Why? Because we simply don’t know all of the variables involved or how much they do or do not influence climate change.

        It’s patently unscientific to declare that any singular variable ( in this case Man) is a major contributor at this point.

    1. And man contributes a whopping 3% of total atmospheric CO2. That would be the equivalent of 3.6 people in the “climate change” march of 300,000 several weeks ago where CO2 would represent 120 people if that crowd was the atmosphere.

      1. About 45% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere.
        That means we are faster at emissions than the earth is at absorbing our emissions.
        Can you understand that?

  20. Climatological propaganda panders to their audience, pretending that to blindly accept this pretentiousness makes one intelligent. It’s good to see most people are waking up to what a complete scam and complete waste of resources all of this is.

    1. The waste of resources would be investing more money into carbon based energy. We would just have to retire them early to avoid a too warm planet.

  21. Liberals. Wealth redistributionist. You believe in ‘science’ when you try to prove a Godless existence. However when it comes to global warming, you DO NOT believe in science. You believe in huge taxes and overarching government, even global government, will prevent ‘global warming’. There has been already several new inventions this year…and some already invented that can take out fossil fuels. Why don’t you go at this ‘problem’ by innovation at it’s head? Instead of by politicians? By taxes. Hamstringing our economies? It’s because you need a new cash cow. Right?

    1. Do you understand that the wealth has moved up the ladder, while the middle class has lost ground?
      We are in the same wealth distribution % as before the stock crash of 1929.

  22. This is nothing but a new Hellfire and Brimstone Religion for people who like to think they’re too smart to fall for a Hellfire and Brimstone Religion.


    it’s the same old game as always.

    1. There is also the science of how to have a better life on earth. Why destroy our planet when life can be better than today with 100% renewable energy

      1. And wouldn’t life be even better if each of us had a magic flying pony that crapped skittles and farted rainbows? That’s every bit as realistic as your ideas are.

        Ethanol causes MORE environmental damage than other liquid fuels – even hard core environmentalists agree on that one.

        Solar has been a total flop in Germany and Spain, the two countries that have tried it the most.

        Wind turbines destroy the landscape and kill

        1. I like your imagination not based in reality. Reality is co2 is a ghg and we have increased it in the atmosphere.
          Show me we won’t warm because of that.

        2. 18 years of CO2 going up and yet no measurable increase in world temperature. There, I showed you.

          Now tell me how “heat is hiding in the deep ocean, where we can’t measure it!!!” even though hot water rises, it doesn’t sink to the bottom.

        3. Still not based in reality. You choose you want to believe. But NASA collects the data and analyzes it.

          NOAA climatologist Jessica Blunden says “It’s pretty likely” that 2014 will break the record for hottest year.” The AP reports:

          Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but “no one’s told the globe that,” Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming.

          We are on a dangerous path of warming. The sooner we get to zero carbon emissions, the better

  23. Berger is just another opportunist making millions off the CAGW hoax. The author has omitted the long term data and repeated the short term rhetoric. Every warning in the author’s list has been disputed by scientific research by leading universities, scientific institutions and government agencies. Some examples follow:

    Ocean level has actually slowed. Between 1993 and 2010 sea level actually dropped along some US coasts. Since 1970 global sea level has risen 3 inches and the Atlantic coast has sunk 5 inches. Due to glacial rebound the northwest coast has risen 3 inches since 1970.

    Since the 1930s severe weather events, including droughts and hurricanes, have declined in severity and frequency. Coral periodically dies and recovers. Currently the deaths have been mostly caused by pollution, not warmer oceans as coral has survived at temperatures higher than the present. Ocean acidity varies greatly year to year, season to season and even hourly with NO discernable negative effects on sea life. PH can change rapidly during ocean rainstorms or floods emptying into the ocean.

    The earth was warmer 1, 2, 4 and 8,000 years ago. The earth has steadily cooled by 1.5C in the last 8,000 years while CO2 has risen from 255ppm to about 400ppm. The official government and university global temperature databases reveal a 61.5 year heating/cooling cycle. It warmed from 1850 to 1879, 1910 to 1942 and 1972 to 2002. It was cooling from 1879 to 1910, 1942 to 1972 and from 2002 to now while CO2 was increasing. The 61.5 year cycle can be traced back several thousand years. The 61.5 year cycle cannot be reproduced by any of 114 simulations of 37 CMIP5 climate models.

  24. The author of this crap is wacko. .After reading a couple of sentences, either the journalist or the au6thor of this book lost credibility. By 2100 world temperatures will have risen 100F higher than todays world’s temperatures???? Come on ! And just scanning over the rest of the article shows me just how much is science fiction and no scientific or observational information is credible. I would not waste money on a book like this filled with non-sense.

    1. This is the most poorly proof read report that I have seen. 10*F would be more accurate under worst case scenario.

  25. This
    was an IMMEDIATE RISK IN THE 70’S: If
    this GLOBAL COOLING is not stopped by 1978, the world will run out of
    food completely by the 21st Century. (That would be the year 2000, for you libtard warmers!)

    1. The warming of our earth is not political. We are all guilty of doing so. All walks of life including tea partiers need to get on board with the reality of co2 is a ghg.

      1. Have you ever really looked up the data in the official government and university monthly global temperature databases?
        Or are you just another Ducky Lucky who fell for Chicken Little’s false alarm?

        1. ice ages the co2 was 180ppm
          Holocene average 280ppm
          We are now at 400ppm
          scientists hindcast with their computer models to see how accurate the model can work. When it reaches a fairly accurate representation they now take out the human co2
          That is the beauty of having a model.
          Guess what happens with the models output?
          The earth cools slightly.
          This is one of the many human fingerprints on the climate.

        2. According to this photo based in peer reviewed science, we are now warmer than the beginning of the Holocene.

  26. More scare and fear propaganda bull krap, stop the BS, read what a real scientist states,
    Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
    Spencer: ‘I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record…if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.’
    ‘The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.’
    RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.
    We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree, which no one can actually feel. Not surprisingly, the effects on severe weather are also unmeasurable …despite what some creative-writing “journalists” are trying to get you to believe.

    1. Roy Spencer is in the 3% category, compared to the 97% that accept human caused warming.
      actually Roy Spencer accepts co2 is warming the earth, but argues for low sensitivity to co2 on our climate.
      He has failed to show based on good science that what he studies is true.

      1. You still trying to pass off that Bull Krap consensus, it was found to be 100% false. it was only .05% of the scientist agree 97% of the time.
        1) 97% of Scientists Agree: The 97% figure is a misquote of a flawed study. The study people use to come up with the 97%, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook, and friends, First of all the real result was 97% of the scientific papers which had an opinion one way or the other believed in global warming. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s about 0.5%. Other analysis demonstrates that some of the studies which disagreed with the global warming theory was mislabeled and 35% of the authors who took no position were left out of the final survey results altogether.

          Multiple studies are coming to the same conclusion as John Cook’s
          If John Cook’s study was that easily falsified as you say, it would only take a peer reviewed paper published to show where he got it all wrong. That just hasn’t even happened.
          There is a quite miserable failure on the part of the doubter society to even respond in sound science.
          So many in the culture of doubt just have no real science foundation for their arguments.
          So the next step is fabricated conspiracy.
          The weakest argument of all.

        2. Like I said, your 97% consensus is mere bull krap, there have been many to claim that, and everyone shown to be false….

          the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

          Monday, May 26, 2014

          WSJ: The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’; What is the origin of the false belief that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

          The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

          What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

          Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

          Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

          Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

          One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

          Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

          Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

          The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

          The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

          In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

          In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reportedthat 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

          Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

          Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

          Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

          Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

          Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

          We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

        3. This basis has been made over and over in multiple studies.
          WSJ is not a venue for the truth about climate.
          The IPCC reviews 9200 papers before it comes to it conclusion, with scientists from all over the world.
          The wall street journal collects false information and calls it the truth.

        4. The basis has not been made for 97% consensus, stop the propaganda bull krap, stop reading skeptical scientist web site, John Cook is founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science he wrote most of that bull krap,

          The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to represent more than 2,500 scientists who agree that man-made global warming is a serious problem. But this is misleading. While a total of 2,500 (or some similar number) scientists participate in some way in the writing or review of its reports, the IPCC’s working group responsible for assessing the causes of climate change and its future trajectory consists of only about 600 scientists, and many of those are activists working for environmental interest groups. For the Fourth Assessment Report, only 62 were responsible for reviewing the chapter that attributed climate change to man-made greenhouse gas emissions, with 55 of those being known advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Of the seven impartial reviewers, two disagreed with the statement, leaving only five credible scientific reviewers who unequivocally endorse the IPCC’s conclusion, a far cry from 2,500.

        5. The IPCC are 95% certain that we warmed the planet. that is the same confidence as tobacco and cancer.

        6. they are 100% percent sure that smoking causes cancer in most cases, the did not use a computer model for their conclusion…..

        7. It is done with multiple lines of evidence. The computer model also confirms humans are responsible for warming.

  27. Even books on climate change are condescending. The problem with liberals is that they think they are smarter than the rest of us. That’s why they tend to preach about the virtues of their particular mindset or trend of the day. Truth be told, liberals are idiotic and easily manipulated by emotion. It is sort of like dealing with someone with Down’s Syndrome; you can lead them anywhere and get them to do anything by appealing to their emotions. No logic is needed.

    1. All walks of life accept climate change as human caused, including American conservatives. The Tea Party wing is drowning out their voices.

        1. Pick a paper out of there and lets discuss it.
          I know the site and am looking forward to our discussion.

  28. 50 years ago another “dire warning” was issued, with dire predictions. “Silent Spring” .It was a must read in the 60-70’s for highschool science. It got DDT banned and “saved” raptors. However….without doubt millions died of malaria that spread rapidly because DDT was banned as a pesticide. On top of that pesticides are used in far greater amounts today then when the book was written….NO ONE would say that spring has been silenced. In fact many bird populations are spreading and growing.

  29. The scariest part about man-made global warming is that there are literally millions of people who are gullible enough to believe that it is real and happening.

      1. CO2 is a GHG, but global temperature changes do not respond to changes in CO2. CO2 concentration does respond to change in global temperature however. Mauna Loa detects increases in CO2 each year AFTER the ocean warms and decreases AFTER it cools. Historically CO2 increases about 800 years AFTER global temperature increases.

          The human finger prints are all over in global warming. This statement below is false.

          What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of “global warming” and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth’s climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise

      2. What I’m saying is that man-made CO2 makes up about 0.075% of the total make-up of the atmosphere. What kind of science contends that this is a major influence in the heating and cooling of the earth? What kind of people insist that this is a factor larger than all other factors combined?

        1. Why don’t you just answer the question? The only factor that the so-called “climate scientists” ever talk about is CO2. They NEVER discuss alternative methods for cooling the planet (assuming that actually is something we need to do). By that the only possible interpretation is that they believe reducing man-made CO2 is the ONLY thing we need to do to make life on planet earth sustainable into the future.

          What the hell do ice cores have to do with that?

        2. CO2 being a ghg along with other ghg’s reradiates infrared energy back to the earths surface heating us up.
          That is why humans have had such a great life on earth the past 10,000 years.
          Adding more ghg’s (co2 mainly) reradiates more infrared energy back to earth.
          We are now leaving the Holocene and moving into a new era of warming.
          If we completely stop emitting co2 soon before the end of the century, we will keep a pretty good climate to live in. If we keep on emitting pell mell till the end of the century, we create hell on earth for our coming generations.
          Taking emissions to zero before 2100 is no small feat. But the rewards are great for doing so.

        3. This argument is based entirely on AGW computer models that assume changing CO2 and holding all other GHGs at or near constant levels. Furthermore, computer models have been shown to be completely inaccurate in predicting the future of the earth’s climate (e.g., models predicted rising temperatures over the past 15+ years).

          But at least one thing is now clear. You have bought into this nonsensical conclusion that (1) we face total and complete catastrophe if we fail to curb the production of man-made CO2 and (2) CO2 is a factor so huge that we should entirely disregard all others.

  30. Reading available scientific facts, past and present, this is pure science fiction. The fact that the emerging economies; China, India . . . and Islamic states won’t do their share, even if we totally close down the US it will make no difference.

    1. All walks of people acting as one will give a great planet and future for our coming generations. If not, they have to deal with a world made of our noncooperation.

  31. It’s amazing that the Vikings could raise crops in Greenland, or that the Romans could make wine in Britain under conditions colder than today. They were either smarter than we are, or just possibly, the Earth has seen warmer temperatures before.

  32. Oddly, millions of people believe that a Man died, came back to life, hung out with his posse for a couple of weeks and then flew up to ‘heaven’ promising to return with a sword and then #$%^ up the lives of several billion people…. but they refuse to ‘believe’ the scientific data presented concerning climate change. Go figure!

  33. Part of the propaganda campaign is to label any skeptic as “stupid”, and any believer as “intelligent”. Just how intelligent can you be to consistently believe in something that has no supporting empirical evidence?

    1. I suppose you could have high intellect and still not accept the 97% consensus on climate science.
      But then, can you find a better argument besides “I hate liberals” to say “What caused the warming of the last 150 years?”
      You find that one, and I will personally call you “One smart son of a bitch”.

  34. IPCC AR5 WG1 CHPT2 on Extremes:

    “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are
    seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat
    waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is
    large spatial variability”
    “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
    “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global
    tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in
    annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes
    counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North
    Atlantic basin”
    “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low
    confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency
    of floods on a global scale”
    “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in
    small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms
    because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in
    monitoring systems”
    “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not
    enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a
    global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall)
    since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations,
    geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of
    inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4
    conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the
    1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency
    and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West
    Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia
    since 1950”
    “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
    So the scientists contributing to the IPCC AR’s are a bunch of deniers, is that the story now?

  35. Well, here is how stupid liberals are in California. They ban plastic bags from stores and charge you for paper. I’m just curious. How many of you libs still use plastic bags that go to the dumps every day for house hold garbage. You people are so stupid it makes me sick.

  36. One thing i just don’t quite get, why would you won’t us all in a snow ball earth effect?
    With out a worm earth we all FREEEEEEEEZE….
    Makes no sense to me…….

  37. What drivel! From above:
    “consequences” in 2100.For example, the world’s average
    temperature has risen more than 100°F by that year, but that’s an
    average. In the Arctic the temperature rise might be 14-200°F. So, by
    2100 the Arctic Ocean is virtually ice free. This amplifies global
    warming because the reflective ice is replaced by darker water which
    absorbs more heat”.

    uhh! I am stunned; No matter what, these projections are absolutely impossible!

    If the global average is now 60 degrees? A rise of 100 degrees is 160 degrees and we will all be pasturized. If the current arctic temp is 35 or 40 degrees, a rise of 200 degrees is impossible because boiling of the seas will not allow a temperature of over 212 Degrees! With the boiling of the seas, rainfall will be like a water fall.

    Glaciers are white with new snow and high reflectance during the winter when they are not melting, but in summer many have large amounts of dirt and Algae showing and have very low reflectance naturally. Summer glacial reflectance is in many cases lower than water.

  38. Be pessimistic. The hubris of humanity will not allow acting quickly enough to stave off the worst of climate change. With population doubling every 50 years there is no way technology can mitigate the arrival of another 6 or 7 billion people during that short time span. Anyone who tells you differently is just sugar coating it.

  39. “If we call the stupid and gullible “intelligent” enough times, they will actually believe it”

  40. Once again, for those that have their heads crammed up Obola’s butt.
    Nobody denies that the climate changes!!!! The argument is in the assertion that it’s HUMAN caused, HUMAN accelerated, and that WE HUMANS can do anything useful to stop it. And if we can…. SHOULD we?
    Handing the government a blank check to your bank account has NEVER accomplished anything positive other than making your account smaller.

  41. During the medieval warming, the historical evidence suggests that it was considerably warmer than it is now. For about 100 years the ice pack would completely break up during the summer. The sea levels were at least 2-3 feet higher then they are now. Runes recently discovered in Iceland tell of the Vikings sailing the arctic ocean during the summer. This warming only took about 100 years to happen, lasted for 500 years, and then within 100 years, the little ice age happened and it was considerably colder than it is now. All of these documented climate events happened BEFORE the industrial revolution.

    Here are some facts:

    Archeological data from farming terraces in Chile and China as well as pollen samples from Russia indicate the warming was global. These farming terraces are at altitudes that are too cold for farming now, but SOMEONE was farming them once.

    At the same time, a drought of cataclysmic effects probably was the death knell to the Mayan culture. This also suggest the effect was not limited to Europe.

    The Vikings established a colony on Greenland that flourished for 200 years. The southern third of Greenland was covered in lush green grasslands (hence the name Greenland) and the Vikings raised livestock and farmed crops. Only the little ice age drove them out. Its not coincidence that the ascendency of the Norse culture occurred at this time.

    Around 1100AD they were making such good wine in Scotland the king of France banned imports of British wine. (you cant grow grapes in Scotland now, its too cold)

    During the MWP the population in Europe exploded, mostly because the climate was so favorable to agriculture. When the little ice age hit, crop after crop were lost and millions of people starved to death.

    During the little ice age the Hudson and Delaware rivers in America and the Thames river in England froze over every winter, something that never happens now.

    The historical record proves that the climate warms and cools all on its own in a natural cycle. If history teaches us anything, its that we should be much more concerned about a cooling climate then a warming one.

    Now comes my opinion:

    Man made global warming is a scam. People continue to perpetuate this hoax for a variety of reasons, most of them financial. The green movement really is all about the green. Governments are licking their chops at the prospect of taxing carbon and are the main drivers in the AGW scam now. Man is no more able to alter the climate of the planet then we are able to alter the orbit. Any warming that might be taking place now is a natural occurrence. Our efforts should be on adapting to a changing climate instead of trying to stop it.

  42. Wow another Propaganda book about a non-existent Science of Globull Warming. Do any of you even know the current Global Mean Average Temp?? Do any of you even know what 3 events happened 20 years ago?? More fabrications and the guy gets a book deal.

  43. This sentence should be corrected to read as follows: “For example, the world’s average temperature has risen more than 10°F by that year, but that’s an average. In the Arctic the temperature rise might be 14-20°F.”

  44. For billions of years the main drivers of the climate changes are the variations in the sun’s output, the variations in the earth’s orbit, and the wobble of the earth on its axis. Close to home volcanism, the photo plankton and the plant kingdom have driven the carbon cycle. Now the scientifically illiterate liberal/marxists want us to believe that non of the historical climate drivers matter any more and we are to believe that if we just go back to living like we did before we learned to control fire it will suddenly be all right. I have repeatedly seen people claiming to be liberal scientists say volcanism doesn’t matter it has no effect. The reality is we know what gasses volcanoes put out, but no one has been able to measure the output from even one volcano, the previous attempts to estimate keep increasing the amount of gas emitted by huge amounts as our methods of estimating improve. Then there is the detail that there are thousands of volcanos erupting at the present time and another liberal lie is exposed. Then there is the fraud from NOAA and NASA for changing data to support the climate change fraud, which means they stopped being scientists and are now just more perpetrators of the fraud. The computer models are supposed the last word in scientific authority but the models have never modeled reality ever, and have failed to predict anything accurately, which means they are junk. A serious clue to the fraud is when a university fires a scientist for publishing data that doesn’t agree with the climate change fraud but supports others that are clearly doing junk science to support the fraud. Then there is the detail that the writers supporting the fraud are working for Bloomberg, Gore and the other ultra rich owners of the media and they have all “positioned themselves” to make money on the climate change fraud, and we have a scam that makes Madoff look like a boy scout. For you liberals that are true believers of this scam you need to ignore the “frightening”, “Terrorizing”, “horrible”, “disastrous” predictions of these propaganda hacks and do a bit of reading in the sciences for a change.

  45. Typical of the junk science known as climate alarmism. Pure fantasy. The planet quit warming almost two decades ago while CO2 emissions have continued to increase.

    Man made climate has already been scientifically falsified. However, those whose jobs and livelihoods are based on the keeping climate scare alive are still pushing this nonsense. The best thing is to mock these con men.

    1. NOAA disagrees
      NOAA climatologist Jessica Blunden says “It’s pretty likely” that 2014 will break the record for hottest year.” The AP reports:

      Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but “no one’s told the globe that,” Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming.

      1. Do you know the difference between surface station data and satellite data? You need to educate yourself about climate issues if you are going to be able to comment intelligently.

        The data I provided is from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) which is funded by …. (drum roll please) …. NOAA and NASA. The name of the satellite providing the data is …. NOAA-15.

        So, tell me please, why is this NOAA person lying (by omission)? And, why would you ever believe anything they tell you in the future?

        1. Is one data set the entire truth?

          Cowtan and Way did a hybrid data set of hadcrut4 and satellite from Alabama. This provides coverage not reached by land stations. By their study, the earth is warming 2.5 times faster than thought.

  46. None of the AGW predictions have ever come true in the past. Zero. Only a fool would believe future predictions.

      1. Glad you finally agree. Look at WUPT site.. It is the most important climate site on the internet. Over 175 MILLION hits. Also Steve Goddard’s site. Go Bronco’s

  47. The science simply says that burning gigatonnes of fossil fuel produces gigatonnes of GHG that warms the atmosphere and oceans. It has done so for the last 100 years and will continue to do so predicting that the earth will warm an average of about 5 degrees centigrade (9 degrees Fahrenheit ) If you want your children to live in a climate hotter than any experienced to date in human history that is your business, not science. Personally, I would like to leave to our children a climate as hospitable as the one I grew up in and If that means substantially reducing fossil fuel use – that’s OK. Our children are worth it.

    1. NO, that is not what the science says and spewing such ridiculous nonsense only demonstrates you are scientifically illiterate.

      1. What I am saying is consistent with what thousands of scientific research papers and hundreds of scientific organizations like NOAA, NASA and the Royal Society are saying. You are mistaking your opinions for facts.

        1. Just because you can’t tell the difference between real data and silly propaganda does not change the facts. The planet is now cooling despite continued high levels of emissions. All of your research is based on climate models that have been falsified at the 95% criteria.

          The importance of timescale
          B. D. Santer et al (2011)

          “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature.”

          We’ve now gone 18 years 1 month (and counting) without any tropospheric warming. Sorry if all that propaganda fooled you. Next time be a little more skeptical of what you are told to believe.

        2. NOAA diagrees
          NOAA climatologist Jessica Blunden says “It’s pretty likely” that 2014 will break the record for hottest year.” The AP reports:

          Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but “no one’s told the globe that,” Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming.

        3. This particular part of NOAA is telling you a lie of omission. They know perfectly well that the far more accurate satellite data shows we will be nowhere close to the warmest years on record. So ask yourself, why the lie?

        4. Rich – I don’t know where you are getting your data but If you don’t trust NASA, NOAA, ARGO and other scientific sources that are saying something different then think what your children’s world will be like if your firmly held opinion is wrong.

        5. Then you have interpreted the data differently than NASA did. They are now saying that 2014 will likely be the hottest on record and that the last decade was the hottest on record. If you look at ARGO data you will see that oceans have been consistently warming and expanding over the last 50 years.. You should understand that scientifically, the strength of you beliefs is not evidence of their validity.

  48. “Mummy,,,, when the donkey lifts it’s tail what’s that stuff that falls out called?”
    “It can be called two things, darling….the first is horse poop, but the other is what mummy wants you to call it….. Climate Change”.

  49. We should also keep in mind that John Coleman, Weather Channel founder, has noted that the story of man-made global-warming is one of history’s greatest scams.

  50. I would truly like to know at what date was Group Consensus redefined from being a tool created, used & considered crucial by politicians for gaining support, bolstering public opinion & increasing popularity for their cause through the use of vaguely worded surveys, polls created to arrive at a specific set of conclusions. Etc… to a very frightening menace to Science?
    Also, when did Consensus become part of the Scientific process? By definition, it should not have a permanent place setting at the Scientific table

  51. These comments are a complete circle jerk of stupidity… what exactly do you guys get out of denying reality? Or are you all totally nuts? Or paid?

  52. We’re only beginning to understand the impacts on Earth’s climate resulting from the Sun’s ever-changing magnetic field.

Comments are closed.