This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Melting Ice And Freezing Fossil Fuels Ambitions

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by James Stafford via,

It’s not mere anecdotal evidence: Visibly melting sea ice is the best evidence that the planet is warming. So prospecting for oil in the Arctic is a tricky endeavor that must be undertaken slowly and with extreme caution, argues Fen Montaigne, senior editor of Yale Environment 360, author of “Fraser’s Penguins: A Journey to the Future in Antarctica” and other books, and contributor to National Geographic, The New Yorker and Smithsonian magazines.

So just how hot is it going to get? Hotter than we can handle if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, Montaigne tells us in an exclusive interview in which we discuss:

•    Why prospectors should proceed with extreme caution in the Arctic
•    Just how hot it’s going to get with global warming
•    Why science is being side-lined in the climate change debate
•    Why oil companies will have to keep their assets in the ground
•    Why we need to rethink agricultural subsidies
•    What we can expect next from the volatile EV market
•    What really concerns environmentalists about natural gas
•    The great fossil fuels paradox
•    Why natural gas may not only be a bridge to the future, but the future itself
•    Why the US government has no business mandating ethanol

Interview by James Stafford of We’ll start with the Arctic Sea because so much of your work has focused on this area. Right now, the talk here is of vast opportunities, and vast environmental concern. How can we balance these two, and what is at stake?

Fen Montaigne: I am in the go-slow camp when it comes to developing the Arctic, whether it be the region’s fossil fuel riches, its minerals, or its fisheries. I think the problems that Shell has experienced in its early attempts to drill off Alaska’s coast bolster the case for a cautious approach. Cleaning up an oil spill in that environment would be far, far more difficult than in the Gulf of Mexico, and a spill’s effects would be more severe and long lasting in a cold-water environment than in warm waters.

The Arctic nations — as well as other interested countries, such as China — need to carefully survey and assess the resources of the Arctic basin and draft a conservative plan for their exploitation. That may include a ban on drilling for oil and gas in large sections of the Arctic. How can you make the case for global warming using the decline in Arctic Sea ice, and how profound will the consequences be?

Fen Montaigne: No better evidence of the warming of the earth in the last century — and particularly in the last 30-40 years — exists than the melting of the cryosphere, or ice zones. More than 90% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat, and the disappearance of Arctic sea ice is nothing short of stunning.

I have seen this melting with my own eyes, having spent 5 months researching a book on the Antarctic Peninsula, where sea ice and glaciers are retreating rapidly. Earlier this year, I visited a glacier in Switzerland that has retreated by a half-mile since I last saw it 20 years ago; this is not mere anecdotal evidence, as nearly all the glaciers in the Alps, Andes, etc., are in rapid retreat.

The world is warming. The overwhelming evidence is that it’s caused by human activities. The only question is how hot things are going to get. If we continue doing as little as we are doing now to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, it is entirely possible that the world might be 5 to 10 degrees F warmer in a century or two, which is not a world I’d like my children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren to be living in. More broadly on the climate change scene, Yale Environment 360 recently published an article discussing the implications of a climate activist movement seeking to persuade universities, cities and other groups to sell off their investments in fossil fuel companies. What’s the long-term logic behind this movement and what will the impact be?

Fen Montaigne: I won’t attempt to predict the impact of the divestment movement. But to me one thing is clear: If in the next 100 years the world’s oil, gas and coal companies develop all the fossil fuel assets that they’re now sitting on, the world is going to be a very unpleasant place in which to live, barring some technological miracle that enables us to suck vast amounts of CO2 out of the air. It’s this realization that is driving the divestment movement and the fight to slow climate change.

Believe me, as a 60-year-old American, living in the most affluent country in the most affluent period in history, I appreciate and value what fossil fuels have done for civilization. I know we’re not going to be able to transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy overnight. But if you keep approving tar sands projects, or massive pipelines, or drilling in the Arctic, when does it stop? When does this movement to a renewable energy economy begin? If I were running a fossil fuel company, I’d be uneasy about the concept of so-called “stranded assets,” because at some point — when seas begin to rise significantly, when weather is sufficiently wild and destabilized, and when things are just too damn hot — people, business owners, and governments are going to say it’s time to stop burning fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow. I think that as global warming intensifies, it’s likely that a significant portion of the assets of fossil fuel companies are going to have to remain in the ground. As the climate debate increasingly polarizes the American public, science seems to be getting in the way of agendas on both sides. Your magazine recently noted how even environmentalists are ignoring science when it stands in the way of furthering their agendas. Are we entering a period in which scientific facts will be completely sidelined as climate change becomes the strict purview of politics?

Fen Montaigne: It’s indeed unfortunate that climate change has become so intensely politicized in the US and that both sides resort to twisting the facts and using super-heated rhetoric.

From my perspective, however, I think there is a lot more distortion of science on the climate change denier side. Still, when global warming activists ring alarm bells every time there is a heat wave or a period of intense storms, I think that’s a mistake. What happens if we have an unusually cold spring in the eastern US or Europe, like the current one? Does that mean global warming is a hoax? Of course not. Short-term ups and downs in the weather should not be the cause for either side to crow or cry wolf.

I also think it’s unwise when global warming activists warn that it’s “game over” for the climate if something like Keystone XL is approved. OK. So what happens if Keystone is approved? If that means it’s “game over,” then why should any of us worry about reducing CO2 emissions?

I do believe that in the US, we’ll soon be moving into a period where there is less debate about the science of climate change, for the simple reason that it’s going to become increasingly clear that human-caused climate change is affecting the world, from our backyards to the poles. Of course, the debate over whether global warming is real scarcely exists in Europe, which has far less of the contrarian, anti-science streak that exists in the US. There is a significant amount of resistance to the Ethanol mandate, not only because of the connection to food crops with corn-based ethanol. Do you think America is ready for this mandate?

Fen Montaigne: I think that the US’s byzantine system of agricultural subsidies is a mess and needs to be seriously reformed. And I don’t think the US government ought to be in the business of mandating ethanol production. What can we expect from the electric vehicle market in the next 2-3 years? Why have they experienced so many ups and downs? Where has it gone wrong?

Fen Montaigne: I am no expert on electric vehicles, but I am confident that reasonably priced EVs and hybrids will become increasingly common, especially as batteries improve and charging stations become more widespread.

As has been widely noted, the Obama administration’s mandating of far-better fuel economy standards was probably the most important environmental achievement of Obama’s first term. I think that the federal government, working closely with the private sector, also has to become far more involved in stimulating the transition to a renewable energy economy.

Ultimately, it’s innovation and advancement in science, engineering, and the private sector that are going to help solve this climate problem, but a transition as massive and revolutionary as the one away from fossil fuels cannot be done without government involvement. What do you think of T. Boone Pickens’ idea to convert US trucking fleets to natural gas? Is this viable over the long term?

Fen Montaigne: I think using natural gas as a “bridge to the future,” including powering more trucks with natural gas, is a good idea. But many environmentalists are right to be concerned that natural gas is looking less like a bridge to the future, than the future itself. As I said earlier, societies have to take major steps to wean themselves off fossil fuels, and few countries are doing that now, with notable exceptions such as Denmark. Is it possible for the fossil fuels and alternative energy industries to work together to create a viable “transition” period for a sustainable future?

Fen Montaigne: Of course it’s possible. The challenge is that it’s just so easy to keep using fossil fuels, as they are such a compact, relatively inexpensive, and effective source of energy. The profits are enormous, far greater, at this point, than in the renewable energy industry. This is why it is so hard to disrupt the status quo, but that’s what has to happen. What we’re looking at is one of the great paradoxes of history — the very sources of energy that have enabled us to achieve such an advanced civilization and to bring us so many comforts and conveniences are also the sources that threaten to dangerously destabilize the climate that has fostered the growth of human civilization over the past 12,000 years. Are there any significant ways in which the environmental movement has metamorphosed in recent years due to the shale revolution, the natural gas boom, and other energy-related developments??

Fen Montaigne: Leading environmental thinkers such as Bill McKibben have pointed out that the environmental movement used to take heart in the prospect of peak-oil or peak-coal. I think the shale gas and shale oil boom of recent years, as well as the discovery of new oil and gas fields, have demonstrated that fossil fuel use is not going to decline in the next century because oil and gas fields or coal mines are tapped out. That changes environmental strategy, and is one of the reasons that McKibben’s and other groups are now targeting specific projects like Keystone XL.

And I am sympathetic to one of their central arguments: At some point, you’ve got to stop developing new oil and gas reserves and begin seriously developing alternative sources of energy. Otherwise, it’s going to get awfully hot, and rising seas are going to pose a major threat to cities from Shanghai to Miami.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:36 | 3697557 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Nuke the whales!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:40 | 3697566 Pancho Villa
Pancho Villa's picture

I think the Japanese already did that.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:48 | 3697596 Slewburger
Slewburger's picture

"They say fuck the sun.... you say, fuck the sun."

Adam Sandler

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:16 | 3697690 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

How much ice would we need to melt in order to put Washington DC under water?

We can't even run our economy beyond the next quarter and we think we can somehow "manage" global warming that will take generations to affect things (even if it's real)?  Give me a fucking break.  We are absolutely incapable as a species of tackling problems on a multi-generational scale.  The way we manage our benfits & entitlement programs alone should be proof enough we just run shit till it breaks and then we figure out what to do after that.

I'll also point out our track record at "managing" the environment and ecosystems in general is not good.  Go research some of the many programs that were used to "manage" the ecosystems in our national parks.  Every one causing as many problems as it created.  And those are only small areas of the globe.  Now we have "scientists" who believe they can manage the entire globe?  The hubris and lack of humility on this subject is mind-numbing.


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:24 | 3697728 MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

I copied this, IIRC, from another poster on this site. Funny enough to warrant a repeat:

Future historians will write of an almost laughable (if it weren’t so serious) chapter in American history where the nation was forced into financial ruin by unscrupulous and dispicable politicians using stories of a giant smog monster that could only be stopped by paying off his friends in the green energy money laundering racket.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:36 | 3697772 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

I propose a global tax

people all over the world would pay the tax to a central authority somewhere whose task is to save The Climate

the idea is that you would pay tax when you do Harmful Things to The Climate

this should make a big difference in saving The Climate, because the tax would make people do less of the Harmful Things

also, the central authority would use the funds it collected to do Good Things for The Climate

it is important that Everybody Share the Load so that we can Work Together for a Better Future


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:47 | 3697793 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

Did this story actually make it on ZH?  

Just because all the ice is melting around the world means nothing.  The whole thing is engineered by Al Gore to sell DVD's.  The fact that 12 out of the last 15 years have been the hottest in history is coincidence.  Stupid libtards and their science.


/sarc off

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:04 | 3697873 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

They take photos during the warmer months when the ice melts, but don't take photos in the colder months when the ice is back. Global warming is b.s. The earth has been in a cooling cycle in recent years. Your 'fact' about the 'hottest in history' is horse crap.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:59 | 3698002 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

That is actually sourced from computer modelling.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:40 | 3698189 greyghost
greyghost's picture

they lost me when all the e-mails were released about lies to continue to keep getting funding for their scam. i was taught that plants need co2 to grow and survive. just how low will these nimrods take the co2 levels......until everything turns to lifeless sand? stupid is as stupid does

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:54 | 3698210 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

just how low will these nimrods take the co2 levels......until everything turns to lifeless sand? 

Gawd, how do folks make it past age 10 and still think things like this?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:59 | 3698218 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

I'll tell everyone a little secret...  Shhhhh....

Its currently 24 hours sunlight above the arctic circle.  24 hours a day.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:51 | 3699377 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And the ice is melting very fast...

Here are the latest satillite data:

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:14 | 3700967 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

oh cripes, here's the resident "Phd" again telling us little morons the data is what we say it is!  have fun extrapolating the antarctic peninsula data all over the entire continent and telling us its kosher!


you're no different than the slops that manipulate financial data.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:11 | 3698239 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Amerika is fool believe in "Global Warming". Russia scientist is discover East Anglia ICU is cherry pick and toss 50% of Russia territorial climate data because is not "fit model". AGW is not science, is pure oil of snake political machination.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:15 | 3698241 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Boris is strong like bull, smart like tractor but smell like pig...

Boris is full of horse shit and has active imagination...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:51 | 3698369 MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

Boris is a better man than you will ever be. And our resident class clown. You would be wise to show him the respect that he deserves.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:28 | 3699286 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You said it, Boris is indeed a clown... with a very active imagination...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:16 | 3700974 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

well hey, at least he doesnt go around telling us he has a phd to gain credibility with his otherwise incredulous stories of "its true...honest!"

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:27 | 3701017 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Boris is not to have PHD, but know this, in Minsk, step out back and make vodka icicle before piss hit ground.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:42 | 3701041 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Dear Mr. Flakmeister,

Boris 63+ is beat your 71-, like Putin beat crap out of Obama on any day.

Please is have pleasant day!

Warmest sincerity,


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:05 | 3698490 spanish inquisition
spanish inquisition's picture

Boris, please have your scientist friends look into my theory that I have posted before...

Could it be possible, the earth warming and cooling, has something to do with the giant fucking furnace we circle?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:49 | 3698527 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

It could be that we are still coming out of an ice age, and there is evidence that the climate change rapidly in the past.

A couple things bother me about global warming/climate change/...

1. They lost me at carbon credits. - seriously, that just a scam, not a solution

2. Plants LOVE C02.  They love it. Seriously - LOVE IT.  There is nothing wrong with more c02 in the atmostphere.

3. Finally, Water Vapor is a MUCH WORSE greenhouse gas than C02.  Water Vapor.  Like humidty, ya know?

So basicaly, it's fear designed to make a few phuckers rich by selling carbon credits. (Not you)  Global warming will probably do more good than harm.

What we should fear is over 1 mile of ice sitting on top of us and the crushing that happens with all that ice.  There is ACTUAL evidence that this WILL happen again in another 30 to 50 thousand years.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:23 | 3698621 Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Water vapor, finally! It is nearly 100 times as prevalent as CO2! It can vary from 0.0% over deserts to 4% over oceans. CO2 has gone from 0.036% to 0.039% over 100 years and somehow, despite the 10,000 other variables that impact global climates THIS ONE has been conclusively demonstrated to have a CAUSAL link!



Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:20 | 3699488 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As a matter of fact it has...

The list of papers at the bottom should help you sort out your confusion...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 13:23 | 3699763 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Not sure why I read your misguided crap, but that just shows come correlation for the last 40 years.  Which is a very small data set when you consider the scale of climate change.  even if you take it back 2000 years, it's a blip.  Where are the facts?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:31 | 3701034 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Mr. Flakmeister,

Your Phlebotomist is call with message of urgency nature... your blood work is come back positive - you are full of sh¡t.



Fri, 06/28/2013 - 00:10 | 3702390 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Last I read is that water vapor has 30x the heat holding capacity of carbon dioxide.

I also note that in my last Obama mailing (Yes, I got on the list) that they use the term "carbon pollution". So carbon dioxide is now being called carbon pollution which is a way to change the language, emotion and political dialogue. Of course that makes all of us polluters as we all give off CO2, as well.

This is why you leftist bullshit artists cause everyone else to entrench against you. Even if you are right the lefty-statists make it pollitical and pollute the conversation with BS.

Do you know what the real endgame of the enviro-leftists is...besides power, that is?


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:26 | 3698626 TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

You said it like it is, Pan.  Flakmeister and others will never get it.  Ice melts every summer.  The Sun is a bigger influence than man can ever be.  GW enthusiasts have not done one single scientific experiment to back up their claims.  They rely on false statistical data, false assumptions and bogus computer simulations.  BTW I'm not worried about the next ice age either.  Us humans will kill each other off before that happens.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 09:06 | 3698666 ATM
ATM's picture

The Global Sea Ice bullshit is a manufactured lie. It cherry picks the start point for all measurements - 1979.

The 1970's, as we who are old enough to remember, were cold - DAMN cold. So fucking cold that we were told a next ice age was coming. Guess what? When's it's colder there tends to be this shit called ICE.

The extent of sea ice in the artic is not unusual in historical terms. That is a flat out fucking fact. Anyone who tries to use the fearmongering that artic ice is on a straight line decline to none and it will devastate the world is a fucking tool. And they are a tool of those who are trying to get us to relinquish power to those that will "save us from ourselves". 




Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:19 | 3698952 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your are in denial and full of shit: Your ice plot is  4 years out of date

Here is data going back to 1870

Here is a recent published paper that looks back 1450 years

The loss of ice is unprecedented...


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:37 | 3699566 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

You're saying that there has never been less sea ice than we have today?  1450 years is a very short time in the scales you're talking about.  There was an ice age, and we're coming out of it.  Of course there is less sea ice today than in the past.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:54 | 3699652 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The Interglacial maximum occured ~8000 years ago, we were then cooling until we started burning FF as fast as we could.

Do you see the difference between natural and anthropogenic variation? It is the rate of change that is the killer.


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 13:09 | 3699715 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Why should I accept that projection as fact?  You don't seriously expect that rate of change to continue do you?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 14:10 | 3699885 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why wouldnt it given that we have only increased our emission of GHG and that the world has still not reaced equilibrium with what is already up there...

And we have a 40 year prediction that has been shown to work...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:16 | 3700972 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Because the climate models don't have all the variables and use large fudge factors instead... somethign you already know.  They cannot model the climate.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:44 | 3701050 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Bell's Theorem - hidden local variable is create uncertainty. Apply to quantum mechanic, can apply to climatology.

Boris is see this on lecture hall blackboard while sweeping (Russian college student is slob).

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:18 | 3700982 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

ROFL yes, the stock market will also rise linearly to 500,000!!!

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 09:18 | 3698732 Greshams Law
Greshams Law's picture

There is much truth in your words.

Basically, "Thank God for Global Warming". We'd all be dead without it.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:58 | 3699417 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, and you would be shocked to know how little it took to melt that ice compared to the long term effect of what we put in the atmosphere....

PS we would not be dead, H. Sapiens has ridden out many Ice Age cycles...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:41 | 3699582 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

PS we're not going to die from climate change.  In fact, there will be much more food available, because plants will grow better.  And fuck your spreadsheet math computer models.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:57 | 3699669 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So wrong as to be beneath reply..

Do you think that people haven't been researching that???

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 13:11 | 3699727 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Why is it that c02 effects on plants are complex and difficult, yet the climate itself is so well understood? Hmm, I know - because one ascertian agrees with your world view and the other doesn't.

Fri, 06/28/2013 - 00:27 | 3702419 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I have read some of that stuff and the cotton C3 made me laugh. They said growth or the necessary enzyme could be impaired as low as 89.6F. I am from the south where cotton has been king. 89.6F is a cold day in the summer.

Here is the other half of the conversation that bugs me. Let's assume that the Left is generally right and we have a manmade heat problem caused mostly by excess carbon. What exactly is the solution? Higher taxes is not a solution. The Left proposes higher taxes for everything every day of the week. In fact we have so much social debt now and on the horizon, global warming will have no resources available.  However, is the right thing to do to lower carbon emissions? Exactly how much would make a difference and what would that require across the world? What temperature are we aiming at? Are there alternatives? It gets really vague except for the fact that taxes will be even higher, government will be more powerful, you (not the elites who run it) will give up most everything and there will be no requirement that these ideas actually work.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:35 | 3698533 HulkHogan
HulkHogan's picture

Thanks JC. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding Climate Change. It is possible to understand that it is real and, at the same time, hate Al Gore.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:10 | 3698026 erg
erg's picture

Didn't Michael Mann of the IPCC admit recently that 'yeah, it's cooling.'

I'll even go as far to admit that the planet does seem to be warming in general but it seems to be gigantic folly to be on the side of BMP on anything. Didn't he buy another mansion somewhere within 15' of the waterfront in the last half decade.

As always, follow the command and control, and of course the money.

As far as anyone who ever gave a tinkers fuck about things that are green - I'd me more pissed about how something wholesome could be completely co-opted. Again, like everything else that has grass-roots in anything useful. Excuse the pun.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:18 | 3698048 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Please do not simply make shit up. It is very bad form...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:27 | 3698167 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

If I were a scientist and people consistently threw money at me to come to a desired conclusion and that money would dry up if I didn't continue to provide evidence which supported this conclusion (a conclusion which would also be supported by my similarly-compensated brethren and irrefutable by the layperson), guess what I would do.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:28 | 3698174 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You may find this to be of interest:

A driver of climate science was understanding the Ice Ages, how and why. They learned a lot more a long the way. Science is not applied R+D, you collect data and then figure out what the data is telling you....

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:45 | 3698198 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

You may find this interesting.  Didn't you say something about googling something not being that difficult?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:54 | 3698211 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Skeptical science only deals in Peer Reviewed scientific papers,.,,

No other non-professional site is as well vetted and beyond scientific reproach despite what a three year old link might suggest...

If you want to claim AGW is a hoax or conspiracy, then this paper was written about you:

followed up by:

Do you really want to telegraph that you are whackadoo? 


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:01 | 3698221 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

You actually went here with your link...

We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy

theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon

landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scienti c

ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets.

...and then called ME a whackadoo.  My sides hurt from laughing.  I think we're done here.  

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:06 | 3698234 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The joke was on you buddy... Too bad you missed it...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 03:05 | 3698289 i2choose
i2choose's picture

Real science, there is nothing unusual about this warming period, CO2 is a plant food and has a marginal affect on temperature. For AGW, follow the money. Unfortunatly it's a religion now.!

If you can't be bothered with all the science part in the second link, watch the conclusions from about 54 minutes in.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 03:17 | 3698299 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It is warmer now globally than it has been since the advent of agriculture. And we havent finished warming up from the C02 already in the atmosphere, let alone what in the pipeline...

Your pdf don't work, at least for me...

Remind us of when C02 levels were this high?  Did the genus Homus exist?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:36 | 3698535 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Do you not believe in ice ages? What happens between ice ages? Planet warms and glaciers melt.  How stupid are you kid?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:23 | 3698968 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Of course I know about the Ice Ages and the Milankovitch cycles that drove them. Care to tell us what the differences are betwen the changes in radiative forces from thost cycles and the effect of exta 600 or so gigatons of C02 in the atmosphere?

So just how ignorant are you? Very much it would appear...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:43 | 3699591 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Radiative forces from the sun that warm the upper atmostphere and make it look like the Globals are Warming?  Do you really know what the result is or are you speculating?  We need proof man, not just wild as computer model speculation with huge fudge factors.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:49 | 3699621 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I can lead you to water but I cannot make you drink:

and the Ice Ages explained

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 13:12 | 3699732 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

That is speculative.  Deal with facts.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:39 | 3698543 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Meat Hammer,

Flak's god is state sponsored science. You're essentially arguing against his religion. He's declared his pope to be infallible. There is no use to argue the point with him. The anger he responds with is from his deep shame most likely over some data that he published that was a lie.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:00 | 3698878 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

Very true.  It was a little childish of me to engage in a cyber-riot, but his arrogant, smug, condescending nature, combined with his inabilty to just have a dialectic about this and other topics about which I've seen him spout off on ZH just made me want to fuck with him.... and I was bored. 

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:26 | 3698981 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As a rule, I limit myself to fact based discussions...

The reason you think could not enter a discussion was that you brought a pocket knife to a fire fight.. i..e you are oblilivious to the facts...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:34 | 3699014 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

Exhibit A

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:45 | 3699299 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you provide some verifiable science facts to support your position on a scientific matter?

Didn't think so...

PS You started things by denigrating the integrity of scientists.. just for the record...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:51 | 3698276 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

So you're not above character assassination, implied ad hominem, tu quoque, and last but not least equating peer-review with infallibility.

My it's almost like you have an agenda, which you feel no need to actually prove, but merely to promote.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 03:06 | 3698291 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Peer review is not infalliable, however, when hundreds of independent papers are involved you get things correct...

Read the first paper I linked, or at least the abstract. I paraphrase, people who deny AGW tend to have support various whackadoo conspiracy theories. THe second paper looked at the conspiracy ideation arising from the denier-blogosphere as a outcome of the first study. The whackadoos created conspiracy theories recurvsively. Hilarious, especially when you learn of the details...

My only agenda is to have the discussion of AGW at the Hedge based on facts and not psuedo-science bullshit. And I will call out the bullshit.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:39 | 3698542 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Have you ever heard of a guy named Semmelweis? They said he was crazy, they locked him up, they killed thousands of mothers and babys.  Peer Review protects the herd in a lot of cases.  You're a sheep.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:33 | 3698638 TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

Flak, are you calling yourself bullshit?  that's what it sounds like.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:18 | 3699237 ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

Would that be like hundreds of economists all agreeing on the health and direction of the economy?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:32 | 3699303 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hardly... you are very confused about the difference between real science and applied ideology...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:09 | 3698500 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Ad hominems are perfectly appropriate when dealing with brain dead morons who couldn't come up with a valid counter argument if their lives depended on it yet insist they know better than the scientific consensus. 

Apparently the best they can come up with is (without of course any supporting evidence):

- scientists are lying about agw to enrich themselves

- CO2 at 400ppm is healthy, in fact it's probably too low (gawd painfully stupid..)

- current shifts of the climate are not out of the ordinary 

It's best to just call a spade a spade - these folks are dumbasses.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:43 | 3698547 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Computer Climate models are nothing more than an advanced form of spreadsheet modeling - you know the result you want and fudge the numbers until you reach it.  Freeman Dyson called bullshit on it several times.  There is no climate change science without the 'models', (consider they can't tell what the weather will be like in 10 days and you believe they can model climate? Seriously?) except obseved warming and cooling, and it's been much warmer and much much much cooler in the past.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:32 | 3699002 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Freeman Dyson is wrong in this instance and so are you...

If any climate can be created in model, why don't the deniers present a valid model that shows cooling and reproduces the observed data for the past 100 years?? Hint: they can't and have given up becuase they *know* they can't...

Clearly you don't understand what models really are and how they are used and what goes into them...

Finally, only a liar or a fool conflates climate with weather...


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 13:16 | 3699742 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

100 years is far to short of a time to think you've captured every variable, or even all of the big ones.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 13:55 | 3699908 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Go ahead and provide real evidence of that...

In other words, quit making shit up...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 17:19 | 3700986 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

In other words, it's okay for the climatologists to make up facts and include fudge factors in their predictions, but it isn't okay for me to point out there are a ton of variables involved, and most are unknown?  Whatever dude, science is good at modeling well understood systems - climate and weather, not so much.  It bothers me that you would consider climatology a 'hard' science given your background in physics.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 03:41 | 3698317 Roger Knights
Roger Knights's picture

Here’s a refutation of the two "conspiracy"-mentality papers by Ludicrous Lewandowsky that were linked to above:

Tuesday 18 June 2013  by Ben Pile 

The pathologising of climate scepticism 

ESSAY: The shoddy science of sceptic-bashing LOG12 [Lewandowsky et al.] attempts to turn criticism into a psychological illness.

"well vetted and beyond scientific reproach"? Here’s a similarly devastating analysis of the gross defects in a recent paper by Skeptical Science’s founder, John Cook, that inaccurately supported the supposed 97% consensus:


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:15 | 3698348 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If what you say is correct, then it should be no issue to have the work  you cite published in journal of similar quality and content...

I wonder why that isn;t the case. Can you figure it out?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:56 | 3698372 Acet
Acet's picture

I'm pretty sure the conspiracy theory experts think that peer-reviewed journals are all a conspiracy. In fact, they probably think all scientists are in it.

Looking back at my time studying Physics at university, the possibility that most of my colleagues would be able to conspire their way out of a paper cup is just hilarious.


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:07 | 3698495 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 If what you say is correct, then it should be no issue to have the work  you cite published in journal of similar quality and content...

I wonder why that isn;t the case. Can you figure it out?

Would it be the same reason The FT are infinitely more likely to print stuff written by Keynesians, than Misesians?

You people lost all credibility when your models failed to predict the current 15 year hiatus in warming.

Temperatures have been increasing throughout this holocene... and from before we started burning fossil fuels. The latter may well have contributed to the increase, but it's absolutely clear climate 'science' is still too underdeveloped to determine how much with any degree of accuracy.

Should we keep an eye on climate? Yes, definitely. Should we run around screaming the sky is falling and shoving money at the likes of Morgan Stanley to set up 'Carbon Trading' exchanges? Well, you can, if you like, but please don't force the rest of us to contribute through BigBrother's protection money racket.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:40 | 3699043 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, that is not how science works, for example the mechanism of C02 warming was hashed out in the 1950s...

Here is the temperature data going back ~10,000 years, we we cooling (as expected) until FF use ramped up..

Stop making shit up... It is easy to demonstrate you are lying or simply ignorant...

Also learn what a cherry pick is, when you account for the massive El Nino in 1998 there is no evidence of a hiatus. And the OHC is still rising:

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:21 | 3699248 BigJim
BigJim's picture

LOL, I'M cherry picking? The last 10,000 years? You know perfectly well temperatures have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age which was well before we started chewing through Fossil Fuels.

And I see the graph you supplied very helpfully shows us what the temperature 'will be'... in 2100... no doubt as predicted by the same geniuses who failed to see the current hiatus.

 Also learn what a cherry pick is, when you account for the massive El Nino in 1998 there is no evidence of a hiatus

I see - so none of the models foresaw the effect of the (presumably unpredicted) massive 1998 El Nino? Wow, they're even shonkier than their widely divergent predictions suggest! Let's recap: if we ignore the fact temperatures haven't increased in the last 15 years, there's been no 15 year hiatus in temperature increases? Is that right? Have you considered a career in politics?

And you provide a link to a graph showing surface temperatures (many of which have no doubt been 'corrected' before being incorporated by their 'impartial' AGW peddlers), and then start talking about OHC?

You're a charlatan. But I imagine you have quite a nice life doing what you do, so you're pretty much on par with all the other Establishment shills bombarding us with bullshit everyday.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:41 | 3699336 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I suggest you read Marcot(2013) and Shakun (2012) to set your understanding of the Holocene straight. Here it is again:

As for the role of ENSO

Your arguement is that the data is fudged, should be real easy for any competent person to demonstrate that. Why has that not happened?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:27 | 3699521 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Of course the temperature has been warming since the commencement of the holocene - the holocene started with the retreat of glaciation... due to... warming.

As for the laughable 'corrections' applied to the temperature record, have a nose around, and For example:

Ah, but let me guess... these guys aren't 'competent persons', right? Cuz they don't agree the sky is falling.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 13:39 | 3699827 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hee, Hee, is this the same work that Anthony triumphantly claimed to debunk AGW and then had to furious back pedal when his fellow denier McIntyre wisely walked away from???

No, there would not be seen as competant scientists. I t may be that some deniers could be legitimate scientists, but they choose to eschew the methods of science to reach to a predetermined conclusion... 

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:09 | 3698594 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I wouldn't want to waste all that time and energy getting a climatology degree only to find out that climatology is based on bullshit computer modeling, especially when I would have $250,000 in student loans to repay.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:43 | 3699345 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, in your case it would be a waste of money as you are unlikely to ever grasp the basics...

PS There were no models used to extract the Vostok Ice core data going back 800,000 years....

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 12:47 | 3699610 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

What's your point again? The earth is warming and cooling over a period of 10's of thousands of years, and now it is warming, and you think that's bad and have your undies in a bunch about it.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:48 | 3698202 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

If I were a scientist and people consistently threw money at me to come to a desired conclusion and that money would dry up if I didn't continue to provide evidence which supported this conclusion (a conclusion which would also be supported by my similarly-compensated brethren and irrefutable by the layperson), guess what I would do.


Yep that's right, some of the most highly technically trained people in the world doing demanding research compensated at half the rate they'd get elsewhere... they're in it for the money!

If only you weren't a moron Meat Hammer, you too could get on that gravy train!


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:54 | 3698209 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

They're getting paid half the money to engage in "demanding research" to prove a hoax and I'M the moron???

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:58 | 3698216 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, they all have skills that rewarded much more highly from a monetary perspective in private industry... Moron....

You have no idea how smart and disciplined scientists are....

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:05 | 3698229 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

Ahhh...that was fun.

Ok, off to something more interesting now. 

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 05:55 | 3698410 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Here's something I learned from devoted scientific study...


Flakmeister... They're not 'boooooing' you, they're yelling "Flakmeister, Flakmeister!"...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 09:27 | 3698762 Lewshine
Lewshine's picture

@ Flakemeister: "You have no idea how smart and disciplined scientists are...."

Yeah, in general ANYONE who CHOOSES the field of Science MUST be smart and disciplined BEYOND EVERYONE ELSES UNDERSTANDING!?!?!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!! That comment alone tells anyone with a half a brain on this board your perceptions of the sciences are omnipotent, condescending and ignorantly arrogant, which is a typical attitude, approach and mindset of anyone on the wrong side of reason, logic and fairmindedness. There is NO SUCH THING as a choosen profession or intellectual discipline that can ferret a portion of idiots from its midst!!

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:44 | 3699064 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Individually they are all falible, but collectively it works... That is the power of peer review...

If it didn't work you would not be on this Internet thingie....

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 09:56 | 3698867 Justawhoaman
Justawhoaman's picture

Actually, I do know how "smart and disciplined scientists are" as I am very closely related to one... a very respected, internationally known one.  As a former professor, I have observed that my relative is EXACTLY like the other sheep employed at universities, globally.  Publish or perish.  If you don't publish what "they" want to hear (in the case of global warming research, they is primarily government funding, Navy, NOAA, etc.).  Sorry to break your bubble, kid.  The farce would be humorous if it did not mean ruining every civil society on the globe.

Water vapor, my dear, water vapor.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:30 | 3698634 TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

Flak, are you paid to make that comment about other peoples well written, thoughtful and intelligent comments?  You have used it a lot.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:19 | 3698051 erg
erg's picture

Bill Gates: I think it would be helpful to get everyone down to a zero carbon footprint. *smiles coyly*

Hello Bill! My bloated fucking supperating corpse is going to emit some greenhouse gases.

Give me a fucking break as I croak for fuck sakes!

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:30 | 3698175 Gavrikon
Gavrikon's picture

Hey Bill, you first!

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:10 | 3697891 in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

Hmmmm, and yet the earth has ceased getting hotter in the last 10 years??? Maybe, as many very intelligent academics propose, the earth has cycles of heating/cooling that are dependent on sun activity and lunar positioning....

Or perhaps it's the evil co2 that's coming from my lawn mower and I need to pay Al Gore taxes so he can save me and live in his $40,000,000 mansion. Yep, I bet that's it.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:51 | 3697988 SMG
SMG's picture

Climate change is the norm for the earth, caused by various factors, like the sun intensity, wobble in the earth orbit, and not just atmospheric changes.

The truth is this is all about instituting GLOBAL CARBON TAX to further line the pockets of our Oligarchs,  That's right a tax on breathing essentially.

And if tech does exist to change the weather, why not use it to make everyone line up and welcome even more slavery.

Pure Evil.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:06 | 3698012 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

The truth is this is all about instituting GLOBAL CARBON TAX to further line the pockets of our Oligarchs,  That's right a tax on breathing essentially.

You're right about the carbon tax (and probably geoengineering) but wrong about the science.

^ doesn't take a genius to figure that one out

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:48 | 3698103 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

A frightened population is more...pliable.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:05 | 3698232 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

and yet for every person saying what you just said you can find 1000000 people who can measure it's got HOTTER every single year.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:07 | 3698014 Dingleberry
Dingleberry's picture

Notice how it's called "climate change" now instead of global warming? That's because it is now becoming a facre and a way for the shysters to make money for nothing and chicks for free. These fuckers can't predict the weather accurately day to day. Fuck them and their science.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:55 | 3698119 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Google Frank Luntz for the first and learn the difference between weather and climate...

And quit trying to be smart using incorrect or asinine arguments... You only look like a fool...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:09 | 3698235 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Yes, yes, I know this one.  Predicting the weather locally is difficult and predicting the global climate is also difficult but climatologists are exceptionally clever. 

What the climatologists don't seem to get is, no one is asking them for solutions.  Why? Because the 'solution' the Elite want is obviously a carbon tax.  And if climatologists don't think that is the solution, they need to take a look at who they work for, and who is using their work for their individual benefit.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:21 | 3698515 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Not only are they exceptionally clever, but climate scientists are no less incorruptible than the rest of us. So if their grants dried up on the discovery that AGW was i) massively overstated, or ii) nothing to worry about, they wouldn't even be unconsciously motivated to come to some other conclusion, rather than see themselves working in a commercial environment where they might have to deliver actionable research in order to get paid. And, of course, they could all be working in much, much more well paid jobs with their enormous intelligence and discipline. Interesting how they don't do that anyway...  it almost suggests that the ones who don't quit academia would prefer - by definition - to stay there. Hmmm. No incentives there, I see!

I keep hearing how wonderful scientists are.... the same group of people who brought us the atom bomb, gas chambers, the ICBM... they're paragons of virtue, these people... rather than just being particularly interested in exploring how stuff works, I mean.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 21:56 | 3701983 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

we already have obvious solutions: burn less fuel.
You can live closer to work, you can grow food yourself so you don't have to drive 100k to a store or have 100k of travel put food in a store near you. You can use heat re-capture & you can turn shit off when you're not using it. IF everyone did that we'd save 60% of the fuel burned already. Just think of the fuckheads driving everywhere for no good reason but to be ENTERTAINED by driving.
That's costing me & I'm not getting paid for my losses.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:47 | 3698345 malikai
malikai's picture

Hey Flak, have you ever done any dynamical systems modelling before?

Just curious about your expertise in this matter, since you seem to be the resident self-proclaimed expert.

I do a bit. And I can tell you one simple truism about the science (and art form), broken into two irrefutable facts.

1. The more complex the model, the less accurate the results (and greater potential for overfit).

2. The farther forward the prediction period, the less accurate the results.

Now, tell me again what the temperature will be in 100 years and how you have reached that conclusion? Be sure to consolidate your conclusion with facts 1,2.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:42 | 3699055 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

ASSERTION #2 not fact #2.
The ASSERTION is we can't look forward. The HISTORY shows in fact we can: history shows the Earth can get very warm and we'll all die but then it will reset after several hundred thousand years.
No humans will be left 200 years from now but certainly the Earth will be fine.
See, we need FOOD. Food includes FISH, honey from bees & wonderous plants pollinated by those bees.
You can kiss that good bye. Goners.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 16:23 | 3700752 malikai
malikai's picture

Yes, and all the whales will be gone by 1900.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:55 | 3699121 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Here is a very simple model that predicted pretty much where we are now from 40 years ago:

Can you cite any paper or study or prediction by skeptics that was not falsified within 5 years? Let alone 40?

Sorry, that dog of yours don't hunt...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 16:30 | 3700740 malikai
malikai's picture

I'm familiar with Broecker's work. I think it was a very good model, for what was possible at the time. One of my mathematical heroes is Joseph Fourier, who as you know quantified this whole subject. 

In fact, I take the skeptics with as much disdain, particularly when religious about the subject which always puts me off.

"This was a very simple model, excluding the effects of the sun, volcanoes, other greenhouse gases, aerosols, and so forth, which Broecker acknowledged:"

Note the use of the word simple. Every input you add to a model of any form, increases dimensionality, and consequently, complexity, difficulty in fit, and ultimately risk of overfit and failure to model. Our planet has an infinite number potential model vectors before you even consider placing the model in a time series. Now, I know this is demonstrated every day with very good weather models. In the short term. On the long term, all models break down because they all fail to account for forward entropy over time.

Mon, 07/01/2013 - 23:05 | 3700889 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, but a very *simple* model that is reproduces all the salient features of the data is worth it weight in gold...

We are not modeling weather, understand? You do not need a particlulary sophisticated global circulation model (GCM) to simulate the effect of increasing the amount of C02 on the global average temperature in 2100. Adding more complexity will improve the prediction but the limiting factor is the C02 response function which is empirically known to ~20% uncertainty. See here:

The most sophisticated of CGMs are used to estimate the response but there are data based independent measures. You do need  a complex GCM if you want to predict the climatic norms of the American Midwest in 2100. As you might guess the latter is trickier as you must simulate water vapor transport etc...


Here is an example of an extremely simple model, the so-called two-box energy balance model:

And since you are clearly more on the ball than typical whackadoo here, you should be able to delve into the comments and get a taste of what peer review really is...

Out of curiousity, do you have any idea when the first GCMs came out that predicted the Westerlies and trade winds in the proper location?

Hint: You will find the answer in here

Like I said, you are clearly not a fool but the above article does require to make an effort at some heavy lifting...


Here is a sample of the discussion:

David B. Benson

This is, I assume, from GISS. The total forcing is a sum of several components such as tri-atomic atmospheric gases (by species), solar variations and aerosols (primarily from large volcano eruptions; note the down spikes in the summary forcing).

  • John Brookes

    I don’t want to seem like a fake skeptic, but I need to ask this. Are the forcings in any way based on the existing temperature record?

    That is, could the good agreement of the two box model driven by forcings be a particularly good match because the forcings were based on the temperatures record?

    [Response: As far as I know (based on comments from Gavin Schmidt at RealCliamte): No, not at all.

    Fake skepticism is bad. Real skepticism is good

sorry for the parsing 

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:05 | 3698230 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

it's called both and at the same time.

Global warming never turned off, stopped, halted or slowed down.

Climate change, as in you're allfucked in the ass hard every day, is the CONSEQUENCE from global warming. For 30 years you've been told you'll get ass-raped by floods, hurricanes and droughts like never in your life before, all from global warming, and it's climate CHANGE.

Now it's happening and you still want to pretend it's a myth.

You'll drown in your arrogance. You'll deserve it.

Global warming is as much a fact as gravity.

Climate change is as much a consequence of global warming the way that dent in your skull is the consequence of being dropped too many times as an infant.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:08 | 3698342 Roger Knights
Roger Knights's picture

"Global warming never turned off, stopped, halted or slowed down."

Even the warmist bigshots now concede that the surface temperature warming has "paused" for at least the past ten years and have been fretting about the "missing heat", and that there's been no statistically significant warming for the past 16 (Phil Jones). See here for some graphs of global temperatures:

"For 30 years you've been told you'll get ass-raped by floods, hurricanes and droughts like never in your life before, all from global warming, ..."

That's a considerable exaggeration. See here for numerous graphs of various extremes:

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:39 | 3699033 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

and yet any of us can see this isn't the case by LOOKING at the readings.

"July 2012 was the hottest month on record for the contiguous (lower 48) United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It turns out that the month was pretty warm globally as well, lining up as the fourth warmest July since modern record-keeping began in 1880."

So basically 100% bullshit is what for you passes as truth.

You're debunked.

Global warming is 100% on and has never stopped for a single year in the last 15.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 03:01 | 3698280 Wile-E-Coyote
Wile-E-Coyote's picture

By the way they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change to hide and inconvenient truth, the mean global temperature has been FALLING since 1998, yes you heard right the planet is cooling. The computer models predicting run away warming are wrong and are now looking a tad rediculas. So the question is why? Well the answer is quite simple; it is that big yellow thing in the sky. Solar output is down, the level of Sun spots is very low and effects the dynamics of the relationship of the output of the Sun and the upper atmosphere; basically changing weather patterns. The UK has just had one of its worst winters ever recorded.

To learn more I suggest people study the Dalton & Maunder minimums, a direct correlation with reduced solar output and mean surface temperatures on Earth.

Start with this it is basically accurate.


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 03:42 | 3698322 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are making shit up: Here is the recent warming

Here is the global SST and the solar output over the past 50 years or so. Do you see a problem with your hypothesis?

and if you want to get more technical

Providing a link to Maunder does not make it relevant...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:20 | 3698351 Wile-E-Coyote
Wile-E-Coyote's picture

Lol.............. I notice all your links come from one source. You should broaden your reading. Have you ever considered that site might have its own agenda? I prefer the holistic approach, to take the broad view, you seem rather myopic.

Nothing destroys a good theory more than the facts.


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 10:59 | 3699139 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It is a repository that has links to all the relevant peer reviewed literature. All the links lead to science that has passed peer review. You would realize that if you actually were curious and investiigated instead of being in a state of dogmatic denial...


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:42 | 3698364 Roger Knights
Roger Knights's picture

"Here is the recent warming"

Here's Bob Tisdale's very technical critique of Nuccitelli on Ocean Heat Content:

We should bear in mind that the warmists always used to talk about warming in terms of the surface temperature. This attempt to switch the debate to ocean heat content amounts to moving the goalposts. And it's weak because OHC temperature records before the Argo system was running in 2003 are very unrepresentative and subject to measuring errors; and because the ARGO measurements are also unrepresentative, because they float with the currents--and because the amount of warming they've found is insignificant when the potential for error is considered.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:02 | 3699147 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why doesn't Bob try to publish his work? It is because it is riddled with errors and he would be laughed at...

Adding energy at the rate of 4 Hiroshima sized bombs a second is hardly insignificant....

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 07:45 | 3698549 Overflow-admin
Overflow-admin's picture

Just because some people observe that ice caps or glaciers are melting, doesn't prove that they are. Retards forgot sublimation phase and wind drag. HOW DO YOU THINK ICE MELTS ABOVE 20'000ft - where the mean temp is -24°C ? Oh it's rethorical, it doesn't.

Stoopid nombrilistic hoomans still think THEY alter the weather. They're taking CREDIT for stellar winds effects and shit. Really, unfuckingbelivably narcissistic.


"12 out of the last 15 years have been the hottest in history": re *history* do you mean History, or that last century fairy-tale?



Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:03 | 3699153 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The majority of the polar sea ice is melting from the bottom...

Nice try....

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:48 | 3697812 nmewn
nmewn's picture

An excellent impersonation of MillionDollarBonus...may I add, here are the "Talking Points" the statists will be using...skip right on down to the Do's & Don't's so everyone can dollar cost average for themselves on how much statists arein line to profit...


…debate the validity or consensus of the science >>>that is already settled<<<.


Wed, 06/26/2013 - 22:59 | 3697839 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

Who else could possibly champion such an idiotic defense... who gives a shit what your PDF says. Here's the commie rag Wikipedia's take:

Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[3][4][5][6]

Maybe when the water reaches your house it will sink in.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 23:09 | 3697888 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

"and scientists are more than 90% certain that"

Wow that is really convincing "science" .

We now conduct science by opinion polls carried out at UN funded research facilities!

If only we had some actual proof, we could save all that money on anonymous surveys,

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:23 | 3698060 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you explain to us exactly what a 90% confidence level means in this regard? If you can't, it should be telling you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and should really just be quiet because you are only likely to make a bigger fool of yourself...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:29 | 3698074 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

I'm 90% sure that you have absolutely nothing to offer this debate or any useful information to contribute.

However there is a 10% possibility I'm wrong.

Please feel free to enlighten everybody one way or the other.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 00:42 | 3698089 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It was rude of me to interrupt your fact free circle jerk...

AGW is real, get over it...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:01 | 3698126 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Make that 100%

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:07 | 3698135 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you think that you can explain to me why AGW is wrong from a science perspective without making a fool of yourself?

Somehow I doubt it but do you want to try?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:31 | 3698170 Lore
Lore's picture


You need to think more about the dishonesty of people in positions of power.  The formulas for mass manipulation are ancient.  Any science of AGW is secondary to its utility as a POLICY VEHICLE.  Do some digging into the origin.  Hint: It didn't come from scientists. Hint 2: Alien invasion was also tabled.

""It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 01:36 | 3698181 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

But I am not a scientific illiterate, I have a Ph.D. in experimental physics and I don't need to rely on anyone to explain things about AGW....

The existence of AGW has nothing to do with the wishes of any state, quit creating conspiracy where there is none...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:00 | 3698219 Lore
Lore's picture

Spoken like a true company man. Question nothing.  Good boy.  Pat pat.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:11 | 3698237 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Since all you have is pointless banter that is irrelevant and you dare not even touch the actual science, it is clear that the conversation is over...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:46 | 3698266 Lore
Lore's picture

We can bicker over minutiae until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that we never lose focus on WHO BENEFITS AND WHY.  Please do a bit of digging and cut through some of that worshipful idealism!

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 04:01 | 3698335 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The issue of who benefits is moot... And if you were *really* worried about it, you would figure out something acceptable to address AGW it instead denying the science... Or simply admit that you don't really care about anyone but yourself. At least that is intellectually consistent....

You should read what Hansen recently wrote... but you ain't serious about any of this stuff or you would know about it...


Thu, 06/27/2013 - 05:18 | 3698387 Acet
Acet's picture

Actually the "who benefits" angle is interesting too.

For example, just the top 5 publicly quoted Oil companies have a combined market cap of $1.2 trillion. Then there's the ones that are not in the stock market (like Saudi Aramco), there's all the others, there's all the industries around Oil like the Auto industry.

And then on top of this, there's the Gas industry and related.

And lets not forget the many trillions already sunk into infrastructure for Oil and Gas and entire nations who make most of their GDP from Oil and/or Gas.


Next to this, the green energy industry is miniscule.


It takes a special kind of stupid to think that the science of AGW is made up because the green energy industry can in any way outgun the Oil & Gas industry when it comes to marketting, PR and buying politicians. Might as well theorise that the US spent trillions invading middle east countries because all that sunshine is a great opportunity to sell US-made solar panels.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 02:04 | 3698228 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Because water in the form of clouds is the major green house gas and the hydrological cycle totally controls heat transfer in the lower troposphere (near the surface where the gas density is significant).  What determines the T on the surface?  Well, Lots of clouds during the day, the earth cools due to scattering of sunlight (albedo or reflection effect).  Lots of clouds during the night heat is trapped and net warming occurs (greenhouse effect).  But we have nearly no understanding of the distribution of clouds as a function of latitude and longitude and more importantly time.  That's why we can't predict the temperature next week much less in a decade.  Its a complex nonlinar system with multiple feedback loops whose parameters are not understood.  Only simpletons think a single variable can control such a system-and you are obviously quite a simpleton and quite a "believer".  Stick to religion as science is not your forte.   Any excess or deficit of CO2 is solubilized in the oceans following Raoult's law of gas solubility.  That's why CO2 always increases after ocean T rises and decreases with lower T  as shown over periods of over 1 million years in ice core samples covering 8 periods of glaciation.  That's the difference between cause and effect (higher T is the cause of higher CO2 not the other way around since the ocean if the major sink for CO2 and other gassses)    Want to understand the heat transfer mechanism near the earth's surface (which is 70% ocean)?  Put your hand over a pot of water on a heated stove top.  Feel the heat, that's convection via water vapor, not radiation transfer.  Feel how much less heat is transferred by radiation from the hot plate.  Quite a difference, eh?  The heat capacity of water is 1000 times greater than a gas.  That's why temperature flucations in desert regions a huge compared to those near large bodies of water!  That's the scientific method.  Hypothesis can only be falsified, never proven.

And ask yoursellf, how were temperatures determined 100 years ago to establish a baseline to compare to modern measurements?  Were any ocean temperatures even available prior to WWII?  How were they obtained?  The real danger is the inevitable return of the next ice age.  We are currently in a rather short interglacial period and we can be thankful for that.  Snowball earth is a more serious concern, but hopefully not for another 10000 years or so.

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 03:20 | 3698259 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nice cut and paste with a collection of the usual debunked canards...

1) It is not clouds otherwise you could cite a peer reviewed paper showing it to be possible... We know you can't, so just quite making stuff up.. If anything clouds appear to be a positive feed-back...

2) You create a strawman regarding C02 as being the only driver...

3) Hint: the action is happening at the TOA and incidentally the OHC has been steadily rising...

4) Read this for they details you seem to be overlooking regarding heat flows (I have too much pride to cut and paste without attribution)

As a bonus you get to see the first IR spectrum measured by satillite in 1969....

And for shits and giggles, compare the change in radiative forcing from the C02 we have measured in the atmosphere to that of the Milankovitch cycles responsible for the Ice Ages of the last 800,000 years and get back to us....\

Edit: I should have mentioned that cutting and pasting without attribution is called plagiarism and mark of scientific dishonesty.. Google Wegman Report and how that got retracted for exactly that...

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 08:16 | 3698608 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

You sound like a Christian who was given evidence that there is no God.  Who are you trying to convince?

Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:09 | 3699173 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You have it backwards, the other guy is the one creating and clinging to the myths....

And as for my charge of cut and paste, well, the fact that he never replied despite allegedly being capable of producing such a post quickly should tell you something...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!