The Countries Likely to Best Survive Climate Change

3605107785_5f1f291f91_zBy Jon Whiting

Climate change is here, and it will affect every country as it worsens. But the harsh reality is that its effects won’t be felt equally.

The map below highlights that while climate change is caused primarily by rich, technologically advanced nations, its impact will hit the poorest nations hardest. Most European and North American countries are relatively better prepared and less vulnerable to the effects of climate change, while many countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East exhibit a dangerous combination of high vulnerability and low preparation.

The map, by the Eco Experts, visualizes data from the University of Notre Dame’s Global Adaption Index. The index, published annually since 1995, analyzes 192 countries on 45 internal and external indicators of climate change exposure.

The index is built on two variables: ‘vulnerability’ and ‘readiness,’ for which a country gets a separate mark for each. These scores tally up to produce an overall total indicating how the nation would fare.

The findings highlight the need for richer countries to do more to support poorer nations, helping them prepare for the severe impacts of climate change.

Ultimately, there will be no winners from the effects of climate change. Take, for example, the United States: Despite ranking fairly well in the index, fortifying itself against rising ocean levels could cost more than $1 trillion, according to the U.S. EPA’s sea-level experts. Meanwhile, increased heat waves, droughts and extensive downpours are all expected to wreak havoc on many parts of the country.

Climate Change Map

Eight out of the top 10 countries considered most at-risk from climate change by the index are located in Africa. Hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts and flooding are all real dangers for some of these areas, and this is compounded by a lack of national strategy to counteract the effects. Chad ranked lowest in the index, suggesting it will be the country hardest hit by climate change.


Seven out the top 10 countries considered least at-risk from climate change, according to the index, are from Europe: Norway ranks at the top and has done so since the index started in 1995. These countries cannot become complacent and must continue to prepare for the impacts of climate change.


Image credit: Flickr/markdoliner

3p Contributor

TriplePundit has published articles from over 1000 contributors. If you'd like to be a guest author, please get in touch!

339 responses

        1. Just a private person, with a wise mind to question thoughts and ideas that are put out there ,. Check the world weather history,

        2. You’re asking the left/libtards to do something intelligent that would take common sense?! How dare you! Lol!
          hassebisse should read: has been.

        3. Better yet, let’s check out some of the past predictions from the Climate Change zealots:

          1. “Within a few years children just aren’t going to know what
          snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr.
          David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, March 20, 2000.

          2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect will be desolating the
          heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael
          Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

          3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming
          trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

          4. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole
          may be free of ice for the first time,” Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University, 2008.

          5. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a
          small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

          6. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will
          be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

          How’d those work out?

          And BTW, if any of you GW nuts plan on offering the usual “those statements were taken out of context” defense, then I would ask you to please explain to me – in what context can any of the above statements be interpreted as anything but an epic fail?

        4. These are just a few quotes from among the HUNDREDS of scientists that believe in climate change.

        5. And they were completely, ridiculously wrong,

          And FYI, despite the bogus “97% of scientists agree” line of b.s., there are just as many prominent scientists who are skeptics. Of course, you’d never know it, because they are dismissed as cranks by the liberal media.

          I’ll give the Global Warming…pardon me, Climate Change…zealots credit for one thing though. After having so many embarrassingly failed predictions of climate catastrophe blow up in their faces, they’ve wised up and stopped making short term predictions.

          Take note the next time you read a story predicting Climate Change disaster. Where in the past, these people would say things like “by the year 2010” or “within the next decade”, now whenever they make a prediction, they say things like “within the next century” or “by the year 2050”.

          In other words, because all their short term predictions have been proven wrong, they’ve taken to pushing their predictions out decades, or even centuries. That way they can’t be proven wrong.

          Better yet, if they can manage to push through their agenda for foolish measure like Cap and Trade, then when none of the calamities they predicted come to pass, they can take credit for fixing the problem and averting the crisis.

        6. there are just as many prominent scientists who are skeptics

          Utterly untrue.

          all their short term predictions have been proven wrong,

          Utterly untrue.

          the bogus “97% of scientists agree

          Utterly untrue.

          Three strikeouts. Back to the pine for you, rookie.



        7. Really? Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen of Georgia Tech and MIT come readily to mind. You can wiki a long list of people. Global temps haven’t increased in 18.3 years…the “pause” has the priests of your idiotic religion all in a funk. Lastly, the 97% has been proven to be crock of crap. Google it.

        8. A few names is not “just as many”, no matter what that disinformation site that appealed to your self-identity told you.

          And I’ll take those points on offer:

          o Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points]

          o There is no consensus [25 points]



        9. Look up Lord Munkton, he is but one of hundreds of scientists that have debunked the C.C. myth. Oh and look into the founder of the weather channel. He too has come out and said it is a complete hoax only used to raise money and nothing more.

          I feel sorry for you for being duped. But there is still hope for you. You can actually do some research. But not on and web site dedicated to the hoax, actual NOAA and NASA where their data has not been skewed.

        10. Potty Peer Monckton – not published in the climate sciences – is just a name.

          Again, this is not hard, very easy to grasp: a few names is not equal to actual scientists.



        11. “Potty Peer Monckton – not published in the climate sciences”

          You’re right, he certainly doesn’t have the scientific bona fides of your cult leader, Al Gore. Al Gore, whose entire scientific background consists of two (2) entry-level undergraduate courses in Natural Sciences.

          And BTW, for those two entry-level courses, he received grades of C- and D.

        12. How about 30,000+ scientists who’ve signed on to the GW Petition Project? And as i mentioned, every one of those 30,000 has more scientific credentials than your cult leader, Al “Two Entry-Level Science Courses” Gore.

          But let me guess. None of those 30,000 people are “real scientists”, right? They’re all paid shills for Big Oil, right?

          Or they’re not “climate scientists”. Of course – because only the true believers go around calling themselves ‘climate scientists”. Most actual scientists have real jobs.

        13. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

          It mentioned OISM!

          I Love Love Love that joke! I LOLz every time I see it, after all these years!




        14. Typical liberal response. You mock, but fail to refute my statement…because you can’t.

          FACT 1: The GW Petition includes at least nine Nobel Prize winning scientists.

          FACT 2: Your fearless leader, AL Gore, barely passed two entry-level science courses.

        15. It’s defending OISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and it mentioned algore (isfat)!!!!!!1




        16. I don’t know about Curry, she may be authentic. As a reputable scientist she is welcome to her own opinions, which will hopefully contribute to the general body of knowledge. Lindzen has tainted himself by being on the payroll of the Cato Institute, a right wing political organization

        17. “Lindzen has tainted himself by being on the payroll of the Cato Institute, a right wing political organization”

          And yet I’ll bet you see no conflict of interest in the fact that Al Gore has made over $200 million peddling imaginary “carbon credits”.

        18. So you think “carbon credits” are real, and really help the environment?
          Tell you what – send me $1000 and I promise to use the money to plant a few trees. LOL

          God, what naive, gullible fools you libs are.

        19. Dano, you can’t simply say “untrue” and expect people to listen to you. You need to show proof in the form of facts, just like Arthur Jackson did. Otherwise you look like an uneducated hack trying to tow the party line. And frankly, that doesn’t work with educated people.

        20. This is utterly basic. There are – here on earth, in reality – not just as many prominent scientists who are skeptics. You cannot go to the literature and say this is true. it is a joke to assert such.



        21. “John Coleman as scientist”

          He’s a meterologist. Makes a lot more sense than Al Gore as scientist.

        22. Zero people pretend Algore is a scientist. Only the gullible rubes pretend Monckton is one.

          Run along now, lad.



        23. “not just as many prominent scientists who are skeptics.You cannot go to the literature and say this is true”

          Yes, you can. I know because I did just that, back when I was in college. Allow me to explain.

          Back when I was going to school at B.U., studying towards my degree (B.S. in Biology), we all had to do a presentation on the topic of our choice. I chose Global Warming because it was just becoming a hot topic at the time.

          Now bear in mind, at the time, i was just assuming that GW was real, because every story you read in the media said it was. So my original intention was to write a story talking about the harmful effects of GW.

          However, when I went to read books on the subject (mostly just sitting for hours at the BPL) I was surprised to find that there were just as many books and articles that were skeptical. I didn’t really come down on either side at the time, but i decided to do my presentation and paper from the skeptics’ view, just because I thought it’d be more interesting to be contrarian.

          Needless to say, my liberal professor and classmates gave me a ton of grief.

          My point is, if you actually go and research the subject you WILL find just as many scientists who are skeptics. However, most people aren’t going to do like I did and spend days at the BPL reading. Most people get all their “news” from the mainstream media, which is almost exclusively liberal, and so only presents the alarmist viewpoint, shutting out the skeptics altogether.

        24. Nice. You tell me I’m wrong but as is typical of liberals, you don’t present a single fact to refute anything i said.

          Here’s a FACT for you – over 30,000 skeptical scientists have signed on to the Global Warming petition project.

          But let me guess…none of those people are “real” scientists, right?

          This is how the GW nuts maintain the “all scientists agree” myth:

          – They claim that “all scientists agree” and challenge you to name one who doesn’t. So when you name a prominent scientist who’s a skeptic they simply say “he’s not a REAL scientist” or “he’s only a geophysicist, not a climate scientists”, etc.

          In other words, they define “real scientist” as only those who believe in GW, thus anyone who disagrees with them is, by definition “not a real scientist”. Thus leading to the conclusion that “all scientists agree”.

          And BTW, if you’re going to try and discredit all the scientists who’ve signed the Petition Project as “not real scientists”, don’t bother. The list of those who’ve signed includes numerous Nobel Prize winners. In fact, if you go to the website you’ll find that you can’t even sign the petition without providing proof of academic and/or professional credentials in a scientific field.

          To put it another way, EVERY ONE of the 30,000+ people who’ve signed that petition have more scientific credentials than your leader, Al “Two Science Courses in College” Gore.

        25. What the hell has that to do with the subject? We all know, at least us that have a fully functional brain, unlike the libturds, know that it’s a hoax to steal even more money from your wallet! Tell you what George, give all the money you have, sell any property you have and give it to the scammers and we’ll see if it changer the climate! Get a life LOSER!

        26. And also BTW, while those may be just “a few quotes”, they are from scientists who are considered some of the foremost leaders of the Climate Change religion. In particular, Dr. Viner of the CRU of East Anglia.

          The true believers are constantly touting the CRU as the world’s leading authority on climate. If you’re going to present them as the authority then you can’t simply dismiss their prediction as “just a few quotes” when they’re wrong.

          Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

        27. Oh, WOW! People aren’t correct 100% of the time! We can’t do anything – why bother to plan at all?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



        28. Make that every scientist not paid by a right-wing political (not scientific, no such thing) organization.

        29. You ought to check up on what Fox and the Repubs tell you. You are the uneducated sheep in this discussion.

        30. Hassebisse, still using Arguents by Intimidation, a logical fallacy. Why don’t you grow up and report facts to support your point of view?

        31. No? It has everything to do with politics, on your side.

          In one of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change,[31] a 1998 proposal (later posted online by Greenpeace)[32] was circulated among U.S. opponents of a treaty to fight global warming, including both industry and conservative political groups, in an effort to influence public perception of the extent of the problem. Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article’s words, a plan “to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases.” Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences,” with a goal of “raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom.'”

        32. And there are ten times more articles of false profits on the G.W. side spewing lies in order to get funding to further their agenda.

          Not to mention that this article was written to shed light on the fact that Global Warming is a hoax.

        33. I’m sure there are Jeremiah, because the fact is, that’s where the money is, not phony science, which is still frowned on in scientific circles. But as mentioned in my LINKED response, the fossil fuel industry has so much money out there to sew confusion, any fool can write almost anything spewing denial and get it published somewhere.

      1. You mean like the children in England, who we were told would never again see snow?

        “Within a few years children just aren’t going to know what
        snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.”

        Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, March 20, 2000.

    1. Go ahead bury your head in the sand and pretend – I understand why you and your kind might want to… Because of the very nature of most conservative people which does not allow for anything or any information to enter their hive like mind set – out side of their own little box like world .

    2. Saying “I don’t want to hear that” doesn’t make it untrue. As westerners, we have a very serious vested interest in maintaining the oil economy, but that doesn’t mean we can afford to just ignore reality. Where else can you just pump cheap energy right out of the ground in almost unlimited supply? Bush said it best — we’re addicted to the stuff.

  1. “Hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts and flooding are all real dangers ”
    Earthquakes? Climate change causes earthquakes?

      1. So taxing people in the name of climate change will somehow help. It’s people like you that accommodate the Communists and Socialists plans.

        1. Putting a revenue neutral tax on carbon is a logical way to encourage conservation, efficiency improvements, and renewable energy, but of course you fools do not think reducing carbon emissions is even necessary.

        2. We have come a long ways from the hellacious black polluted conditions of cities in Pennsylvania in the early 1990’s but it is NEVER enough for liberals like yourself who would have us sitting in dark caves, while you kissed but for a Commie.

        3. You might want to read the definitions of communism and socialism before you spew those words out like curses. While you’re educating yourself, check out plutocracy, as well. Because that’s what America has become.

      1. Meet Michael Brudzinski, a professor of Miami University of Ohio who has been quoted as saying fracking causes earthquakes. His name came to light after the series of earthquake in Dallas, TX that are being blamed on – you guessed it – fracking. But there’s a lot more to his work than the blanket statement of “fracking causes earthquakes”,

        “Michael, you are being represented as saying, and I would imagine that you’re paying attention to this and you’re seeing it more than we are. You are being quoted everywhere saying fracking causes earthquakes. How do you feel about that? Do they cause earthquakes?”

        Michael responded, “Our study shows, I think, a pretty definitive case where we could see that the earthquakes that took place in this part of eastern Ohio were very restricted in time, only during certain stages of the fracking operations, and so those stages are only a short amount of time, several hours, and it’s only the stages that were very close to what appears to be a pre-existing fault in the deep, old rock in that area.”

        “And so there were hundreds of other stages of fracking that didn’t produce earthquakes in that operation, and we think that’s important, because that means the situation where we get earthquakes from fracking is really when you get very close, within about half mile of when those faults or where those faults are, and so we think that helps us understand why this is a very rare phenomenon. The reason you haven’t really seen this a whole lot in other places is because it needs to get very close.”

        “If we could change the soundbite to it rarely produces earthquakes, I think I would be a little bit more comfortable with it, right? I’d like to see rare used more often. You know, we’ve got tens of thousands of fracking operations that have not produced recordable earthquakes, particularly not felt earthquakes.”

        1. People who claim fracking causes earthquakes are oblivious to plate tectonics. Fracking occurs in soft shale formations, not the hard tectonic plates made of rocks like granite. It would be like claiming you can kill someone with a Styrofoam bat.

        2. Well, if you shoved the styrofoam down their throats you could. But I digress, like I wish these G.W. shills would.

      2. Haven’t heard of much fracking going on in Africa, which seems to be the epicenter of all the scary, scary stuff. I suppose its reasonable to assume the tremors from those nasty frackers in north Dakota are being transmitted to Africa and causing all sorts of havoc.

        1. I can read the map, his comment still had nothing to do with the map. I can’t help he didn’t include the words: MAP or AFRICA

      3. Fracking does what? Fracking does not and has never caused earthquakes. Nor does it pollute water.

        1. If you want to continue to believe these “scientists” that have been debunked and proven wrong, that is on you. But I believe the truth when I discover it. Maybe you should do some actual research and find the truth instead of regurgitating lies and mis-truths.

        2. No actual evidence presented. I am not interested in truth, but in fact. Truths are in philosophy, not science. #Freedumb. So provide links to your “TRUTH”, Mr. Irrelevant

        3. Actual research like the moon landings were faked, Chemtails, fluoride, …. the list goes on….
          Please provide YOUR evidence of proof

        1. I’m pretty sure you must not be brainwashed and are very wise, even though you call others retarded. Please with all your wisdom and the fact that you are not brainwashed, could you tell all us “tards” what the temperature of the earth should be.

        2. I’m sorry. Your extra intelligence that comes with being an elitist liberal must have failed you today. Your reading comprehension is way off. Let’s try again Mr. smarter than everyone else. What should the temperature of earth be? Just give us a number.

        3. 5. The answer is 5.
          Ask a dumb question get a dumb response. Do you mean: mean average temp, the temperature today in aukland etc.

        4. The people who claim to be the educated and brilliant of the world say there is global warming. Asking what the temperature should be, is NOT a stupid question. You say the temperature of the earth should be 5. Even with my limited ability to comprehend things, (as compared to all you uber intelligent and super educated liberals) I believe it would be extremely hard for even you brilliant people to live on such a cold planet. I’m beginning to think liberals really aren’t as smart as THEY think they are. But maybe you have realized that in all your indoctrination and brain washing, nobody ever told you what the temperature should be. You should use all that brain power of yours and see if you can figure out why you have never been told that. Let me know if you can’t figure it out. All us “tards” already know why, so it should be a snap for you.

        5. You’re right. You never did quantify it. A world that is 5 degrees Fahrenheit is too cold to comfortably exist as is 5 degrees Celsius. However if you want to use the Delisle scale, then you have a planet too hot to humans to exist on. If however you are using the Rankine scale you are hovering near absolute 0. Anyway, how about you just give us the temperature F or C. Your choice.

        6. Bananas, 5 bananas
          It is still a bad question that has no answer since 1) not everywhere has the same temp based on latitude. 2)Temperatures fluctuate during the year 3) northern or southern hemisphere. 4)Ocean or land 5) should I leave out the arctic regions like the satellites data does?
          How much money should YOU give to GOD?

        7. And that is precisely my point. You don’t know. Your liberal overlords don’t know. And they don’t care. Why don’t they care? Because it’s not about temps, it’s about money and how they can transfer it into their pockets. I gave you every chance to show how smart and educated you liberals are and instead you showed just how damned stupid and ignorant the liberals and the liberal ideology are. “How warm should the planet be?” After much hemming and hawing and obfuscation and trying to change the subject, your final answer was? 5 bananas. Oh and how much money should I give to a Deity that has no need of money. And you wonder why conservatives laugh at you people. Your stupidity and the way you cling to ignorance is truly astounding. Just once I would like to talk to a liberal that can form just one rational thought that’s grounded in reality. I have no more use for you.

        8. You want a quantified answer without providing information. This is why you CONS fail at understanding science. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INFO IN THE QUESTION. I asked where and when so I could answer and all I get from you is puke.
          I never had any use for you, but you did prove your ignorance by asking a question with no answer based on the lack of specification in the lame question.
          My answer of 5 bananas was a reflection of your stupid question.

        9. Name calling. The CON way of saying you are wrong with no evidence at all. I guess I’ll use the same premis…. Fuktard

        10. Evidence? LMAO….look it up, moron.
          Science requires testability of hypotheses and repeatability of those tests.
          Climatology, Geology, Psychology, etc. – all non-sciences.
          Again, your ignorance is not a name. It is your badge of honor, apparently.

        11. Just fell off the deep end with that last one, didn’t you little guy? No need to comment further, your room is ready at the non-scientific asylum. FREEDUMB!

        12. No facts to contribute to the debate?
          You lose…..again.
          I bet your fragile ego will demand you reply one more time, Gomer.

        13. And more name calling. You made claims, and backed exactly zero of it up. I could care less what your simplistic mind claims. I could also care less that you would rather insult rather than discuss the issue. I hope you grow up, but I have no faith in that.

        14. Con-, if you really knew the answer, you would have answered it in a professional manner. The fact that you did not shows proof that you have no idea of what it is you are talking about.

        15. I asked where and where, I can’t help it you CONS can’t give me a place and a time. IDIOTS!
          Here you are: The temp is around 7,000 K in the center.

        16. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)

    1. CO2 has not been shown to cause enough atmospheric warming and ocean temperature changes to cause hurricanes and tropical storms to be either more severe or more frequent. In fact they have been less frequent and less severe now compared to the late 20th century data. This was stated by the world expert on hurricanes and tropical storms on the UN IPCC committee. Actual data trumps speculative claims from nonvalidated compter models that are worthless. 117 compter models are in the UN IPCC summary. All differ. So there is no settled science nor a consesus of 97% of climate scientists on that let alone anything else.

    2. Yeah, apparently CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow affecting the earth’s tectonic plates.

      And of course, we never had hurricanes, floods or droughts before man started polluting the atmosphere. Everyone knows that prior to the Industrial Revolution it was a perfect 72 degrees and sunny, every day for 6 billion years, all over the planet.

      God, these people are freaking morons!

        1. Good thing universities, the U.N., environmental groups, and the democrat party are unbiased or even non-political

        2. Here you go again throwing mud instead of facts. The Solar output has decreased over the last 10 years which fills in line with the average temperature of the earth cooling over the last 10 years as well. As an aside, CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and feeds the formation of plankton which in turn feeds the fish. Methane gas is also present in the atmosphere and is issued from every living animal on this planet including humans!

        3. Dear dumbass,
          Despite the fact that satellite measurements (lower troposphere)
          exclude the arctic (the fastest-warming region of earth), and
          responded to the 1998 el Nino *much* more strongly than surface
          air temperature, from 1998 to present the satellite data show no
          trend. From 2000 to the present the trend in satellite temperature
          is 0.018 deg.C/yr.
          Read the paper:

          or this turd bag:

        4. Just to let you in on a fact, there were several NASA Scientists caught changing the data to fit their agenda and have since been fired.

          Not to mention that there is more ice on both polar caps as well as Antarctica and with in the Arctic Circle than has been in the last five years. That is why the scientists didn’t want you to see the temps over the polar regions. It goes against their agenda.

        5. “Climate gate” – proven false

          Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice. In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.

          In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer. That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic’s sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years. Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth’s energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth’s energy balance largely unchanged.

          One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

          i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).
          ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain and snowfall as well as an increase in meltwater coming from the edges of Antarctica’s land ice (Zhang 2007, Bintanga et al. 2013).
          Together, these change the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice.

          All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice and sea levels, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the largest and most important ice mass is the land ice of the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets.

          Therefore, how is Antarctic land ice doing?

          Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland. Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.

          There is variation between regions within Antarctica, with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing rate. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over this period but not enough to offset the other losses. There are of course uncertainties in the estimation methods
          but independent data from multiple measurement techniques all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

          So, in closing water that is less salty FREEZES AT A HIGHER TEMPERATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        6. Don’t bring facts and raw data to the table, the people perpetrating the hoax will simply resort to name calling and talking in circles.

      1. I provided you a link to the global satellite data. Why are you a denier of scientific data? Oh wait, you must be another pseudo-religious AGW cultist. But hey, even your priests admit the pause is real.

        Small volcanic eruptions partly explain ‘warming hiatus’
        From DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

        “The “warming hiatus” that has occurred over the last 15 years has been partly caused by small volcanic eruptions.”

        Why do yo spread the myth of continued warming?

        1. Hi Dano2, I looked at the woofortrees data. The data collection process violates the scientific method in 3 ways. 1st, the instruments used to collect the data are inconsistent (mercury and alcohol filled glass thermometers vs satellites) and the precision and accuracy of those instruments had as much as a 2 degree f error back in 1890 or 1910.
          2nd, the methods of data collection and recording were inconsistent (people looking at thermometers at different times of the day under varying circumstances vs probable consistency of satellite data).
          3rd, the sampling sizes went from about 3% of the planet in 1880 to 99% of the planet 1990.
          Also, NOAA has admitted that due to these inconsistencies they manipulated the data via some modeling process not disclosed to accommodate for the different instruments, methods of collection and recording and sampling sizes. This renders all the data scientifically useless as the statistical errors (variances of at least 2.5 deg f) are greater than the purported changes (1.5 deg f) and the fact that the data was reprocessed to model a unknown criteria is a scientific perversion.

        2. Thanks for parroting the disinformation site that appealed to your self-identity, and making us laff with the comical data collection process violates the scientific method

          Comedy skit aside, what does your network of ideologically pure, capitalist-based, for-profit temperature data points say about the climate?

          Let us know.



        3. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

          “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

          Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

          “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

          “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

          “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

          “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

          “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

          “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

          “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

          “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

          “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

          “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

          “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

        4. Oh, wow!

          Who here has never seen this list of quote-mined quotes?


          No one?

          That’s right: everyone here has seen this dishonestly quote-mined passage.




        5. Just because you have been duped into believing the lie does not mean you can not come to the light. We will still be here to hold your hand as we walk through this world together. We will not hold it against you for your ignorance of the facts, but hold it against those that have usurped your power and intelligence.

        6. thank you for your response. I am unable to conclude as to whether there is AGW or not. I can only address the methods of data collection and the efficacy of that process. No parroting on my part. I originally believed that there was AGW based on CO2 production, but there is so much corruption of the scientific method that there is no basis from which to reason with clarity. The uninvolved scientists I come across at seminars and universities have told me the same things that make them skeptics plus their intimate knowledge of their colleagues that believe there is AGW reveal a bias due to funding sources, so they testify. I have yet to actually meet a scientist that believes in AGW and they have not responded to my inquiries to dispute the controversies.
          I will gladly accept any info you have that is deeply based, but both the web sites you gave earlier are flawed, based on my understanding of collecting data to render a conclusion; cause and effect must be proven and I have yet to discover that relationship and as such remains a theory.

        7. but both the web sites you gave earlier are flawed, based on my understanding of collecting data to render a conclusion

          All they do is chart data.




        8. Because he is a Troll. He has nothing intelligent to bring to the table so he has nothing more to fall back on than to regurgitate what he has been force fed.

        9. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a skeptic of man-made global warming fears. “10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to an article. In a separate interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany” New York, he added.

          Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent hurricane activity is not linked to man-made factors. According to an article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that “the 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” Landsea asserted that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. “It’s not a trend, it’s a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy,” Landsea said. He did say that a warming world would only make hurricanes “5 percent stronger 100 years from now. We can’t measure it if it’s that small.” The article said Landsea blamed Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for “persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane frequency and strength.” Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a public letter. “My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy,” he continued. “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

          Meteorologist Justin Berk asserted that the “majority of TV meteorologists” are skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims. Berk said in an article in The Jewish Times, “I truly believe that global warming is more political than anything else. It’s a hot topic. It grabs people’s interest. As a meteorologist, I have studied this a lot and I believe in cutting down pollution and in energy efficiency. But I have a hard time accepting stories how we as individuals can stop climate change. It has happened on and off throughout history. We produce pollution but that is a small piece of the entire puzzle.” Berk continued: “There are cycles of hurricanes and we had a 30-year cycle from
          the 1930s to the 1950s. Then from the mid-1960s to the 1990s there was low hurricane activity. We knew there would be another round of higher activity in hurricanes and now it’s happening. [But people have] latched onto this topic and it’s been distorted and exploited. I know that a lot of scientists, including the majority of TV meteorologists, agree with me. In the mid-1970s, climate experts said we were heading for an ice age. Thirty years later, they’re saying global warming. If you look at the big picture, we’ve had warming and cooling throughout history. It’s a natural cycle. We haven’t created it and it’s not something we can stop.”

          CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano compared Gore’s film to “fiction” in an on air broadcast. When a British judge ordered schools that show Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to include a disclaimer noting multiple errors in the film, Marciano applauded the judge saying, “Finally, finally.” Marciano then added, “The Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well.” Marciano specifically critiqued Gore for claiming hurricanes and global warming were linked.

          Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

          Briggs, a visiting Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. “There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what’s going on with the climate,” Briggs wrote to EPW. “Most scientists just don’t want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one’s academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet,” Briggs explained. “It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill,” Briggs wrote. “The skill of climate forecasts—global climate models—upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models,” he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of climate models. “Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numericalapproximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model twice, once at ‘pre-industrial’ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a paper which states something to the effect of, ‘Our new model shows that increasing CO2 warms the air,’” Briggs explained. “Well, it couldn’t do anything *but* show that, since that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the model were correct. Needless to say—but I will say it—this is backwards,” he added.

          Meteorologist and hurricane expert Boylan Point, past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast board, a retired U.S. Navy Flight meteorologist with Hurricane Hunters and currently a forecaster with WSBB in Florida, dissented from the view that man-made CO2 is driving a climate disaster. “A lot of folks have opinions in which they have nothing to back them up with. Mr. [Al] Gore I think may well fit into that category,” Point said in an interview on “To lay the whole thing [global warming] at one doorstep [CO2] may be a bit of a mistake,” Point explained. Point is a pioneer in the study of hurricanes, having logged thousands of hours flying through the storms taking critical measurements during his U.S. Navy career.

          Chief Meteorologist Topper Shutt of DC’s Channel 9, and formerly of CNN, holds the American Meteorological Societies Seal of Approval. Shutt expressed skepticism of a man-made crisis. “CO2 is just one variable in a most complex global climate. I have stated for years that some of the effects of global warming might even be beneficial. We might see crops grown farther north and in areas of the world that previously could cultivate nothing,” Shutt wrote. “Global warming is such a politically charged issue that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum from which to discuss the issue. If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically,” Shutt wrote. “Should we instead put that money into schools, infrastructure and R & D? I am not trying to diminish global warming but I am, like [author of Skeptical Environmentalist] Bjorn Lomborg, attempting look at it from a different perspective. Some of the effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated (when the ice cubes in your drink melt does you glass overflow?) and our money may be better spent exploring other avenues in addition to CO2 reduction,” Shutt added. Shutt also wrote, “I try and remind our viewers that climate is always in a state of flux and yes, the world has warmed over the last 25 years but claiming that Katrina is a product of global warming is absurd. We have had much stronger hurricanes hit the United States in the past, the Labor Day or Keys hurricane of 1935 and Camille in 1969 to name just two. There is much more development now on our shores.”

          Chief Meteorologist Kevin Lemanowicz of 25 TV in Massachusetts dissented from man-made climate fears “I continue to say that we have obviously warmed, but we should not be setting policy based on an uncertain climate future,” Lemanowicz wrote on April 14 “I am not convinced we have been the dominant force in our global warming, and I certainly don’t trust climate models that are integrating thousands of variables thousands of time-steps into the future. There is chaos inherent in these models,” Lemanowicz explained. “One of the cornerstones of the movie An Inconvenient Truth was the belief that global warming will cause more frequent and more ferocious hurricanes.

          This belief was shared by esteemed MIT scientist Dr. Kerry Emmanuel. Well, just like that, the tide has turned,” Lemanowicz wrote, noting that Emmanuel was reconsidering his views on the global warming-hurricane link. In a May 1 report, Lemanowicz noted that “carbon dioxide is a good thing.” He wrote: “Did you know that if the greenhouse effect didn’t exist, life on this planet would be frozen? Further, I’m sure you remember from grade-school science that carbon dioxide is vital for life. Plants need it, and, in turn, give us oxygen. No CO2 means no plants, which means little oxygen for us. Certainly not enough to live on. Why, then, is CO2 called “pollution”? Is it really bad for us?”

          Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7 paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics.” The abstract of the paper reads in part, “(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.” Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s study concluded, “The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.”

          Renowned hurricane forecaster Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the schools Tropical Meteorology Project, chastised former Vice President Al Gore as “a gross alarmist” in an Associated Press interview. “[Gore’s] one of these guys that preaches the end-of-the-world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Dr. Gray said. The AP article explained, “Gray believes a recent increase in strong hurricanes is not due to global warming but is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns.” Gray believes current climate researchers rely too much on computer models. “Us older guys that were around in the pre-satellite, pre-computer age, we had to deal with the real weather. Most of these people don’t forecast,” he said. “They don’t live in a real world. They’re living in an imaginary world.”

          Senior Meteorologist Dr. Joe Sobel of Accuweather, winner of the American Meteorological Society 2005 Award for Broadcaster of the Year, asserted that climate change is nothing new. “The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, that is a fact of the earth’s existence,” Sobel said. Sobel has 35 years experience at Accuweather and has also been a member of the American Meteorology Society since 1966. “Only 10,000 years ago — which is geologically speaking is like [the snap of a finger] — we were in the midst of an ice age,” Sobel said. “There is not much doubt that climate changes and that climate will continue to change,” Sobel reiterated. “The question is what is causing it. It is totally a naturally cycle? Is it totally human induced? I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between,” he concluded. Sobel also lamented the National Hurricane Center’s new tropical storm naming policy because he believes it results in false claims of global warming related increases in storms. “Back in the old days… and I’m only talking 5 years or so ago… we did not name sub-tropical storms. Names were only given to storms that were deemed to be truly tropical. In the last few years, there have been a number of sub-tropical storms named. Those named storms go into the total of named storms and obviously increase the number of storms that year and
          consequently increase the average number of storms per year,” Sobel wrote in his blog. “It has been claimed that global warming is responsible for an increasing number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but here is a reason that the number of storms is increasing that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It’s because we are mixing apples and oranges and calling them all apples!” he added.

          “According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Hans von Storch IPCC lead author

        10. What’s hilarious about the comment from the obviously scientifically illiterate Dano2 is the site he mentions shows none of the data sets show any statistical warming over the same period I specified. Obviously this bumpkin thinks any upward line is relevant. The stupidity must burn in this one.

        11. Despite the fact that satellite measurements (lower troposphere)
          exclude the arctic (the fastest-warming region of earth), and
          responded to the 1998 el Nino *much* more strongly than surface
          air temperature, from 1998 to present the satellite data show no
          trend. From 2000 to the present the trend in satellite temperature
          is 0.018 deg.C/yr.

        12. Repeating the same false information over and over again does not make it suddenly come true.

      2. it is a myth mainly cause they can’t make up their mind if it’s global cooling 70’s or global warming personally it is so damn cold where I am I could use some warming

      3. Actually, the computer models generated by climate researchers back in the late 90’s predicted a .21C rise in the Earths temperature between 1998 and 2012. During that time it only rose .04C

      4. Stop spreading your chicken little lies and propaganda about something that doesn’t exist! Liberal, pseudo intellectual moron!

      1. I don’t believe any of them and if they would stop brain washing our kids this would not even be an issue

      2. Do you actually think that climate researchers don’t cherry pick data, or input for that matter.

        The Climategate 1&2 emails contain good examples of fudged input and data.

      3. Climate of Fear – Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

        There have been repeated claims that past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

        The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

        But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

        To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let’s start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

        If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less–hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

        So how is it that we don’t have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It’s my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton’s concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann’s work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested–a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community’s defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences–as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union–formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton’s singling out of a scientist’s work smacked of intimidation.

        All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists–a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

        Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

        And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.” Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.

        Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

        M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

  2. What about the countries that will benefit…
    Longer growing seasons
    Improved crop yields
    Less fossil fuels used for heating
    Gentler working environments
    New areas to explore…

    I notice that the global warming alarmists are always negative and wanting more money.

      1. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length. The current Earth temperature is approximately 1 °C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago. Surface temperatures in the United States during the past century show a natural warming trend and its correlation with solar activity. Compiled U.S. surface temperatures have increased about 0.5 °C per century, which is consistent with other historical values of 0.4 to 0.5 °C per century during the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

        Three intermediate trends are evident, including the decreasing trend used to justify fears of “global cooling” in the 1970s. Between 1900 and 2000, on absolute scales of solar irradiance and degrees Kelvin, solar activity increased 0.19%, while a 0.5 °C temperature change is 0.21%. This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth’s temperature would be reduced by 0.6 °C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2%. U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon use are not correlated.

        The U.S. temperature trend is so slight that, were the temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it. Sea level has trended up ward for the past 150 years at a rate of 7 inches per century, with 3 intermediate uptrends and 2 periods of no increase.

        Glacier shortening and sea level rise began a century before the 60-year 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use, and have not changed during that increase. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused these trends.

        The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth.

        Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical evidence of such an amplification.

        Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – ac tual measurements of Earth’s temperature and climate – shows no manmade warming trend. In deed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actu ally decreasing.

        While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been benign.

        There is, however, one very dangerous possibility. Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.

        Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient to meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.

        The temperature of the Earth is continuing its process of fluctuation in correlation with variations in natural phenomena. Mankind, meanwhile, is moving some of the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result. This is an unexpected and wonderful gift from the Industrial Revolution.

        Atmospheric and surface temperatures have been recovering from an unusually cold period. During the time between 200 and 500 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the “Little Ice Age.” It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the “Medieval Climate Optimum.”

        During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Green land. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 200 to 300 years, Earth temperatures have been gradually recovering. Sargasso Sea temperatures are now approximately equal to the average for the previous 3,000 years.

        The historical record does not contain any report of “global warming” catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia.

        The 3,000-year range of temperatures in the Sargasso Sea is typical of most places. Temperature records vary widely with geographical location as a result of climatological characteristics unique to those specific regions, so an “average” Earth temperature is less meaningful than individual records. So called “global” or “hemispheric” averages contain errors created by averaging systematically different aspects of unique geographical regions and by inclusion of regions where temperature records are unreliable.

        Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%. Also, the 150 to 200-year slopes of the sea level and glacier trends were unchanged by the very large increase in hydrocarbon use after 1940.

  3. Thank god for the Rio Grande. North of it is 20 percentage points less at risk than south of it. This map is nonsense. Looking at it, it has more to do with money than climate. If it was true then there is even less reason for the U.S. to spend tax dollars and kill jobs. Third world is screwed but so what they were screwed already. No big loss

  4. Climate lunatics want to prevent Africans from obtaining electricity which keeps their life expectancy half of their own. Then they claim Africa is most at risk from climate change.

    They are right.

  5. In truth there hasn’t been any increase in temperatures since 1998, even though CO2 levels continue to rise.

    In truth the ice pack on Greenland is growing at a rate not seen in years.

    In truth the ice pack in both the antarctic and arctic is growing.

    The truth is that AGW is a scam, designed to separate as much of our hard earned money from us as possible. Governments are licking their cops at the prospect of taxing carbon. The problem is that the really stupid people don’t realize that these carbon taxes WONT be paid for by the energy produces, they will be paid for by the energy consumers.

      1. Despite hype by environmentalists and many media outlets, the slow collapse of major glaciers in western Antarctica is nothing new, according to scientists. The warming and cooling in the South Pole is well in line with historical trends dating back thousands of years.
        The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has released two major studies in the last year that have shed light on western Antarctic collapsing glaciers — both of which show that the thinning sea ice in the western south pole is nothing new.

        A BAS study released in February found that 8,000 years ago Antarctica’s Pine Island glacier thinned just as fast as it has in recent decades. This happened thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, which scientists and environmentalists blame for releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide emissions that have warmed the atmosphere.

        The point of the BAS study was to see how a thinning Pine Island glacier affected sea levels thousands of years ago. Scientists say Pine Island is currently going through “ocean-driven” melting — as more warm ocean water is getting under the ice shelf.

        “Our geological data show us the history of Pine Island Glacier in greater detail than ever before,” the study’s lead author Joanne Johnson of BAS said in a statement. “The fact that it thinned so rapidly in the past demonstrates how sensitive it is to environmental change;
        small changes can produce dramatic and long-lasting results.”

        “Based on what we know, we can expect the rapid ice loss to continue for a long time yet, especially if ocean-driven melting of the ice shelf in front of Pine Island Glacier continues at current rates,” Johnson said.

        Not only did Pine Island glacier experience similar melting to today, it also was able to reverse the melting naturally.

        Another study from BAS released last year found that the current melt in the western Antarctic is within the “natural range of climate variability” of the last 300 years.

        “The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica,” said a BAS study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters last year, “however, this warming trend
        is not unique.”

        “More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries, suggesting that at present the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past
        ~300 years,” the study said.

        More surprisingly, the current warming is not the largest to occur in the last three centuries, according to the BAS.

        “Larger 50 year warming trends occurred in the middle to late eighteenth century… and the mid-nineteenth century… with several equally large cooling trends,” the study found. “Overall, there is no significant trend in the [deuterium] record since 1702 A.D.”

        Media reports have hyped the collapse of several large western Antarctic glaciers, quoting scientists who said the melting ice could raise sea levels by another 4 feet. Left-leaning news outlets ran with headlines like “This Ice Sheet Will Unleash a Global Superstorm Sandy That Never Ends” and “Global warming: it’s a point of no return in West Antarctica.”

        “The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears to be unstoppable,” said NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot, whose research on the collapsing ice sheets made waves.

        “The fact that the retreat is happening simultaneously over a large sector suggests it was triggered by a common cause, such as an increase in the amount of ocean heat beneath the floating sections of the glaciers,” Rignot said. “At this point, the end of this sector appears to
        be inevitable.”

        But as BAS research shows, the collapse of Antarctic glaciers is nothing new. In fact, studies show this has been happening for thousands of years — without the help of mankind. “Our results show that the large isotopic warming… since the 1950s is not unusual, with equally large warming and cooling trends observed several times over the past 308 years,” BAS scientists found. “This is consistent with a study from continental West Antarctica [Steiget al., 2013] which concluded that this recent warming is not unprecedented in the context of the past 2000 years.”

        “The record reveals a reduction in multidecadal variability during the twentieth century and suggests that the warming since the late 1950s has not yet taken the system outside its natural range” the scientists continued. “This is not inconsistent with the exceptional recent
        global warming, during which approximately 20% of the observationally covered Earth’s surface still does not show 100 year trends that are significantly larger than internal variability.”

  6. Embrace climate change because absent new technologies there is little to nothing that ca be done about it.

      1. Absent new technologies that are as affordable and efficient as fossil fuels, the idea that the world will or even can reduce it’s carbon emissions by the 40-70% mandated is a pipe dream at best.

        1. But you stated nothing can be done. Something can be done.

          The question is: are we too dumb, cheap and lazy to do anything about it?



        2. Dumb? It is obviously a myth, here are my oil and coal supplied numbers and opinion pieces that are FACT that prove the earth is cooling. Or argument that spending a little more now will save money in the future. CONS are lazy, cheap, and have the oil teat deep in their mouths.
          Ask them what rex tillerson thinks…

        3. Then yes, take your pick for the reason but we will not reduce emissions by the 40-70% mandated absent new technologies that are as affordable and efficient as fossil fuels. Asking the world to just do with less isn’t a realistic solution, especially considering it’s unlikely to make any significant difference unless everyone is committed to it which obviously is not the case. Time to embrace climate change and prepare for it’s inevitability.

  7. The ones that will survive are the ones not stupid and sheepish enough to fall for this massive hoax which, like Obamacare, is all about controlling the masses. What better way to destroy America than by destroying its industrial might and keeping its vast resources out of use?

  8. Now, this is going to require you warm-monger lemmings to read some, so try real hard to open your “minds,” as it were, and read alllll the way to the end. Ready? Here goes:

    Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

    “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”

    Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming

    Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant” and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.”

    Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.

    “All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained.

    Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming. The institute was founded by former National Academy of Sciences president and prominent physicist Frederick Seitz GS ’34, who publicly expressed his skepticism of the claim that global warming is caused by human activity. Seitz passed away in March 2008.

    In 2007, the Institute reported $726,087 in annual operating expenses, $205,156 of which was spent on climate change issues, constituting the largest portion of its program expenses, according to its I-990 tax exemption form.

    In a statement sent to the Senate as part of his request, Happer explained his reasoning for challenging the climate change movement, citing his research and scientific knowledge.

    “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” he said in the statement. “Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”

    Geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, the lead author of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — whose members, along with Gore, received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — said in an interview that Happer’s claims are “simply not true.”

    Oppenheimer, director of the Wilson School’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, stressed that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures, noting that he advises Happer to read the IPCC’s report and publish a scientific report detailing his objections to its findings.

    The University is home to a number of renowned climate change scientists. Ecology and evolutionary biology professor Stephen Pacala and mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Robert Socolow, who are co-chairs of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) and the Princeton Environmental Institute, developed a set of 15 “stabilization wedges.” These are existing technologies that would, by the year 2054, each prevent 1 billion tons of carbon emissions. They argue that the implementation of seven of these wedges would be needed to reach a target level of carbon in the atmosphere.

    Neither Pacala nor Socolow could be reached for comment.

    Happer said that he is alarmed by the funding that climate change scientists, such as Pacala and Socolow, receive from the private sector.

    “Their whole career depends on pushing. They have no other reason to exist. I could care less. I don’t get a dime one way or another from the global warming issue,” Happer noted. “I’m not on the payroll of oil companies as they are. They are funded by BP.”

    The CMI has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October, BP announced that it would extend the partnership — which had been scheduled to expire in 2010 — by five years.

    The Marshall Institute, however, has received at least $715,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation and Corporate Giving division from 1998 to 2006, according to the company’s public reports. Though Exxon has challenged the scientific models for proving the human link to climate change in the past, its spokesmen have said that the company’s stance has been misunderstood. Others say the company has changed its stance.

    Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”

    The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.

    “They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”

    Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.

    He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called “alarmist” claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.

    “There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past,” Happer explained. “They can’t even do that.”

    Happer cited an ice age at the time of the American Revolution, when Londoners skated on the Thames, and warm periods during the Middle Ages, when settlers were able to farm southern portions of Greenland, as evidence of naturally occurring fluctuations that undermine the case for anthropogenic influence.

    “[Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration] was exactly the same then. It didn’t change at all,” he explained. “So there was something that was making the earth warm and cool that modelers still don’t really understand.”

    The problem does not in fact exist, he said, and society should not sacrifice for nothing.

    “[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future,” he said. “I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.”

  9. According to Darwin, climate change is the number one catalyst of evolution. Are we seriously attempting to halt the Earth’s evolutionary powers?..

  10. “The findings highlight the need for richer countries to do more to
    support poorer nations, helping them prepare for the severe impacts of
    climate change.” – This just proves that this is just a wealth redistribution scam.

    Give us your money and freedoms, and you can rid yourself of the guilt and shame of having a carbon footprint.

  11. Climate change has been here for billions of years. I notice it isn’t called Global Warming any more unless it suits the needs of the moment.

  12. Wow. That’s the best income redistribution map I have ever seen. Who would have thunk that the nations that will be least impacted have also developed the most successful cultures and have the most wealth? I never would have guessed that would be how this “analysis” would come out. Imagine that the US just happened to locate itself in a place, over 200 years ago, that won’t be heavily impacted by climate change… how fortunate! And what does it mean that climate change is worsening? Does that mean that change is happening faster? Slower? What is “worse”? So many questions… and so many convenient answers… makes you think that someone planned it this way…

  13. The real problem is going to be noticeable as the Atlantic begins to heat enough to support the same kind of super storms that have been going on in the Pacific Ocean for the past few years. Most any really big storm that develops in the Atlantic, will make landfall in the USA. The length of time before the “next one”, is about a week to ten days.
    Should there be a series of storms of the super size variety, it certainly won’t take but about three or four of them to reduce the USA to a third world status. Then the conversation will change.

  14. It should be obvious to even the casual observer that this whole MMGW thing is just a new age religion. A substitute for a real religion. The planet is 4.6 billion years old. At no point in that entire history has the climate not changed. So saying that we’re in the middle of a “climate change,” is like saying I’ll have to take a pizz after I drink 4 cups of coffee. It’s like duh, the climate is ALWAYS changing. As for the “man-caused” part of it, there’s no proof at all. Just a bunch of anecdotal “evidence” that is not scientific by any measure.
    Just look at the main claim of the warmers and you will see what I’m talking about. That 97% “consensus” of climate scientists that we are hammered with nearly every day. The question is, since when did real science have anything to do with “consensus.” Consensus is a lynch mob out to hang someone because they “think” that person is guilty. Real science demands definitive and repeatable proof, something the warmers are chronically short of. I saw one warmer make the comment that it’s a wonder the Earth isn’t frozen over because we are 93 million miles from the Sun. The implication being that the Earth’s atmosphere has a powerful “greenhouse” effect to it. This dopey argument might make some ssnse if the Sun was the size of the Earth, but obviously it’s not. The Sun is nearly one MILLION miles in diameter. It is immense. All the planets, asteroids and comets in solar system combined would disappear in a tiny, unnoticeable puff of solar smoke if they got too close to the Sun. So it’s the Sun that sends light and heat to the Earth and it’s the Sun that largely determines what happens here in terms of climate. Not a statistically insignificant increase in an insignificant gas in our atmosphere.
    But let’s look at this from a completely different angle. The Earth has bee sopping up CO2 for millions of years which is why there’s so little of it in the atmosphere. And that’s why there are so many hydrocarbons (oil and gas) buried deep around the world. Perhaps just perhaps, it’s a very good thing we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. For a growing population (something the liberals never complain about because all the growth is in Africa and Asia), that extra CO2 might just make the difference in better crop yields to feed a growingly hungry planet. If you really believe the CO2 is a “pollutant” or a “toxin,” then why the hell aren’t your efforts aimed at stopping the out of control population growth of third world countries? Quite the contrary, every time a natural mechanism arises to slow or reduce the population in places like Africa, that being things like AIDS or Ebola, the world rushes to find a cure. Or when there is great famine in Africa (when is there not?), the ships carrying free food are quick to be dispatched. The poor are fed and get healthy and then the whole cycle of overpopulation starts all over again. So if you’re really serious about “stabilizing” the Earth, show some effort on that population thing first. Otherwise, quit wasting our time with your fairy tales of gloom and doom.

  15. What a piece of garbage.

    First off, the climate has always changed and will always change.

    The sun is the largest single source for heat on our planet……eventually the sun will burn out and then our planet will become a frozen wasteland……I wonder who the leftists will blame that on.

    We can’t control the climate or the temperature. If we could, we would have no clue what to do. Make it warmer? Where? Why? Make it cooler? Where? Why?

    Let’s see………. if it does gradually warm a bit it is likely that places that are typically hot are going to really be hot. Hmmmm. If it gets gradually cooler than places that are typically already cool (or cold) are going to be really cool or cold. Hmmmm. Wow, I guess it takes a lot of scientists, research and government grants to figure this out.


  16. All countries will survive this fairy tale created by the loony cowards on the liberal left! You people are clueless dolts!

  17. Are they calling 1-900-fortune telling again to make these dire predictions? they should they could save the tax payers a lot of money………

  18. The answers easy for all of you science lovers, survival of the fittest. The worlds population needs to be reduced. Nobody is going to do it voluntarily so this will do it with the least painful decision making. Evolution has no conscience, only winners and losers and now that you liberal progressives have destroyed religion as a guiding force only thing left is every man for himself because after all there is no reason to do anything based on something bigger that yourself. This will be fun to watch.

  19. I suggest that all members of the global warming religion immediately move to one of the countries that are on the “least risk” list.

  20. Here we go again. Normally occurring climate change is all the fault of “richer nations.” Yep, the UN wants to dip into our wallets to redistribute our money so the middle man gets to keep 99% of it and hardly anything will get to the poor slob suffering from naturally occurring climate change.

  21. amazing the countries at most risk Africa and other third world countries just where the UN wants to send the developed countries money through list lie

  22. Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment – 2014

    The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

    As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of Climate Change however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

    We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.

    The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.

    This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not,
    cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.

    NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) – Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases”

    “The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.” (NCA, Page 23)

    RESPONSE: Many scientists have provided ample evidence that the government’s finding, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is grossly flawed. In its Endangerment Finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE. This U.S. Supreme Court Amicus brief contains the details:…2.pdf

    EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend slope by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impactsGAST must be rejected.

    Below is a graphical comparison of their Hot Spot theory versus reality, where reds denote warming and blues, cooling. Clearly, the government’s understanding of how CO2 gas traps heat is fundamentally flawed.

    NCA CLAIM #2: “Second LoE – Unusual Warming in recent decades”

    “The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps much longer.” (NCA, Page 23)

    RESPONSE: “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred. For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend (see e.g. NOAA Buoy Data: NINO 3.4, Degrees C, available at http://www.cpc.ncep.,) and the Antarctic cooled slightly.

    The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics but that ceased over the last 15 years or more. Also, as the figure below shows, over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.

    See NOAA NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CTR., State Climate Extremes Committee, Records,

    If the observed warming over the last half century can anywhere be claimed to be unusual, it would have to be where it was greatest – in the Arctic. Both satellite and surface station data show a warming of about two degrees Celsius since the 1970’s. But the surface station data (see the Figure below) show that warming in context. Recent warming was very similar to the previous warming from 1900 to 1940, reaching virtually the same peak.

    This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor.

    It also points out an essential feature of most credible thermometer records that cover many decades. Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide.

    Using only the upward trend of the most recent half cycle to suggest relentless warming is very deceptive.

    NCA CLAIM #3: Third LoE – “The Climate Models”

    The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate.(NCA, Page 24)

    RESPONSE: The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. These Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are
    monumental failures.

    NCA CLAIM #4: “Extreme Weather – Temperatures”

    “global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.” (NCA, Page 8)

    “The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. (NCA, Page 8)

    RESPONSE: As mentioned in the response to CLAIM #2, most of the warming in the second half of the 20th century occurred north of the tropics. But as shown below, this warming stopped over 17 years ago. Furthermore, the Hadley Centre (upon which the government and the UN IPCC heavily relied) recently announced a forecast that the GAST trend line will likely remain flat for another five years.

    See Decadal forecast, MET OFFICE,

    As for claims about record setting U.S. temperatures, please see our response to CLAIM #2 above.

    See National Space Sci. & Tech.Ctr., North of 20 North Temperature Anomalies UAH Satellite Data: Lower Troposphere Degrees C, available at t2lt/

    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was critical of the draft National Climate Assessment, saying that “An overly narrow focus can encourage one-sided solutions, for instance by giving an impression that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will solve all of the major environmental concerns discussed in this report.” The NAS has also criticized “the lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties associated with the regional model projections,” saying that “Decision makers need a clear understanding of these uncertainties in order to fairly evaluate the actual utility of using these projections as a basis for planning decisions.”

    NCA CLAIM #5 “Extreme Weather – Hurricanes”

    “The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.” (NCA, Page 20)

    “Extreme Weather – “Droughts and Floods” “both extreme wetness and extreme dryness are projected to increase in many areas.” (NCA, Page 33)

    RESPONSE: According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to our use of fossil fuels.

    Hurricanes have not increased in the United States in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since at least 1900. Currently, the U.S. is enjoying a period of over eight years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. Government data also indicate no association between use of fossil fuels and tornado activity.

    The data on droughts paint a similar picture. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….” The IPCC also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.

    Still More NCA CLAIMS

    RESPONSE: All of the other government claims worth discussing have been answered effectively in other commentaries. These include those related to ocean and lake ice levels, sea levels, and ocean alkalinity. Detailed rebuttals of such government claims can be found in reports available from CATO, CEI, Climate Depot, Heritage, ICECAP, TWTW, and WUWT.


    The Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment begins with probably their most preposterous claims:

    “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” (NCA, Page 1)

    “Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.” (NCA, Page 7)

    “There is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts” (NCA, Page 2)

    RESPONSE: This is pure rhetorical nonsense born of a cynical attempt to exploit short term memories and/or little knowledge of the Earth’s climate history and climate processes.

    Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

    With the Earth’s vast oceans and atmosphere never in complete equilibrium, our climate will always be changing on time scales from weeks to months to years to decades to centuries and beyond. With a star varying cyclically as our heat source and with an enormous planet like Jupiter tugging on our orbit around the Sun, dramatic climate changes are expected to occur. (See pages 39-50 in USCA, Case #09-1322, Document #1312291, Filed: 06/08/2011.) However, none of these dramatic climate changes have any connection to our use of fossil fuels.

    Yet the Obama Administration insists on building a House of Cards predicated on their Three Lines of Evidence as discussed in CLAIMS 1, 2, and 3 above. With all three of their Lines of Evidence shown to be invalid, their entire House of Cards collapses. For example, if increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not yield higher GAST, the claimed CO2 connection to higher sea levels is lost.

    What about their frequent claims that nearly all scientists agree with their analysis findings? By ignoring and even denouncing growing criticism, they have lost the benefit of crucial scientific debates which are critical to keeping their analyses honest and objective. In fact, as documented above in response to Claims 4 and 5, they are even disregarding their usual allies, the UN IPCC and US National Academy of Sciences, both of whom have been dialing back apocalyptic claims, not amplifying them due at least in part to such critical feedback.

    Bottom-Line: This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.


    Joseph S. D’Aleo
    Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
    American Meteorological Society Fellow
    M.S., Meteorology, University of Wisconsin
    B.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of Wisconsin

    Dr. Harold H. Doiron
    Retired VP, Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
    Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
    B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – Lafayette
    M.S., PhD. Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

    Dr. Don J. Easterbrook
    Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
    Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
    M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
    B.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle

    Dr. Neil Frank
    B.S., Chemistry, Southwestern College
    M.S., Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State Former Director of the National Hurricane Center

    Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
    Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago
    M.S., Physics, University of Chicago
    B.S., Physics, University of Chicago

    Dr. William M. Gray
    Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
    Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
    M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago
    B.S., Geography, George Washington University

    Art Horn
    B.Sc. Meteorology Lyndon State College Teaches Meteorology/Climatology at Tunxis Community College
    TV Meteorologist 25 years, lecturer, expert witness, radio broadcaster

    Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
    Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
    B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

    Dr. S. Fred Singer
    Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU
    Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, U of VA
    Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University
    BEE, Ohio State University

    Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
    IPCC Expert Reviewer
    Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
    Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
    M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

    Dr. Madhav Khandekar
    Retired Scientist, Environment Canada
    Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents

    George Taylor
    Certified Consulting Meteorologist
    President Applied Climate Services
    Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists
    B.A. Mathematics, University of California
    M.S. Meteorology University of Utah

    Dr. James P. Wallace III
    Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
    Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
    M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
    B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

    Dr. George T. Wolff
    Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
    Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
    M.S., Meteorology, New York University
    B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

    Dr. Theodore R. Eck
    Ph.D., Economics, Mich. State U.; M.A, Economics, U. of Michigan
    Fulbright Professor of International Economics Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
    Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

    May 15, 2014

  23. Climate change has been going on and happened many times in the past. The confusion is because of population numbers, location and the ability of a world as it is now to support the poor. Every nation that is put at risk is also in an area of the world that is now unable to support its people threw farming. That being the base to use then these discussions on change are correct because the areas now unable to support themselves will increase while the numbers of mouths to feed also increases.

  24. Global Warming
    I guess that is why Al Gore flys around in his own 747 instead of flying commecial
    I guess that is why Mrs. Obama does not fly commercial. Why is that so many of these people who talk about GLOBAL WARMING do not fly commercial but fly in their own jet or in Govt. aircraft. AlGore where are you?

  25. 2014 was officially the hottest year on record, continuing the trend that every year in the 2000s was hotter than any in the decades before it, except for 1998 which is 2nd or 3rd due to a super El Nino. The question is not “is global warming happening” but “what do we do about it”. You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but you’ll just end up drowning as the sea levels rise. It’s pretty simple math, folks. It really is.

        1. I’ll repeat it for you:

          lordpet –> James Monroe • 4 hours ago

          Glaciers are melting globally, sea levels are rising globally, air and sea temps are rising globally, there is more volatility in weather systems globally, permafrost is melting globally, flora and fauna are reacting globally.




        2. All the temperature data and photos of glaciers melting and weather reports and sea levels rising info…you know, facts. Otherwise what you are saying is that there’s a global conspiracy by every scientist in the world to falsify data, which of course could easily be discovered.

      1. How so? Glaciers are melting globally, sea levels are rising globally, air and sea temps are rising globally, there is more volatility in weather systems globally, permafrost is melting globally, flora and fauna are reacting globally. Give an explanation for why that is happening.

        1. And humans are causing it ?
          Go pedal your “Redistribution Socialism” somewhere else !

        2. I gave you the facts and asked you to explain them. Is that so difficult for you? BTW, it’s “peddle” not “pedal” and “Redistribution Socialism” is always happening. The only thing that changes is the direction, i.e. from rich to poor/from poor to rich. Anyway, why is the Earth heating up? Keep in mind that the Earth isn’t a star so it can’t produce its own energy.

        3. No, when it says Go pedal your “Redistribution Socialism” it means get out of your car and walk the walk, Ride your bike.




        4. Again(because your reading comprehension skills are low)…And humans are causing it ?
          Try it again …Eco-‘(T)ard…..

        5. I simply provided observations, such as photos of glaciers melting on a global level, and asked you to explain why that is happening. PS, any tourist can take these photos, so unless tourists are conspiring with 99% of the worlds scientists to falsify this observation, it needs explaining. You seem to know what is happening, so please, educate me. Also please explain rising sea levels that beachfront property owners and low lying cities/countries are noticing. Or are they also conspiring with the evil scientists? What do Miami and the Maldives etc have to gain from lying about rising sea levels?

        6. You’ve now become boring and stupid….
          You can’t answer a simple question….

        7. You appear to be lacking capacity to comprehend reality. Or you refuse to invalidate your self-identity.

          Either way,



        8. And you appear to be from Libtardonia…..(or La-La-Land)….
          And YOUR “self-identity” is a Libtarduanian…..
          LMAO !

        9. I can answer any question, but first you have to answer mine, since I asked first. Here’s a simple question even you should be able to answer: is the planet warming up?

        10. Are you and your L(!)b(t)ard friends in favor of Global-Eco-Socialism (wealth redistribution) to solve the alleged problem ?

        11. So you don’t think the planet is warming, otherwise you wouldn’t use “alleged”. The amount of denial and paranoia it takes to think that is almost interesting. If it isn’t happening, why are glaciers melting, sea levels rising, air and sea temps rising, permafrost melting, flora and fauna migrating, is there more volatility in weather systems, all globally at the same time? Give an explanation for these observations, which are easily measured by scientists and non-scientists alike.

        12. And your fix for this alleged problem is Global-Socialism ?
          The Huff-Po called…..they need you back at the office…

        13. I’m a dyed in the wool capitalist, moron. I say moron because you can’t answer the simplest of questions. Science is not ideology or politics. It just makes observations. You don’t like the observations, science doesn’t care, because your approval isn’t required. I’ve given you the observations and you can;t explain them, all you do is babble about some socialist nonsense, like you even know what socialism is.

        14. Socialist “nonsense isn’t nonsense to you and your ilk….it’s your answer for everything including Global-Warming….That’s why nobody believes your bull-s(h)(!)(t) !

        15. So you admit a: you don’t know what socialism is; and b: you refuse to accept the data on global warming because you think it is driven by politics rather than science. Yet the science you are rejecting is the same science that allows you to post your inane statements on the Internet. You can’t cherry pick science. It is what it is. That’s the beauty of it. Good luck

        16. Good luck with your Global Socialism as an answer to Global warming !
          And good luck with your mental problems too !
          LMAO !

        17. Just FYI, I’m the CEO of a boutique broker dealer that specializes in institutional trading on an agency basis, dealing primarily in fixed income and equity markets with a special emphasis on shorting international securities. Your “socialist” comments are idiotic. Global warming is going to be costly, whether you like it or not. We will spend money on the problem. The difference will be whether it’s by choice or necessity. That’s the real problem, which you clearly don’t understand. Incidentally, how do you add value to the world? Surely you can answer that.

        18. Just like all Leftist, you think and talk in circles…
          You say ‘yes’ I’m a capitalist but we’ve got to take actions that kill it !
          You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth ideologically speaking.
          The ‘REAL PROBLEM’ is people like you who want to destroy the very thing that has blessed them and do it blindly without regard for the consequences.
          This is what YOU don’t understand !

        19. You don’t understand capitalism very well if you think innovation and investment in infrastructure would kill it. Have the Interstates destroyed or helped capitalism? How about the electrical grid? Space exploration? What you don’t understand is that, like it or not, there is a cost coming. We can be either proactive or reactive. If you really were capitalist, you would understand that you need to control costs in order to achieve growth. Proactive is cheaper than reactive. The REAL PROBLEM is people like you who are so hung up on whatever they think socialism is that they will destroy the very thing that has blessed them and do it blindly because they ignore the consequences of inaction. The science is in and the debate is over, except for ideologues like you who can’t reason their way out of a paper bag.

        20. Still talking out of both sides of your mouth and that’s the specialty of the Leftist….
          “Inaction” ? ! ? ……LOL !
          Thwarting your brand of Socialism IS action !
          “The debate is over” ? ! ?……Only in the confines of the Left….
          Your problem is that you wish everyone else would engage in the type of wishful thinking that you do…..sorry NO SALE !
          Please continue to order that Kool-Aid by the barrel, you’ll need it !

        21. Your problem is that for you to be right all the global warming data would need to be falsified. That would require a conspiracy of impossible size. Another problem is you can’t think. You’re a parrot. You don’t have any understanding of governments or socialism. For example, the top tax rate under Eisenhower was never less than 91%. Was Ike a commie? And wishful thinking? That’s your domain. You think that if you deny the earth is warming, it won’t warm. The earth doesn’t care what you “think”. Plus you don’t understand risk. If you’re right, the worst that’ll happen is that we will have innovated new industries. If you’re wrong, which you are, civilization will come under enormous from water and food shortages, mass migrations, drowning coastal areas etc. you’re too blinded by your stupidity to see it.

        22. LOL!…. Socialism has never worked ! But you keep trying to “muddy the waters” by mixing apples and oranges between it and Free-Market-Capitalism. Are you really listening to yourself ?!?
          You and your ilk believe that wealth-redistribution/Global Government is the answer to all ills !
          Keep on talking about data and settled science and what ever other “smoke-screen” brand of B.S. that you’ve acquired from the Leftist talking point sources. The bottom line is that Socialism as an answer to Global Warming or any other perceived problem will be roundly rejected by the American people and there is absolutely nothing you or your pseudo-intellectual friends can do about it.
          So grab another big gulp of Kool-Aid and cobble together your next L!b(t)(a)(r)(d) rant. You get more hilarious with each response .

        23. LOL ! ….I love when pseudo-intellectuals like yourself try to “muddy-the-waters” and mix apples and oranges. Talking about Socialism and Free-Market-Cap. as if they are the same.
          Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and talk some more about data and settled science and conspiracies, ect.ect. ( It becomes you…)
          The bottom line is this, the American people will not buy into your brand of Socialism as a way to cure ANY ill ! Socialism has never worked and your hopes of wealth redistribution/Global Government will be roundly rejected in this Country.
          So, you need to return to your sources of Lefist-Eco-‘(T)a(r)d talking points and prepare you next Looney-Tune rant.
          Are you listening to yourself ? You’re getting more absurd with each response…
          But keep trying, Zippy….

        24. Actually I’ve been very consistent in basing my opinions on the science. You also been consistent–consistently stupid and ignoring the science. I will definitely keep talking about the data, such as 2014 hottest year on record. What stupid Republi(T)ar(d) Fo(x) News (<==so clever! ROFLMAO LOLOLOLOLOL) talking points do you have? Not even one, except "socialism", which you clearly don't understand yet think I'm advocating. Keep huffing that glue Shirley

        25. What you are consistent about is your brand of Socialism to solve all problems. That is consistent with your ideology. Please bring forth some new talking points, if you can, you’re wearing out all the memorized ones that you were taught at the Occu'(t)ard meetings.
          And you might want to consider a trip to the “Free-clinic” to get your meds “adjusted”. Your rants sound like someone that’s about to come unhinged !
          Or at least get an adult to help you sound more rational rather than one of your L!bby-Whack-Heros from MSNBC !

        26. You’re the one who keeps talking about socialism. I’m a capitalist. Keep fingering your self while watching the news(t)ards you brainwash yourself on. ROFLMFAO

        27. Obviously you have mental issues. Please seek professional help as soon as possible. Maybe you could get your latest “boy-friend” to help you look for someone who specializes in your type of problem. Don’t be ashamed or embarrassed to ask for help. There is plenty of support out there for you…. good luck.

        28. Omg. You’re so right. Why didn’t I see it before? Thanks for helping me. I will get better now and join you in denying basic junior high level math and science. Americans know better than scientists, even American ones!

          Ah, just kidding. Just remember, the world is heating up and doesn’t care if you refuse to believe it. One day, even you will be forced to admit, but then it’ll be too late to do much about it. Enjoy

        29. Does your babble mean that you found a suitable shrink ? ! ?
          For your family’s sake, I hope so.
          Keep selling your Globalist Carbon Tax/Wealth Redistribution to who ever will listen. You won’t get many takers in this Country.
          Scams based on hoaxes are easy to spot, so good luck.

        30. LOL! Yes, global warming is a hoax being perpetuated by all the scientists and government agencies around the world, led by NOAA and NASA and maybe the Freemasons. The whole world has conspired to falsify glacial melting, rising sea levels, rising sea and air temps, increasing ocean acidity, changes in weather patterns, earlier arrival of spring, movement of flora and fauna towards the poles, decreasing polar ice cap, etc etc. LOL!!

          Man, you are a case study in paranoia and self delusion. Most deniers say
          the warming isn’t man made, but you refuse to acknowledge that the planet is even warming at all! Priceless. You have serious trust issues, for sure. What happened to you? One too many broken hearts? Daddy ignore you? Say, you weren’t abused as a child, were you? Seriously, that would be bad.

          BTW, when have I mentioned a global carbon tax? How would that work? There’s no world government to administer it. Also BTW, taxation IS wealth redistribution. That’s the point of it: take money from people and use it to fund the government. The only question is who shoulders the burden. Right now, the US tax code is advantageous to the rich at the expense of the middle class. Sometimes the middle class receives the advantage at the expense of the wealthy. I previously brought up the tax code under Eisenhower just to illustrate this point. Obviously I confused you by pointing out that at the height of the Cold War and the anti communist fervor, a Republican president had the top tax rate at 91%. According to you, that would make Ike a communist, even though the USA was arguably at its height as an economic and capitalist power. Again, your brain doesn’t work properly, but I’m not surprised as denial is the first stage of psychosis. Stay away from sharp objects!

        31. Pseudo-intellectualism becomes you…..
          Thanks for the really entertaining dissertation, but Americans will never go for your brand of Global-Socialism in the name of Global Warming……. but keep trying.
          BTW, how’s the weather in “La-La-Land” ?

        32. How many times did it take for you to spell “pseudo-intellectualism”? Yet another phrase you don’t understand.

          I have more faith in the American people to respond to a crisis than you do. I don’t know why you insist some sort of “socialist” solution (whatever you think that means) would be preferable to a capitalist one, but again, you’re a case study in delusion and paranoia.

        33. So you actually believe that the American people will approve of your brand of Global Socialism to solve any problem ? ! ?
          Have you actually presented this idea of yours to them ? ! ?
          Did they laugh at you too just like they laugh at Al Gore ? ! ?
          Are you on some sort of serious medication ? ! ? (If not you should be….)
          LMAO !

  26. Interesting that the countries predicted to be most adversely affected by climate change are impoverished, that are very badly governed and often not subjected to the rule of law, as much as the rule of their kleptocratic rulers. Perhaps we would all be better off promoting better governance and economic development in these countries, rather than focusing all climate-related effort on simplistic and likely ineffective schemes to reduce carbon emissions at any cost.

  27. Climate Change is a FACT! However there is HAARP Weather Weapon having bases all about the world. UN, Builderburg, USA built and manned. Changing the weather. WHY? I have no idea. But this HAARP is killing people, destroying towns, causing deep freezes and horrific powerful storms. WHY? AGAIN! Is it all for oil? For Control? No one wants to talk about HAARP but Google: HAARP and see the proof.

  28. This is cow $H!T. The poorer countries are plagued by Marxist dictatorship in Africa and a large part of the Third World. Despite massive foreign aid their dictators use the money to supply their military and to fill their Swiss or Cayman Island banks accounts. If GLOBAL WARMING is really going to occur as projected from unproven computer models in 2030 or 2100, it will by definition affect all countries . To show South Africa not much affected next to Madagascar and Zambia which will be badly affected just underscores that Marxist dictatorship who have been corrupt, refused to recognize property rights and the rule of law, and have caused constant civil wars in their countries have devastated their own countries not climate change. The white rhino is not endangered in South Africa. It is now almost extinct ( 5 are left) in Norther African countries like Chad. Was that due to climate change?
    This is another piece of propaganda spewed forth by the UN IPCC and liberal GW news media. If you look at RSS satellite data we have not had any additional atmospheric warming now for 18 years. 1998 was a very hot year due to El Nino but 1934 was 1.5 degrees hotter until GISS massaged their data and made atmospheric temperatures lower before 1970 and slightly higher after 1970. 1934 temperature extreme occurred before mna made CO2 elevated . Don’t just take my word. look at the GISS atmospheric temperatures graphs released in 1998 and 2007 and see the data manipulation to create more servere global warming in the 2008 graph so GISS could claim 1998 and subsequent years were the hottest years in recorded history. What is recorded history by the way? After 1880. We know the Roman era and Medieval temperature Optimum periods were warmer than temperatures recoded in th late 20th century. There is still dispute whether this was just occurring in Europe and North America or worldwide. The UN IPCC wants to dismiss the data from greenland and Nova Scotia and from the Roman’s growing grapes in England due to it being so warm by claiming global temperatures were actually lower. This has not been proven and is pure speculation again from the UM IPCC committee.
    Pleas enotice the string of lies. They claim climate science is setlled, yet 117 different climate computer models were used in publications summarized by the UN IPCC. they were all different obviously or they would not have felt the need to alter and “tweak” so many unproven and nonvalidated computer models. not one prediction from these climate models has been accurate since 1970 when they started saying a new Ice Age would start in ten years in the 1970s. Arctic ice did not disappear in 2012 as climate scientists and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi claimed. We did not see winters in the USA without any snow fall so “our kids will never know what snow is again” as per Gore and Pelosi. Arctic ice rebounded 65% in 2013-2014. Antarctic ice is now the largest area and thickness in recored hstory. We have had a flat line and lower global temperatures than in 1998, a hot El Nino year not due to man made CO2, now for 18 years. Look at RSS satellite data graph. Why have scientists stopped talking about satelite data that did not show significant atmospheric warming yet swithced back to talking about spotty surface temperature recordings affected by their locations next to asphalt paving, glass buildings, cities that have been deforested, and exhaust sources like inner city buildings and large numbers of vehicles run in the inner cities every day? Satellite data measured 95% or more of the earth’s locations for atmospheric temperatures. It is a true global observation platform. Until 1998-2000 when Argo launched 10,000 ocean temperature buoys we hardly had more than a handful of ocean surface and deep ocean temperature recordings. The ocean covers most of the earth not land by the way. So which data is more global? Satellite data from RSS or these surface thermometers ? We don’ even have extensive ocean measurements before 1998 so where is the data ? It is nonexistent back then. By the way Argo data has not showed significant deep ocean warming that was predicted when atmospheric temperature did not continue to go up.
    Did you see the article yesterday about Greenland Ice NOT shrinking before it was almost immediately removed from Yahoo News? Nice job of immediate censorship. Scan “Greenland Ice Shrinking” on and there is the information. Did you see the article afew months ago that showed Antarctic ice is much thicker than assumed in models by climate scientists. They made a lot of claims about climate science being settled and their being a 97% consensus of climate scientsts which has been proven to be a blatant lie by the UN IPCC (they counted publications rather than polling climate scientists. A scientists who had 100 publications would have been counted as 100 scientists! A scientists who did not publish any publications, say for copyright reasons, would not have even been counted. they also used no established and defined definition of what makes a publication in favor of climate change. We all know climate changes. That is a deliberately vague term. The question is whether climate change is significant enough now and how much is due to man made CO2? There is no consensus on how much warming will occur because that number is pure unproven speculation from nonvalidated computer models that have never once predicted anything accurately. A paper’s author was counted as in favor of climate change even if his paper used someone else’s model for projected warming by 2100 and claimed IF this warming occurs THEN some tree species or animals species like glacier frogs would disappear by 2100. A purely speculative papers was counted as being in favor of climate change. An author who only thought 1% or 10% of CO2 is manmade is counted as being for climate change just like someone who claims 50% or 100% of CO2 increases to 400 ppm is due to man. What a hoax. You call the science settled? Bv!! $H!T. There is no consensus on the many diverse issues the UN IPCC claims may be due to man made CO2 . Even a 5 year old asked to poll his classmates would not use such a deliberately deceptive way to count the number of students in favor of a cookie for lunch!

  29. Interesting that the EPA websites long term climate graph shows not much warming trend at all. 2014 was a year of many record warm temp events. However there were 5 times as many record cold temp events in 2014.

    1. Well you found one of the 3 percent who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he’s been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he’s made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who’s been the wrongest, longest.

      1. allin58: Are you the last member of the 97% of Scientists think blah blah club? That myth has been debunked by the very scientists that are claimed to comprise it.

  30. The countries that ignore this scam and see this tax and enslavement scheme for what it is will be the ones that will be better off. After all, the reality is, is that’s this is all not even about the climate.

  31. WTF is wrong with people here. They don’t believe 97% of scientists, but they believe the Reich-wing media, and their mythology. What a bunch of total losers!

    1. The 97% myth has been debunked by the very scientists whose papers supposedly comprised that number. You might want to read a bit more about its heritage before declaring it to be fact.
      On a related topic, quoting population statistics is not a scientific argument but rather a political one.

      1. Debunked by whom? Fox so called News? The Right wing media? No, those scientists did not debunk their own findings because you say so.
        I have done research into this myself, 30 years ago, I analyzed ice cores back in my days in college. I noted the rise of greenhouse gasses in the time since the Industrial Revolution. Don’t tell me that I need to read a bit more. I DID THE RESEARCH! And I am telling you that you are being subjected to a hoax propagated by the right-wing corporate media!

  32. Ah, yes, The liberal environmentalists are at it again. The greatest polluters are, in fact, those African nations, India and China. Yet these liberals want the industrialized capitalistic nations to foot the new taxes. Al Gore must be really laughing all the way to the bank!

    1. Oh, please admit you are a republican. Come on, just say “Yes I’m a Republican” African nations polluting more than the US?? Must be all the cars they are driving in the jungles or all those automobile manufacturing plants in the Congo.

    2. I agree china and India are big polluters but not Africa. Been to several countries there and they are not driving around in suvs and have tons of cars. They only take what little they need from resources to live by. I hate to see them suffer more.

  33. As if the people on the African continent haven’t suffered enough already. I don’t understand how Americans can’t look at these map and not demand a new energy policy. We are a horribly selfish people.

  34. Funny, the majority of people who deny scientific facts, such as AGW. Tend to be the same people who think a Jewish zombie named Jesus killed itself, to forgive itself, to appease itself – from itself. Where Christianity can only solely believed to be true on wilful ignorance alone. So it is not surprising that a group of people who have already embraced wilfully ignorance of one situation, would also be wilfully ignorant on another.

    1. IMHO the ecosystems in Australia are among the most fragile, so who knows what they were thinking there.



  35. All countries will “survive” because there is no, none, zero, nada threat whatsoever.
    Money and power is behind this entire myth and the dumbed down masses who get their information from pseudo-scientists and talking heads wring their collective hands and fret over everything, especially the Kardashians and other inane things.

  36. I don’t care what you believe! But, the one thing the scientists are not telling you is that the surface of the Sun is getting hotter each year and in turn heating up the Earth more every year. I don’t know what the game is with this so called climate change, but some time down the road that tune will be made irrelevant by the Sun.

  37. Liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, oil companies, natural gas companies, presidents, bankers, lawyers – we are all being affected by climate change right now. Lets move away from the discussions and into an action mode and do something about it.

      1. Asking such as is what we liberals have been promoting from years. Use less fossil fuels.
        This discussion makes me very proud to call myself a liberal.

  38. On the continent Reality. The country is called Common Sense. Capital is Not Gullible.
    All I hear are a bunch of Alinskites calling anyone that questions them names and demeaning them based on arguments as solid as their arguments supporting Global [fill in the blank].
    Next week, a week, a mission to the moon to mine green cheese.

  39. Look. Why say climate change when you should say temperature increase? I am embarrassed that this crap passes as science. PS, good thing USA not affected :>

  40. Here is an analogy, picture a large room with a ton of rocks
    and water on the floor. It has about 6”
    of insulation and it’s very cold outside.
    There is a heat lamp that goes on for an hour and off for an hour. It’s taken about 1,000 cycles for the room to
    stabilize at a temperature above freezing.
    It is a little brighter for 6 cycles and a little dimmer for 6 cycles
    and when it’s off the temperature goes down enough for some of the water to
    freeze. Another inch of insulation was
    added and before the temperature will stabilize again it will take a couple of
    hundred cycles. The heater will start
    wearing down after about 100,000 cycles so that won’t be an issue.

    If you think of the
    CO2 as that extra insulation just maybe it becomes a little clearer. Even if we don’t add any more CO2 the earth
    is still going to heat up. This isn’t
    rocket science and just maybe if you look at all the dumb, stupid and complexly
    idiotic reasons given for global warming being a hoax and use the room as a
    witness test perhaps you will understand global warming a little better.

  41. YAWN. Climate change is entirely dictated by the earth’s own evolution, this has been PROVEN time and time and time again. Stop with the AGW lies already.

  42. You AGW (now climate change) hysterics are hysterical. BTW the 97% of “scientists” is made up of 97% politicians and a few bottom of the barrel “scientists” who need the gummint funds because they could never hold a real job.

  43. Yes climate change is here because it always has been. The new difference is that you have a bunch of elites who have figured out a way to tax us all on a freaking gas that naturally forms in the atmosphere. Seems to be some fairly intelligent sounding people on here, except for the name calling liberals, does it not scare the hell out of you that the UN is involved in this. Obama has already ponied up for 10 billion and they scoffed at that paltry sum. They were expecting 100 billion for starts with a NON PROSECUTION CLAUSE once they start distributing our money to the third world. Anyone care to enlighten us on the UN intentions or plans? You can scream all you want to about this being a settled science because it is not. There is probably something going on with mother earth but their should be an equal response for what scientific FACT based data that exist if there is anything other than computer models. A knee jerk reaction is just that, will not help nothing. Well it probably would make many millionaires into billionaires. It is a money grab plain and simple. Follow the money and their you will find the truth.

    1. If you do an actual count on any of these “climate change” posts/comment boards, you’ll see that, far more often, it’s the conservatives and republicans and deniers who are doing the name calling. Since I belong to neither party, it appears that you are all just fiddling while Rome burns. You said it yourself. Follow the money and you will find the truth.

  44. Hey Jon – Where are all the hurricanes that were coming, according to Algore? Hope you have a high office in NY, because Algore said it would be under water by 2015 or so.

  45. Which Countries survive? You mean all of them right? Because “Catastrophic” Global Warming is a farce meant to line the pockets of a few.

    1. Exactly whose pockets are being lined? No one has asked me/charged me a dime based on climate change. Yet, the politicians and fossil fuel companies are taking money from your pocket and mine every single day. You’re voting against your own best interests and you don’t even realize it.

  46. My favorite part if this article is the “fact” that the US will be mostly saved from this catastrophe. We are meant to have our poor heart strings tugged at the thought of all the poor people in Africa and along the indian ocean who will suffer because of our careless releases of CO2. I’m so sad and upset. What can I do, I surely must euthanize my pet because he toots all of the time and god knows animal farts are a big contributor of CO2 emissions.

  47. I’m in my 2nd week of Globewarmers school. Its darn tough acting as
    stupid as they want us to be. Next week they teach how to lie, cover up
    our lies and lie some more. We have to do this with a look as if we are
    edumacted and smart. The week after that they teach us how to fold our
    tin-foil hats and when were done we get our graduation pictures taken
    wearing them.

    They said be careful after they dumb-down us, we may start walking into
    glass doors, but that’s not the worst part….they say we will back up
    and walk right back into it……..repeatedly.

  48. The most likely countries to survive climate change are the countries that receive the redistribution of the wealth that’s left over after the U.N. bureaucrats finish stealing as much as they can get away with before the SCAM blows up in the faces of the Chicken Little liberal-progressives.

  49. The climate has been changing in Earth since it started spinning. But on a more serious note, which way is the climate changing this week? These guys have been telling us that it is Global Warming, but then when the real truth came out that the temps have not gotten any warmer in over 11 years, they started saying it will get cooler. Thus the whole Climate change B.S. came about.

    The fact that we are in an elliptical rotation around the Sun means that there will be cooling and warming trends. Right now, the Earth is moving away from the Sun. Add to that the fact that the Sun has slowed down with it’s flares a little, thus putting us in a cooling cycle.

    Us article us total garbage. Many of those countries are in poverty because their government keeps them down. The U.S. gives them billions collectively for food and education, but their leaders keep the money for themselves.

    And there is no reason for us to build some huge sea wall because the sea levels are not rising. And don’t tell me there us less coast line because of it. That is from erosion, which again has been happening since water was formed on this planet and dirt started floating around on air streams.

    Another hole in this article is where they talk about huge storms caused by C.C. when in fact, storm activity, especially hurricains in the Gulf and Atlantic regions has been quite mild in recent years.

    As far as the fronts in southern California. It Is a desert you know. The only reason there is as much greenery is because the engineers diverted water and made it green.

  50. Those of you who are in denial are fools who probably don’t leave your towns and don’t travel……it is happening right before our eyes. I am no fan of either political party but would never trust trust republicans to protect our planet…think about the future generations and not just the present.

  51. Only the scientist who have the instruments to measure and [can] interpret the changes–know the thruth…

  52. 97% of all Marxists agree that AGW is real. You can’t believe their all wrong. Get a clue people. We must put our future in their hands.


      It mentioned OISM!

      I laugh at that joke every time, after all these years!!!!!!!!!!!!




  53. This is hysteria pilled upon lies, fraud, and political hucksterism. When you pay scientists to find a predetermined conclusion and fire them if they don’t, you have thrown the scientific method out the window and replaced it with a hoax. Do not trust anyone preaching the Orwellian Climate Change religion. These are brain dead parrots who cannot think and reason for themselves. They are zombie bandwagon riders, not great leaders. There is no legitimate scientific evidence to suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels control Earth temperatures, not now and not in the past. The ice core records prove it. Google *Moderating Climate Change Hysteria* for details and links to resources.

    1. If you’re finished with your witty insults, I can offer you irrefutable evidence we are changing the climate with this simple exercise. Go to any major city and look at the cloud of smog hanging over it. Now walk out into a national park. Do you see the same type of cloud? No? Maybe because there aren’t a million people in that forest driving huge SUV’s! Just a guess though…..

  54. It’s amazing how many skeptics flock to blogs/posts like this and throw out refuted, debunked, national enquirer level talking points. I guess it’s the last ditch, desperate effort to stop a global movement that will not be stopped, nor should it. Keep up the skeptic talk guys, wish I could say current/future generations would be proud of you.

  55. Any of you who still don’t think we are changing the climate, I give you this simple exercise. Go to any major city and look at the cloud of smog hanging over it. Now walk out into a national park. Do you see the same type of cloud?

Comments are closed.