New Climate Study Throws Wrench In Global Warming Debate: "Our New Technical Paper... Will Likely Be Ignored"

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mac Slavo via,

It’s not surprising that so many people believe the idea that global warming is being caused almost entirely by human activity, given the fact that most scientists seem to believe the same thing. But scientists should probably ask themselves why there is still such a large cohort of “deniers” as they like to call them, who are adamant that anthropogenic climate change is a scam.

The reason why is that the scientific community has been caught many times tampering with climate data and making outlandish claims. The celebrities and politicians who promote this cause have also been caught on many occasions, living in palatial mansions, flying across the world in private jets, and generally just living lives of excess that produce so much more carbon that the average person. Given these facts, how could anyone take the global warming arguments seriously?

What also doesn’t help their cause, is when reputable scientists question climate change dogma. Recently, two Australian scientists published a paper that explains why the shifts in global temperature that we see today, are likely entirely natural.

Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist with a rather long list of impressive credentials, which includes the founding of The Climate Modeling Laboratory, opens her startling climate report with a dose of reality.


“Our new technical paper … will likely be ignored,” she writes at The Spectator Australia.


She goes on to explain why, “Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.”

At the crux of their argument, is the fact that global temperatures were actually warmer during the middle ages, which used to be considered common knowledge for years, and is often denied by many climate change proponents today. These researchers confirmed that the world was indeed warmer before the industrial revolution. And that of course suggests that human activity doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on the climate as most environmentalists claim.

Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline...


There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period.

Bottom line, don’t ever let anyone tell you that the climate change debate is over, and that the science on the matter is settled. Don’t let them fool you into thinking that there’s a strict consensus among scientists regarding global warming (and even if there was a 100% consensus, just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true).

The people promoting the theory of man-made global warming have been caught lying too many times for us to blindly follow them.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
VladLenin's picture

Avoid nail guns Jenn.

Ghost of Porky's picture

She will get either a bike-lock to the head or an acid-bath to the face for this.

nope-1004's picture

"Climate Change".  LMFAO!!!

As if anything that's alive doesn't change.  Earth is no different.  How idiotic a name, clearly imposed so that no matter which way temperatures move, you WILL be taxed for being in it.


froze25's picture

Climate change is a scam and we all know it.

The Cooler King's picture

Al Gore:


22 Room Mansion ~ ZERO solar panels (even the dinky ones for m-m-m-Malibu lights, that, ffs, even I own)


Fleet of Limousines ~ ZERO Teslas (even with the enhanced capacity to move the drivers seat back 2 centimeters and raise the steering wheel by a millimete, which, uses up 98% of the battery power so that your ass doesn't get sore getting out of the car to attend an AL GORE rally).


Private Jet ~ no explanation necessary

WTFRLY's picture

Never underestimate the power of Joo.

yomutti2's picture


This is a moronic article. Firat off, this girl has fuck-all in terms of scientific credential regarding climate chaneg forecasting. Read her own CV:

Second, it's not just about the temperature. CO2 pollution is causing a serious increase in the acidity of the oceans. This is a big problem that is distinct from temperature, although the temperature component is very real.



Lumberjack's picture

I will look into it. Like 'plants' at protests, one needs to closely examine things closely. States are scamsters are trying to cash in on renewable energy credits etc..

I would like to ask a couple questions below, a poll if you wish.

Lumberjack's picture


Has your electricity bill increased the last 2 years?

Lumberjack's picture


Has your auto insurance increased the last 2 years?

Lumberjack's picture


Has your health insurance increased the last 2 years?

Slack Jack's picture

So, why is the global rise in temperatures so worrisome?

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).

Another major problem is sea-level rise.

Have a look at

The U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

The Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),
the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),
the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),
and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of about 80 meters (263 feet).

So, what does an 80 meter (263 feet) rise in sea-level mean. Have a look at the following map of the world after an 80 meter rise. It means that over one billion people will have to be resettled to higher ground and that much of the most productive agricultural land will be under water. Fortunately, at current rates, the Greenland ice sheet will take over a thousand years to melt and the Antarctica ice sheet, much longer. However, the greater the temperature rise the faster the ice sheets will melt, bringing the problem much closer. Remember, the huge ice sheet that recently covered much of North America, almost completely melted in only 15,000 years (today, only the Greenland ice sheet, and some other small patches of it, remain). Since then (15,000 years ago), sea-levels have risen about 125 meters (410 feet), only 80 meters to go.

The ice sheets have been continuously melting for thousands of years. What is left of them today, is still melting, and will continue to melt. Human caused global warning will cause this remnant to melt significantly faster. This is a big, big, problem.

For HUGE detailed maps of the "World after the Melt" go to:

Global temperatures are increasing. And by quite a lot each year.

2016 is the hottest year on record for global temperatures.

This is 0.0380 degrees centigrade hotter than the previous record year which was 2015.

0.0380 is a large increase in just one year.

2015 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.1601 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2014.

0.1601 is an absolutely huge increase in just one year (at this rate temperatures would increase by 16 degrees in a century).

2014 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.0402 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2010.

The conspiracy to hide global warming data.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is given tax money to make global temperature records available to the public. However, certain people at NOAA continually sabotage this aspect of NOAA's mandate. For example, these people have (deliberately) sabotaged the web-page that delivers the temperature records.

Look for yourself:

Go to the page: scroll down to the The Global Anomalies and Index Data section and click the download button and see what happens. Well, you get the message:

"Not Found. The requested URL /monitoring-references/faq/anomalies-download was not found on this server."

I guess that the 2017 data must be truly horrible if they have to hide it away.

July 2017 had the hottest average land temperatures on record.

The new July 2017 record was +1.20 degrees centigrade above the 20th century average (of the July data). The previous record average land temperature for July was just last year. It was +1.10 degrees above the 20th century average.

Did the media bother to tell you about this? No!

moimeme's picture

Scientists sometimes just LIE, especially when MONEY is involved.

Gasbag's picture

kind of like journalists

webmatex's picture

Real scientist don't lie they just do science.

I love the "just look at the maps" - they are just pretty future projections - think Waterworld (but don't as it was terrible).

Carbon pollution - that would include all animals and humans (useless eaters)?

If global warming were real the temp would increase by 1 degree every time Al Gore opened his mouth or buttocks.

Believers in climate change are free to contribute to carbon tax but don't drag the rest of us in thanks.


Billy the Poet's picture

Despite the fact that temperatures have been rising around the globe for the past 150 years and we all face imminent death as the Earth becomes a scorched desert I still can't reliably grow peaches in Western Pennsylvania. It's too cold.

So, yeah, I am very worried.

Radical Marijuana's picture

Although any significant climate changes would become extremely stressful, after about a decade of attempting to develop a better informed opinion on the topic of humans blamed for climate change I have gradually come around to agreeing with the article above.

HopefulCynical's picture

Exactly, RM. When you look at the actual data, not driven by any ulterior motive, you realize that environmental pollution is a problem - but "anthropogenic global warming" is not.

Actually, the most credible evidence I've seen points to an impending solar grand minimum. Dress warmly, folks...

cheeseheader's picture

Thanks for your opinion, Slacky.

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).


In AZ, ask a farmer how many harvests he gets from planting corn; how many for beans; alfalfa; sorghum; how's the cotton looking this year?; how about all the citrus? nuts?


Now go ask a midwest farmer the same questions whereby there is a later one-harvest planting period due to lower temps and/or wetter fields, dolt.  Also, takes a might bit longer for the corn to dry in the fields before combining.


AZ sweet corn beats the pants off any midwestern corn, and I'll give you three generations of proof to that.

Demon Slayer's picture

Your whole bullshit propaganda comment shows that you're an uneducated moron.

First of all NASA just confirmed that sea levels have dropped for the last two years...this is  nearly 20 years after Gore, you, and other morons said the Ice Sheet would be gone...they have increased in size.

Secondly, scientists have agreed that there has been no warming for the last twenty years..period.

Thirdly, CO2 levels from ice core samples show that CO2 levels on the Earth were @ 6000 ppm for a thousand years, then dropped to 3000 pmm, and today we are at a dangerously low of 400 ppm. At 300 ppm, the foliage on the Earth becomes unsustainable.

To call CO2 pollution is the height of ignorance, and it's quite obvious to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size, that has seen the charts, that show unequivocally that rising CO2 levels follow any warming if that were even the case. CO2 is a lagging indicator that proves that natural warming causes the release of CO2...not the other way around.

Go online and search for "CO2 generators for higher crop yields". Yep, farmers everywhere buy CO2 generators to grow their crops nearly twice as fast with a 40% increase in the size of their tomatoes and other vegetables.

The polar bear population has nearly tripled over the last 10+ years..Gore and his morons like you said that the poor polar bears would all die frim the disappearing ice sheet that has overall gained in size. The oceans have warmed slightly due to underwater volcanic activity that has nothing to do with humans.

Here is another "uncomfortable fact" for Climate Change cultists....We haven't seen and major hurricanes for 128 months now in the US. Gore, you, you moron, and the rest of the fools said that if we didn't go with crazy Global Warming taxation and to start up a multi trillion Carbon Credit derivative gambling market (where Al Gore gets a percentage on every trade 'read multi billionaire overnight - biggest conflict of interest in the history of mankind) that  we would see catastrophic hurricanes coming with 100% certainty. FAIL.

Consider this undeniable fact. Go look at the CO2 charts in ppm. Then look at the the rate of the two major stages of massive moves in increased industrialization..The first industrial revolution, and then recently with China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and others have their own massive increase in CO2 emitting industrial revoloutions, and you can't find one blip on the chart to show these massive CO2 increases made an iota of difference in CO2 levels....

In reality, we need to have CO2 levels go up from 400 ppm, to a much healthier 700 to 1000 ppm levels, or greater, to grow back our rain forests....but humans cannot do it. Our industrial revolutions did nothing..With the massive increases of CO2 output, we haven't seen any warming...

Also, your "dust bowl" crap is moronic. In the past, when Earth was much warmer, it created conditions that greatly increased farmable land and food production in the northern regions that boosted food production significantly...way before any industrial revolution.

I could go's not surprising that there are delusional Climate Change cultists who deny real science, manipulate data collection, and still fail...These same losers said with absolute certainty that we were moving into an ice age in the 70's..Go drink more flouride your healthy GMO frankenfoods, Monsanto's Roundup is good for you, and get as many vaccines as possible...


Rodders75's picture

I saw the same website you copied this from Slack...I am neither climate change promoter nor denier because I lack the scientific background or knowledge to decide. However I do smell a rat and get a feeling that arseholes like Al Gore are milking this for personal gain. 

What confuses me most as a layman is that this kind of ZH piece seems to make sense, but then you have other articles which appear to provide incontrovertible evidence that temperatures are rising and that CO2 is the main culprit, like this which descirbes the Vostok Ice Core tracking temperatures & CO2 over 420,000 years. 

If any ZH'er scientist can look at the link and definitively disprove it using sound arguments I will happily plant myself in the sceptic camp.

webmatex's picture

Bear in mind Vostock is part of a series of large underground warm water lakes which are heated by geothermal processes therefore the study may not be relevant to Antartica as a whole.

And don't forget the 80 volcanos discovered in Western Antartica a few weeks back - they were not part of any modeling because they only just noticed them.

Could be a million undersea volcanos (not known) but with a tax we could maybe plug em up? 

Amicus Curiae's picture

I suggest you got to

the main page is always good

they also have topic specific pages for oceans/solar/etc etc

theres a huge amount of data available and plenty of science as well as informed laypeople who contribute and discuss.

Geoengineering_Genocide's picture

You see, your mistake is making cogent argument backed by solid data.  Here at the Hedge, what you need is a quick-witty comedic comment that has maximum entertainment value.  The kind of thing that gets the attention of the dumbed down masses, the ones that people here talk shit about, while emulating to the letter.  

That's why you've been downvoted into oblivion.

If there's no warming and ice melting, why did an iceberg the size of Delaware just break away?  And even more shocking, WHY THE FUCK IS MIAMI FLOODING AND HAVING TO USE PUMPS TO KEEP THE WATER OUT?  Oh, because, Al Gore!  It's not real!


HopefulCynical's picture

Yes, yes. We're all doomed.

Does Soros pay you by the word, the letter, the post, or what? Do the crack rocks just show up in the mail, or do you have to go get them?

Lumberjack's picture

You know whats really cool? All thise downvotes you deserved!

aurum4040's picture

I have some prescient words for your 1000 plus of bullshit global warming nonsense - buy yourself a babushka and some snow shoes because the only problem with glacier melt is singnicantly cooler oceans and the ice age that has followed every single warming and elevated CO2 period. Look at the facts. We will have an ice age in the next 300 years. Shame on those who believe the Earth does not control us. The Earth has repeatedly repaired itself for millions or years. Super volcanoes that make human emissions look like piss in an ocean,  asteroids more powerful then nukes, floods that cover half of a continent. Humans are nothing more then a fly on a horse. 

Galahad Threepwood's picture

You might want to look up Grand Solar Minimum and interview with John Casey.

Then come back and apologise


exomike's picture

Good for you Slack Jack. They're voting against you 46 to 4. Like the SHTF guy says, "just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true).". You don't have to give 'em hell Slack Jack, just keep telling the truth and they'll think it's hell.

detached.amusement's picture

No, we just laugh at the sad, tired feaux assertions that rely on manipulated blackbox data and ever moving goalposts.

Or maybe you're that fkn stupid that you believe each new year is the hottest year evah

DWD-MOVIE's picture

I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…

Slack Jack's picture

Its worth saying again:

July 2017 had the hottest average land temperatures on record.

The new July 2017 record was +1.20 degrees centigrade above the 20th century average (of the July data). The previous record average land temperature for July was just last year. It was +1.10 degrees above the 20th century average.

Did the media bother to tell you about this? No!

Gorgeous's picture

land temp?  Earths crust, or just down to....where?  Don't you mean air temp?  But wait, day..night...winter...summer.  So much variation. 

"Global" warming only means the warming of the hugely thermally massive oceans.  Show me the data Slack.

Slack Jack's picture

Gorgeous @ Aug 24, 2017 10:24 PM "land temp? Earths crust, or just down to....where?"

The temperature measurements are based on anomalies (the difference from some long established average).

This gets round a lot of problems, like the temperatures at high elevation generally being colder than at low elevation. etc.

Land temperatures are recorded as the anomaly (the difference from the long established average of the measuring station) of the atmosphere at a measuring station which is on land.

Ocean temperatures are recorded as the anomaly of the atmosphere at a measuring station on the ocean (buoys ships etc).

Land+Ocean temperatures are averages the above averages.

Gorgeous @ Aug 24, 2017 10:24 PM "Show me the data Slack."

Geoengineering_Genocide's picture

"Show me the data..."  All right, if you're too lazy to find it for yourself, here you go:

I've given you four sources out of many scores, trying to vary them a bit so people won't bitch and say it's a fabrication.  If everyone just did their own investigating instead of being persuaded by pure rhetoric with no basis in reality, they'd see it in a heartbeat


HopefulCynical's picture

You and 'Slack Jack' are sock puppets. Your sources are leftist shit and none of the actual readers here care.

Tell György to fuck off and die, mmm'kay?

Schlump's picture

This site is full of idiots like me. I feel at home here.

HopefulCynical's picture

The media your group owns tried to peddle this false data in years past. It earned them jeers of derision, due to your side having been exposed multiple times for cooking the fucking books.

It's all bullshit. There is no man-made global warming. You're going to have to find a new grift. Even the masses are on to you by now.

Oh regional Indian's picture

The real reason climate change was sold so easily to the gullibled.... note, gullibled..... it was all smoke and mirrors and polished oraters and? GUILT.....

Dat ole Xtian cross on yer back and the frankfurt school methods to shove it down, down..... ye guilty sinners, you fucked up yer own home, your lovely guilty fucks, ye SINers....

webmatex's picture

Yes guilt - back in the day people protested war, nukes, deforestation, nuclear power, radiation, pesticides, water pollution.

Nothing was done about these problems because profit and big corporations were too important, we now have even more forms of death dealing products and people die every day.

Look over there - climate change!

We wanted government to do something about this shit but they ignored us and created the global warming tax myth instead.

Belief that someone can fix things by just dialing a global temperature for you is crass stupidity.

Lumberjack's picture

Gov plan to reduce wind costs ( 2x too high), by doubling the spending on it...Fire Rick Perry!

Stuck on Zero's picture

A rational discussion begins with enumerating the things we all agree on: 1) the climate is always changing, 2) digging up the planet and filling the atmosphere with exhaust is not desirable and is probably not sustainable, 3) we can't predict whether we're going to go into global cooling or warming, 4) we need to control population growth, 5) to protect humanity from whatever comes along we need at least food, shelter, and water, and 6) big government will only make everything worse.

BurningFuld's picture

Never believe anyone that is making money because of certain "facts" they are presenting. (eg. a climate scientist)

S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

2) Yes releasing CO2 is desirable.  Somewhere around 1000ppm would be better (more conducive to life) than where we're at now.

3) Yes we can make such a prediction - we're going to go into global cooling (well, actually we'll see both).  That's what Earth's history tells us - it's been hotter and more CO2 than today, and it's been cooler and more CO2 than today, and neither of those resulted in the positive feedbacks the CAGWers fearmonger about.  On the other hand, Earth's history tells us that glaciations actually do happen, many of them have, and we're likely to see one eventually, and quite possibly sooner rather than later (just based on the timing of past glaciations).  Earth's history of course doesn't tell us that it's going to be a straight line (i.e. strictly colder temperatures) to the next glaciation, and it would be silly to expect it to be that way, but eventually the glaciation comes.  Earth's temperature peaks are not anywhere near as problematic for humans as its troughs - if you think human population is an issue now, try supporting that population with most of North America under a mile of ice.  (While it's perhaps "theoretically" possible that the Earth has seen its last glaciation ever, that would be a very bold claim to make, and bold claims require strong evidence, and there is none.)

4) No we don't need to control population growth... at least not in any direct sense.  What we need is a meritocracy where everyone pays for the raising of their own children (or voluntarily aids with the raising of another's).  Under no circumstances should people externally (i.e. outside of any agreement they voluntarily entered into) be forced to pay for the raising of someone else's kids.  Civilized people self-regulate their production of children per the resources they are able to provide and per the life they believe their child will be able to have.  And given that such resources exist you don't have a population problem.  That civilized people (i.e. low crime / decent IQ / non-parasites) self-regulate their procreation is not just pie-in-the-sky theory, but quite visible and measureable in the here and now.

5) No, we don't need to protect some collectivist "humanity".  We need to defend individual liberty.

So "the things we all agree on" is already reduced to (at best) 1 and 6.

Joshua2415's picture

Just curious.  When you say that "we need to control population growth", who exactly is "we"?