There is no AGW

This online debate started from a ZME Science article titled “Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks”, which presented a very stereotypical position describing “how while the rest of the world was doing its best to comply with the Pari Climate Accord”, saying that “…Australian environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, lobbied for the opening of a new, grand coal mine. … and further criticized the Australian government for failing to make good its Paris climate agreements in preventing opening of this coal mine. So naturally, I commented on it,which started a flurry of blogging activity of back and forths, the last couple of them listed below. My final reply to TreeParty, my adversary on this issue, appears at the very bottom.

TreeParty Richard A. Fletcher6 months ago

So the evidence from the data that YOU CITED is that the temperature of Greenland is the warmest now than it has been in at least 2000 years. That is obviously caused by the flaring of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just over a century, causing GLOBAL (as opposed to local Greenland) temperatures to rise by 1 deg. C per century, a rate that is historically very rare. Other proxies for GLOBAL temperatures DO NOT show that the “Minoan Warm Period” was 1.5 deg. C. hotter than the present average temperature of the planet. So the current spike of >1 deg. C. GLOBALLY in a century is anomalous and dangerous.
Can you find and post a temperature record for the last 4000 years that is not confined to Greenland?


Richard A. Fletcher TreeParty6 months ago

65 Million Years of Climate Change,

And where did you come up with this idea that the temperature of Greenland is the warmest now than it has been in at least 2000 years and is obviously caused by flaring of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just over a century? Who said it’s obvious? and what carbon are you referring to, fossil fuels, CO2, what?

Let’s take this answer in stages.
Stage One: The graph of “Central Greenland Temperature” that you yourself linked shows that the temperature of Greenland has not been as high as it is now for just about 2000 years. That “the temperature of Greenland is the warmest now than it has been in at least 2000 years” is shown by the data that YOU LINKED! And we agree on that conclusion, because it is clearly and demonstrably true.
Stage Two: The average global temperature of the ENTIRE PLANET has increased in the last century by over 1 Deg C. That would include Greenland, by definition; even though the general rise in the average temperature of the planet will not affect every locality by the same amount. Obviously.
Stage Three: The consensus of scientists that spend every day studying climate change is that it is principally human activity (combustion of fossil fuels; deforestation; feedback effects of methane release, albedo loss, etc.) that is causing this global warming. Other possible mechanisms, and groups of mechanisms, have been considered, evaluated, and rejected, as the CHIEF driver of the

measurable global warming. The increase in atmospheric CO2, that went from 280 PPM for the entire duration of the graph you linked on Powerline, to >400 PPM and rising, at present, is what the

overwhelming consensus of climate scientists believe is causing the current global warming.
Stage Four: It is the “flaring of hundreds of millions of year of stored carbon in just over a century” that has caused the atmospheric fraction of CO2 to rise from 280 PPM for the last 800,000 years, to the current value of >400 PPM in just over a century. I SAID IT’S OBVIOUS, and I have virtually the entire community of climate science to back me up on that.
To recapitulate: There is no other scientifically defensible explanation for the observable rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet but AGW.


TreeParty, now that I’ve had a chance to mostly rebuild my bookmarks following a disastrous Windows 10 upgrade[one can only do this after having filed a case number with Microsoft for failure of one’s operating system to upgrade to Windows 10], it’s time for me to pick-apart your comments, and unseat you from your high horse. I can assure you that the new administration of Donald Trump will give this CAGW item its proper priority, LAST on the list of major social agenda items, just what a 2015 Gallup Inc. survey, indicated “Billions of dollars poured in alarmist propaganda, by politicians and vested interests in the renewables industry, and over a decade of time, might as well have been tossed down the drain. The only result of this stupendous attempt to mobilise public opinion, has been a barely measurable increase in support, amongst people who were presumably already sympathetic to the climate alarmist message – and a massive drop in support outside this magic circle of fellow travelers. “ and “Besides the recent cold weather snap, it’s possible Americans have been influenced by the Climategate scandal, which claimed to show the scientists are “concealing” data, focused on politics instead of science, and are readily admitting internally that climate change “science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.” Some of the other predictions made about the United States also did not come about, with the major one being an increase in hurricane activity. “, It was on 1 June 2017, that President Trump finally decided to do what he promised to do on the campaign trail, and that is to drop out of the Paris Climate Accord.

First, I agree I gave you the wrong link regarding Greenland’s temperature record, a mistake on my part, probably in my haste to get to school that day, I believe. While admittedly going back maybe a little further than 2000 years, this graph clearly shows that Greenland has been much warmer in the past under the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) [the period which Michael Mann attempted to obliterate in his fraudulent hockey stick graph, along with the Little Ice Age (LIA)], the Roman Warming Period and highest temperature of all, the Minoan Warming Period or as shown in the fourth chart on this webpage so no, I don’t agree with you regarding the historical temperature of Greenland, as it has been much warmer in the past than today, also there is nothing unusual about this warming, again Finally, did you realize that when the ice drillers reached the bottom, 3 km, of their surveying of the Greenland ice sheet, they found a 2.7-Million-Year-Old Forested Landscape Discovered under Greenland.

You asked me “Can you find and post a temperature record for the last 4000 years that is not confined to Greenland?”. I think that found some answers, but why limit ourselves to the last 4000 years, unless you already know that climate has been hotter in past: Contrary to Michael Mann’s now widely discredited hockey stick “science,” the Neukom et al research found the MWP was a high temperature event in South America. This team of 18 highly qualified researchers came from 7 countries; they chose the best 22 climate proxies to reconstruct a thousand+ year temperature series. “;”We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. “;”For other databases it appears that variability on interannual to decadal time scales complicates a straightforward attempt to from the anthropogenic CO2 signal on the Earth’s environment. “;”Winter snow cover has been increasing in a hockey stick since the very warm winter of 1995, and is now at record levels. “”This segment (Part II) analyzes conclusions in the Marcott et al. paper in which they contend that “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past separate natural perturbationscentury.” A heat spike in the 1st like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years”.

So let’s check the Marcott et al. conclusions against several of the best data sets available. For this exercise, we’ll use (1) the GISP2 oxygen isotope data of Stuiver and Grottes (1997), (2) the GISP2 paleotemperature data of Cuffy and Clow (1997) and Alley (2000), and (3) temperature reconstructions from Chinese tree rings. Among the many data sets that could be used, the GISP2 ice core data have

been selected because (1) the ice core data is based on thousands of isotope measurements that

quantitatively reflect paleo-temperatures, (2) the chronology is accurate to within about 1-3 years,

(3) even small fluctuations of ice core paleo-temperatues can be clearly and unequivocally correlated with advance and retreat of glaciers globally, confirming that the ice core data mimic global temperatures, and (4) Greenland temperatures measured over the past century match global temperature trends almost exactly, confirming that Greenland temperatures march in lock step with global temperatures. Thus, the GISP2 ice core data provides an excellent check against conclusions about global climate—it is quantitative, chronologically accurate, and representative of global climate. ,,,

The significance of this is that temperature variations in both curves are essentially the same, confirming one another. The Little Ice, Medieval Warm Period, Dark Ages Cool Period, Roman Warm Period, and other temperature peaks show up equally well in both types of curve. (TreeParty, I chose this article not only because it shows the warming peaks of the past through the Greenland ice record, but also confirmation through Chinese tree rings as a proxy. You’ll note that the article confirms the Minoan Warming Period peak temperatures as well as others)…

The Medieval Warm Period was 1.1° C warmer than the top of the core (1950) and at least four other warm periods were ~1.3 °C warmer; two other warm periods were 1.8-2.0 °C warmer; and one warm period was 2.8 °C warmer. At least a dozen periods more than 1°C warmer than 1950 occurred, clearly contradicting the Marcott et al. Conclusions”;”Since 1967, North American winter snow extent has been increasing, with many recent years being in the top twenty. The only reasonable explanation for this is that cold Arctic air is pushing further south into the United States during winter, causing snow to fall and remain on the ground further south than it did 50 years ago. …As always, they cool the past and warm the present to create the appearance of non-existent warming. This leaves only two realistic possibilities.

      1. The freezing point of water has changed since 1967
      2. US winters are getting colder, and the NCDC adjustments are complete garbage.” ;

At first reading the message one takes from this research just published in the journal Science is that Michael Mann of Penn State University has shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age do in fact exist. This is in contrast to his earlier work that produced the now infamous hockey stick graph that showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so and a recent dramatic upturn. In fact, the graph produced in the Science article showing the temperature anomaly from 500 – 2000 AD (no data from the post-2001 temperature standstill here) doesn’t resemble a hockey stick at all! (So you see, TreeParty, even the perpetrators of lies, the hockey stick creator, occasionally corrects himself) ;

It’s clear that (when viewing this map) the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide. “;

Here we present a decadally resolved continuous sea surface temperature (SST) reconstruction from the IPWP (Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP)) that spans the past two millennia and overlaps the instrumental record, enabling both a direct comparison of proxy data to the instrumental record and an evaluation of past changes in the context of twentieth century trends. Our record from the Makassar Strait, Indonesia, exhibits trends that are similar to a recent Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction2. Reconstructed SST was, however, within error of modern values from about ad 1000 to ad 1250, towards the end of the Medieval Warm Period. SSTs during the Little Ice Age (approximately ad 1550–1850) were variable, and ~0.5 to 1 °C colder than modern values during the coldest intervals. A companion reconstruction of δ18O of sea water”

Two, you indicate that the entire planet has increased in temperature by 1°C in the last century, but why is that unusual given that that we’ve just spent 250 years coming out of the LIA and natural warming would do that, again Were you aware of the fact that the temperature of the earth hasn’t increased for more than 18 years and 9 months now, But more importantly, the steepest drop in global temperature on record just occurred, , dropping temperatures by more than 1°C over land. “Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans. ” ,again, .

“Let’s take a look at Muller’s chart, and then compare it to the chart for the last 11 years — which the Daily Mail labels an “THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH”: First, let’s look at the top chart. A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal). Temperatures then started to slowly rise during an era of significantly reduced industrial output, thanks to a lengthy economic depression that gripped the entire world.” Pay close attention to what Prof. Curry says about Prof. Murray’s comments on CO2 supposedly correlation with temperature in this chart. “‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ “

These 3 facts should take quite a bit of the starch out of your claim, as that 1°C increase in temperature has just evaporated, as all this as CO2 has continued to rise, and is now at 408.64 ppm as of June 25, 2017

You seem to have been sucked into this CO2 is the evil object/monster of the planet that has been perpetuated by the IPCC and devoted global warmists such as yourself and which is now being sold as gospel to the small group of other scientists who make up your band of cohorts who believe in this “settled science”. As I think I’ll show you, I believe that it’s all a bunch of hooey, if not outright horse-poop, and you are definitely an acolyte for the Al Gore priesthood, but probably not making the money he is, else you wouldn’t be on these stupid webpages.

I feel like I need to share with you some facts regarding the IPCC. Rather than being a organization which looks for all of the issues regarding climate change, you must be aware by now that the IPCC was only tasked with looking for human-induced climate change, , not examining any other explanations for climate change. So naturally, all grants towards climate research had that in mind, finding humans responsible. So billions of dollars have gone towards finding man responsible, rather than clear and open-minded research, it’s all one-way. Every new research paper that is published supposedly finds more and more bazaar and hyperbolic statements of doom for the planet and the IPCC has also increasingly perpetrated this mess, ignoring the natural elements of climate change. Perhaps Syun Akasofu, Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center, captured that sentiment best when he said that ”Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion brought me the dubious honor of being designated “Alaska’s most famous climate change skeptic.””

Other criticisms of the IPCC are,,, and

Let’s examine some critical critiques of your Michael Mann’s hypothesis regarding CO2 being the driver of climate:

Let’s examine some critical critiques of Michael Mann’s hypothesis regarding CO2 being the driver of climate:

Some reviews of The the Hockey Stick illusions

Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph…Montford’s book is written with grace and flair. Like all the best science writers, he knows that the secret is not to leave out the details (because this just results in platitudes and leaps of faith), but rather to make the details delicious, even to the most unmathematical reader. I never thought I would find myself unable to put a book down because—sad, but true—I wanted to know what happened next in an r-squared calculation. This book deserves to win prizes.

Matt Ridley, Prospect Magazine (UK)


The Hockey Stick Illusion by A W Montford, brilliantly tells the bizarre tale of how Mann’s colleagues, calling themselves “the Hockey Team” and now at the heart of the IPCC, managed to resurrect the discredited graph for inclusion in its 2007 report.

Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph (UK)

For anybody who wants to understand the scientific and psychological background to Climategate, there is no better read than Andrew Montford’s new book, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science.

Peter Foster, National Post (Canada)

A.W. Montford’s book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre’s pursuit of the self-denominated “hockey team” led by Michael Mann, who wrote the key chapters on his own work for the IPCC, and Phil Jones, who maintains the temperature record used by the IPCC to document the “Hockey Stick”: limning allegedly unprecedented and anomalous anthropogenic global warming in the Twentieth Century while denying that any comparable or greater warming occurred in the Medieval period.

George Gilder, Discovery News (US)

Montford has done a great service to science, to history and to a public grown sceptical of the scare stories upon which vast amounts of research funding, carbon trading and energy technology subsidies depend. That story cannot now claim that the 20th century warmth is unprecedented.

Peter Taylor, ECOS

As far as the pre-industrial CO2 in the atmosphere goes, other sources contest that the CO2 in the atmosphere was ever really as low as 280 ppm.

The youngest CO2 data, is not based on ice cores but on South Pole Air Flask samples– which consistently show CO2 higher than 300 ppm. The point in time useful for considering what CO2 concetrations really were before humans started to burn fossil fuels is at the start of the Industrial Revolution— about 1750 AD. A key assumption is that pre-industrial CO2 concentrations were less than 280 ppm and that everything above that is caused by humans. This assumption,however, is not without problems, although seldom discussed.”, ….For reasons that are unclear, only a few of these tests were considered valid by G.S. Calendar (1898-1964)– the grandfather of the theory of man-made global warming. …However, CO2 data available at the time showed concentrations ranged between 250 ppm and 550 ppm (Figure 4). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 280 ppm, based largely on the ice core record, although this has never been otherwise substantiated (7), emphasis added .

Furthermore, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski argues convincingly that the CO2 levels in many ice cores have been contaminated as well as subjected to intentionally distorted sampling. “When climate science was not driven by ideology, it was generally assumed that long-term astronomical cycles—those measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of years—were the way in which climate had to be situated.A significant declining trend of values in Figure 1, between 1860 and 1900, when CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning increased from 91.5 to 485.6 tons of carbon was similar to a decrease to a global surface air temperature decrease in this period.7 This may reflect lower CO2 degassing from colder oceans, the result of natural climate fluctuations.8To reach the low 19th-century CO2 concentration, the cornerstone of this hypothesis, Callender used a bias selection method. From a set of 26 19th-century averages, Callender rejected 16 that were higher than his assumed low global average, and 2 that were lower. … Because of uncertainties in 19th-century air measurements, studies of greenhouse gases in glacier ice are often regarded – incorrectly – as the most reliable estimates of CO2, CH 4 (methane), and N2O (Nitrous oxide) in the pre-industrial atmosphere…On the basis of these analyses, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change11 declared that the pre-industrial CO2 level in the atmosphere was 26 percent lower than current levels. The IPCC also declared that the pre-industrial concentration of N2O was 19 percent lower and that CH4was 215 percent lower than current levels.

However, no study has yet demonstrated that the content of trace greenhouse trace gases in old ice, or even the interstitial area from recent snow represents the atmospheric composition. One must read the entire section on “Fudging the CO2 Data” section to see how various researchers and the IPCC manipulated the data on CO2 levels to ignore levels as high as 700-2450ppmv yes, that’s two thousand,four hundred and fifty, in pre-industrial ice. …This article finishes with this summary:

The data in Figure 9 suggest that CO2 atmospheric mass increases were not related to man-made emissions of this gas, but rather these increases depended on volcanic eruptions and other causes of natural climate fluctuations,” .” (Emphasis added)

Over the last 40 million years the CO2 level in the atmosphere has fallen from 1000-2000 ppmv to a minimum of 180 ppmv 20.000 years ago Not since the Perm period circa 250 million years ago has the CO2 level been so low.“ So, there’s no causation between high CO2 levels and high temperatures.

Finally, regarding CO2’s influence on climate, are you aware that CO2 has only a logarithmic effect on temperatures, . The third chart (bar chart) shows that most of the effect of CO2 is gained by the 1st 20 ppm, and that each extra 20 ppm has less and less effect on emperature. As Mr. Archibald explains “Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).”

But let’s look at whether CO2 actually drives temperatures/climate. The following webpages clearly show that temperature leads CO2 levels in the past,, and Mr. Caryl summed up his article with the following “Nowhere here do we see any indication that CO2 is driving temperature

Please watch Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015, as he destroys the global warming hypothesis, Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Also, the The astronomical theory of the Ice Age The ice age reached its peak 18,000 years ago when the tilt had risen to a value of 23.4 degrees from a low of 22.2 degrees 32,000 years ago. Since then the tilt has reached a maximum of 24.2 degrees (10,000 years ago). Today, the Earth’s tilt measures 23.5 degrees, and the large ice sheets have disappeared. The three orbital parameters that are affected are the eccentricity (how circular the orbit is) which varies with periods between 400,000 and 100,000 years; obliquity (how tilted the Earth is with respect to its orbit around the Sun) which varies with a period of about 40,000 and affects the solar radiation most strongly at the poles; and precession (changes in the distance between the Earth and Sun in a given season) which varies with a period of about 23,000 years and affects the solar radiation most strongly at the equatorThese changes in the orbit of the Earth produce changes in the solar radiation received by the Earth that vary over periods of about 40,000 years, strongest at the poles, and 20,000 years, strongest at the equator. These changes can be matched with the cycle of the ice ages as revealed by the geologic record; however, the largest variation of the ice ages over the past million years has a period of 100,000 years. The 100,000 year cycle is thought to be the result of the interactions of the 40,000 and 20,000 year variations in solar radiation and various geophysical processes that occur on the Earth over long periods; however, this is a subject of continuing research. (Emphasis added)

What Per Cent of Global Warming Is Natural? Past Climate History Has The Answer

The above webpage first directs one to view this webpage first, and then come back to the original webpage. “Finally, the Greenland ice sheets that the ice cores came from obviously survived much higher temperatures without sliding into the sea, as global warming alarmists claim will happen by 2100. “So you can see that the IPCC’s narrative that current temperatures are unprecedented is simply not true. (Emphasis added)

Do you still want to stick with your unproven theory that CO2 is somehow involved with temperature increases? I will agree that there’s been some correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures, but always, temperatures led CO2 upwards, NOT the other way around.

Other explanations for why Greenland’s warming are offered:

Linked, abrupt changes of North Atlantic deep water formation, North Atlantic sea ice extent, and widespread climate occurred repeatedly during the last ice age cycle and beyond in response to changing freshwater fluxes and perhaps other causes. This paradigm, developed and championed especially by W. S. Broecker, has repeatedly proven to be successfully predictive as well as explanatory with high confidence. Much work remains to fully understand what happened and to assess possible implications for the future, but the foundations for this work are remarkably solid.”,

and Broecker et al. stated, “Despite the tenuous nature of the information presently available and of the difficulties inherent in thinking in terms of mode changes, we must begin to explore this alternate track” (p.25).

The story of melting glaciers has been told ad nauseam by climate catastrophists and the scientifically gullible news media for years. This blog has reported on the purported “rapid melting” of the Himalayan glaciers several times before (see “Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting” and “Himalayan Glacier Disappearance Overstated”). It is true that glaciers melt, they are the primary source of water in a number of regions around the world….

As I have often stated, this is an interglacial period, ice is supposed to melt. Otherwise there would still be a mile of ice on top of New York City.”,

In the last million years the Earth’s climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.” As you can see, while nearly 1,000,000 years ago, temperatures were 8°C warmer than today. I think it’s just normal/natural cyclic ice ages and interglacial periods. This cyclic changeover has been observed in many places in the world:”The findings also show evidence of ice in Greenland during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago, which indicates that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will probably not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion.”, (emphasis added) ,”

The latest such find is a woolen tunic discovered next to a thawing glacier in southern Norway.” , “Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.”, ,”Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.…Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers.” Prof. Schlüchter criticized today’s climate scientists for focusing on a time period that is “indeed much too short“, .

Through analysis and interpretation of these photographic pairs, information is extracted to document Alaskan landscape evolution and glacier dynamics for the last century-and-a-quarter on local and regional scales and the response of the Alaskan landscape to retreating glacier ice.””, , “”The climate 400,000 years ago was not that much different than what we see today, or at least what is predicted for the end of the century,” said Anders Carlson, an associate professor at Oregon State University and co-author on the study. “The forcing was different, but what is important is that the region crossed the threshold allowing the southern portion of the ice sheet to all but disappear. This may give us a better sense of what may happen in the future as temperatures continue rising,” Carlson added.”,

The climate change, the warming that’s certainly taking place here, is by no means uniform. In fact, 4,000 miles to the east of the Bering Glacier, weather stations in Greenland are reporting that temperatures are actually getting cooler. “, .

““Greenland really was green! However, it was millions of years ago. Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra, before it was by the second largest body of ice on Earth,” Dr Rood said.”,

Third, there is NO CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE, climate or otherwise. Science is about results of experiments which can be replicated by others. No matter many how many people you say agree with this Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, it’s still just that, a THEORY ONLY. If numbers of scientists were the sole determinant, I’d guess that the 31,000+ scientists, including more than 9000 PhD’s, who signed the Global Warming Petition Project, would easily dwarf the small numbers of scientists who actually believe in AGW, not to mention these great climate scientists who disagree with your so-called “settled science”, . Finally, here’s a list of UN climate scientists who disagree with everything you’ve said, . These are the very people who are writing these so-called “world death and destruction scenarios”. It sounds to me like the IPCC has an agenda that will guide the findings and policy of their reports.

But let’s get back to Greenland, because you seem to think that CO2 is the only possible answer for it’s melting. Perhaps you weren’t aware of the fact that Greenland sits over a hotspot in the Earth’s mantle, contributing to its glacier melting, as proven here:,,, and

Also, “Glaciers come and go naturally and have for 20 billion years. The Earth couldn’t care less, he said. If humans were extinct, the glaciers would still be melting today, he said. Are we going to fix things by creating less greenhouse gases?” Molina said. No. And if you think so, you don’t know how the Earth works – you’re a politician.” “, And that’s what we got with the IPCC, a political body, NOT a scientific one.

Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.

More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)”

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. …

By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. …

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”…

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern. ”…

It’s becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus , asserts Mr. James Taylor.

“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of ‘settled science’ and an overwhelming ‘consensus’ in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong,” the petition asserts. “No such consensus or settled science exists. …

Over 9,000 of the petition’s signatories have a PhD. in a scientific field. …

For all the talk of “settled science,” all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited “hockey stick” graphic that pointed to exponential warming, to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers, receding rain forests, increases in hurricane activity, and the end of snow. …

The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated, and “based on the best available temperature records,” the region has actually warmed only “about 0.65 degrees Celsius [about 1.1 degree F.] since 1860.” …

The alleged “consensus” is nothing more than an agreement that the weather has warmed in the past 300 years. Yet the quantum and attribution of warming are hotly debated among climatologists. Even today, measuring global temperature is subject to errors, biases, missing data, and subjective adjustments.”

Adherents of the “science-is-settled” argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.

“However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. “,

The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position.

If you want fundraising in the billions rather than the thousands, you need a good end-of-days, sin-and-redemption scare. Human-caused global warming is your answer! …

I see it differently. I predict a high likelihood of substantial collapse of the global warming movement, both domestically and internationally, over the course of the next couple of years….

Start with the EPA. To the extent that the global warming movement has anything to do with “science,” EPA is supposedly where that science is vetted and approved on behalf of the public before being turned into policy. …

For example, when a major new Research Report came out back in September claiming to completely invalidate all of the bases on which EPA claims that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, and thus to undermine EPA’s authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act, EPA simply failed to respond. In the same vein, essentially all prominent global warming alarmists refuse to debate anyone who challenges any aspect of their orthodoxy. Well, that has worked as long as they and their allies have controlled all of the agencies and all of the money. Now, it will suddenly be put up or shut up. And in case you might think that the science on this issue is “settled,” so no problem, you might enjoy this recent round-up at Climate Depot from some of the actual top scientists.A couple of excerpts:

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side. ‘ . . .

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’…

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

How do you explain an almost-20-year “pause” in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated?

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!

We see Morano trying to challenge a few scientists, but it typically ends with them fleeing the microphones. After all, he’s no stranger to debate.’ –‘The film’s most effective moments come when left-of-center experts describe how they abandoned their previous climate change positions. Doing so opened them up to scathing critiques from their colleagues. Some even found themselves unwelcome at gigs they held for some time. It’s another signal that dissent won’t be tolerated in climate change circles.

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. …

Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he stated.

Here’s my prediction: As soon as the United States stops parroting the global warming line, the other countries will quickly start backing away from it as well. This is “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” with the U.S. in the role of the little kid who is the only one willing to say the obvious truth in the face of mass hysteria. …

During the eight Obama years, the energy sector of the U.S. economy has been substantially transformed by a technological revolution that has dramatically lowered the cost of energy and hugely benefited the American consumer. I’m referring, of course, to the fracking revolution. How much of the tens of billions of U.S. energy subsidies and research funding in that time went toward this revolution that actually produced cheaper energy that works? Answer: Not one single dollar! All of the money was completely wasted on things that are uneconomic and will disappear as soon as the government cuts off the funding spigot. All of this funding can and should be zeroed out in the next budget. Believe me, nobody will notice other than the parasites who have been wasting the money.

The environmental movement has climbed itself way out onto the global warming limb. Now the Trump administration is about to start sawing off the limb behind them.

Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998

Here are some segments from an article titled “Why I Stopped Believing in Man-made Global Warming and Became a Climate Skeptic

“The first time I experienced a twinge of climate change doubt was when I learned that carbon dioxide (CO2) comprised less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. In truth, such a seemingly small amount shouldn’t be underestimated since CO2 starts trapping heat quite effectively at far more minuscule concentrations. But at the time, I thought, “That’s strange. I would have thought it was a lot more….

At that point, two minor pieces of information helped to trigger a real curiosity for me—and led me to realize that the issue was far more complicated than I had always believed.

The first was learning that man produces only a tiny portion of all CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. In contrast, for example, termites alone release far more CO2 annually (and by several orders of magnitude) than all the burning of fossil fuels. The second was learning that there had been a global cooling scare in the 1970s….

Simply put, I went from wholeheartedly believing in man-made “climate change” to viewing the science undergirding the case as very questionable. Overall, I became resentful that I’d been naively indoctrinated by a daily, one-sided media barrage. And I started to look at myself as something of a freedom fighter—someone who was pushing back against misinformation—and making people aware that they were being manipulated.

For starters, CO2 is actually a rather flawed “greenhouse gas.” When CO2 is first introduced into the atmosphere it rapidly absorbs as much heat (in the form of infrared radiation) as possible. But it doesn’t take long for CO2 to become “optically saturated.” This means that after reaching roughly 0.0020 percent (20 parts per million) of the atmosphere, CO2 starts fading. From then on, it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to trap the same amount of heat. By the present concentration of 0.04 percent (400 parts per million), CO2 is essentially saturated—and can’t meaningfully trap much additional heat. …

In truth, basic science demonstrates exactly the opposite, which is why climate scientists actually base  most of their projected warming on “positive feedback” from water vapor. …

Simply put, water vapor in the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain—which not only lowers surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere. …

So the real question should be: Well if CO2 isn’t driving global warming, what is?

And so, not only did solar activity increase sharply during the 20th century, but this same increase in output corresponds quite closely with other warm periods recorded over the past few thousands of years. …

However, this view overlooks the related—and larger—impacts of solar variability, including atmospheric ionization and cloud formation. And so, when considered together, these associated factors demonstrate a more complete picture of solar variability’s relevance …

UV radiation is the primary source of atmospheric warmth, which helps to explain why increased UV penetration during the latter portion of the 20th century contributed to a rise in temperatures …

In fact, since the late 1990s, both satellite data and weather balloon measurements show a net flatlining of global temperatures. …

Simply put, the theory of man-made warming cannot account for a halt in the overall rise in temperatures, or why computer models (programmed to emphasize a high climate sensitivity to CO2) are continuing to diverge from actual, observed temperature measurements. …

The overall point is that there are valid reasons to question both the assumptions and policies advocated by climate change activists. It would be helpful if those who take a stand against presumed man-made warming were given a chance to expand on their reasoning, rather than face criticism and scorn.” “If the United States were to actually make the transition to a partially or fully wind- and solar-based power infrastructure, the failures of Europe and Australia’s green energy experiments show that the nation would experience an ongoing series of power shortages and blackouts.

“Australian Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg (the guy all you warmists criticized) told the Australian that tomorrow’s meeting with the states would put statewide blackouts on the agenda, with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) briefing ministers on its findings on the South Australian crisis and the risks for other states. “Events in South Australia do show an urgent need to look at the reliability and stability of the energy system,’’ he said. “The risk of statewide blackouts in other states will be part of the questions ministers will ask of AEMO.”

Fossil fuel, nuclear, biomass and hydro power generators can all to varying degrees supply electricity ‘on demand’, in other words supply from these sources can be called upon or adjusted to meet demand. In contrast to renewable hydro, the feed-in of wind and solar output is uncontrollably intermittent due to the uncertainty of meteorological conditions. In grid management terms they are not dispatchable. Therefore the energy system needs backup capacity from the on-demand-sources to bridge periods with high or low generation from renewables. The targeted rapid increase of power supply from intermittent renewable sources in many countries presents a fundamental challenge to the smooth functioning of many electricity supply systems.

Wind and solar power are the forms of renewable power that are growing most rapidly. In the 450 Scenario of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2016 they are expected to increase to 30% of electricity in 2040. …

Wind and solar power supply is largely governed by wind speed and the level of sunlight, which can only loosely be related to periods of power demand. It is this feature of intermittent renewable power supply that results in the imposition of additional costs on the generating system as a whole, which will implicitly be paid for either by other generators, consumers or taxpayers.

The IEA (International Energy Agency ) disaggregates these system costs into three components:

  • Adequacy costs: the cost of ensuring that the power system has sufficient capacity to meet peak loads.
  • Balancing costs: the cost of ensuring that the power system can respond flexibly to demand changes at any given time.
  • Interconnection costs: the cost of linking sources of supply to sources of demand.

From the System integration costs of intermittent renewable power generation portion of

You must have questioned how the IPCC arrived at its findings. I think you should view this video, the Corbett Report’s the The IPCC Exposed . I apologize that this is 45 minutes long, but it’s well worth the effort to watch it. Please pay close attention to how Dr. Tim Ball explains how the IPCC was formed, and their constraints in reaching conclusions, by their charter. Also, the Summary for Policymakers being produced before the final IPCC report is even written appears highly problematic to me. Here also is further proof of the IPCC’s skewness towards the man-caused possible explanations of climate change .

Read here, here and here. The UN’s IPCC political leaders, bureaucrats and the Climategate scientists have said for years that today’s temperatures are “unprecedented.” They also claim that all temperatures to the right of the black-dash line on the graph below are natural; and, all temperatures to the left of the black-dash line are unnatural, due to human CO2. The past visible history (as shown) of temperature records makes both these claims flat-out lies. The historical record also indicates that temperatures fluctuate up and down without any relationship to the CO2 level. (click on image to enlarge), . (Emphasis added) Other references that deal with the so-called “unprecedented” say that, “10. Scientists who study satellite data should not use the term “unprecedented changes”. (They do not have satellite data before the 1970s and cannot tell if any of the changes are “unprecedented”, even those that occurred in the 1930s or 1940s, not having comparable data.)

Let’s examine the Climategate files, for some inconsistencies with how this “Settled science” was generated.

First, Briffa’s Yumal study of trees was seriously flawed, as described here and here .

Then Michael Mann generated a hockey-stick graph using Bristlecone Pines (BCP) , from the area of White Mountains of California that was covered by a drought condition for many years. “According to real scientists, the graph also gave extreme weighting to datasets that showed unusual 20th-century warming at the expense of those that did not. And the program that Mr Mann created to draw the graph would have shown the 20th century as unusually warm even if random red noise rather than real-world data were fed in. There were numerous other statistical curiosities. Mr Mann’s graph is perhaps the most laughable and widely-discredited object in the history of bad science supporting worse politics.

The `Hockey Stick’

From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate – until 1900 AD

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.”

Perhaps you’ll be compelled to watch and listen to Dr. Easterbrook as he discusses climate with the Washington state legislators . Listen closely as he says that CO2 cannot cause Global Warming.

European Scientists Confirm Exxon Not To Blame For Climate Change.Latest Inconvenient Science:..

In summary, their extensive analysis of the hydrological evidence does not comport with the simulated findings of the most advanced CO2-centric climate models available (surprise, surprise).

Clearly, the accompanying graph depicts the never ending condition of natural climate change, providing further proof that human fossil fuel emissions – and Exxon – are not to blame.”

Here is an article describing why the IPCC models of climate science are NOT useful and should not be used for any modeling, . A key portion of this article is as follows “If the warming since 1950 was caused by humans, then what caused the warming during the period 1910-1940? The period 1910-1940 comprises about 40% of the warming since 1900, but is associated with only 10% of the carbon dioxide increase since 1900. Clearly, human emissions of greenhouse gases played little role in this early warming. The mid-century period of slight cooling from 1945-1975 – referred as the ‘grand hiatus’ – has also not been satisfactorily explained….

Hence we don’t have a good understanding of the relative climate impacts of the above or their potential impacts on the evolution of the 21st century climate.”

TreeParty, you said “Other possible mechanisms, and groups of mechanisms, have been considered, evaluated, and rejected, as the CHIEF driver of the measurable global warming. …To recapitulate: There is no other scientifically defensible explanation for the observable rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet but AGW. “

Here’s a near complete takedown of your global warming theory, delivered from the great economist, Bjorn Lomborg, “Paris is Not the Solution by Bjørn Lomborg – Project Syndicate” Lomborg is the Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”, the the first of these two was my first of my “ textbooks”, learning the true state of the planet, not some talking points that aren’t legit. Please excuse me while I point out some key points of this article,

The inadequacies of the Paris agreement were acknowledged by environmentalists at the time it was signed, though some are changing their tune, in order to stand steadfastly against Trump. Back in 2015, the noted environmentalist Bill McKibben concluded that the accord did just enough “to keep both environmentalists and the fossil fuel industry from complaining too much.” Now, he fears the withdrawal “undercuts our civilization’s chances of surviving global warming.”

“There is nothing new in the politicization of climate policy or the over-selling of a political agreement. But the deeper problem is that a lot of puffery about the state of renewable energy has accompanied the Paris hype….

This, too, is not new. “A largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward soft technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic,” environmentalist Amory Lovins declared in 1976. In 1984, the Worldwatch Institute assured us that wind subsidies “will not be needed within a few years.”

In fact, the world will spend $125 billion on wind and solar subsidies alone in 2017. Despite four decades of financial support, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that wind provides just 0.5% of today’s energy needs, and solar photovoltaic a miniscule 0.1%.

More than $3 trillion will be spent on subsidies just on wind and solar photovoltaic over the next 25 years. Even by 2040, and assuming that all of the Paris agreement’s promises are fulfilled, the IEA expects wind and solar to provide, respectively, just 1.9% and 1% of global energy. This is not what an economy in the midst of an “inevitable” shift away from fossil fuels looks like. …

Spain was once paying almost 1% of its GDP in renewable subsidies, more than it spent on higher education. When it cut back, new wind energy production collapsed.

Green energy investors and politicians lead the public-relations advance, assisted by a credulous media that likes to tell green-technology “success” stories. But if green energy were already competitive or near-competitive with fossil fuels, the Paris agreement would be unnecessary. The entire world would be dumping fossil fuels for the cheaper, better option.

It’s not very complicated: We must end wasteful subsidies for both fossil fuels and inefficient solar and wind. And we should focus on investment in innovation to improve green energy.

TreeParty, I’m sure you’re aware that there are literally hundreds if not a thousand issues that affect

climate in our world. Only 2 of which are fairly familiar to me, that being the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the corresponding North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) . Whereas the former has a periodicity

of switching between positive and negative phases about every 30 years, the latter seems to have a

variable periodicity, with occasional very abrupt changes between the negative and positive phases.

Perhaps the second best reason for any Greenland’s warming and Arctic Sea ice loss – “it’s the wind” says NASA, , quoting from the article “Our results suggest that the decadal AO [Arctic Oscillation] and multidecadal LFO, [low-frequency oscillation (LFO) with an approximate time scale of 60–80 years] drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult”, as Polyakov concluded. TreeParty, this is NASA research, so why would they lie to you, given their interest in keeping the global warming fantasy alive for yet more funding from the government? As far as this research goes, if these researchers cannot find a distinction between natural warming and man-made warming, that cinches it for me, as apparently there is NO man-made warming, hence my title of this blog posting.

All of which leads me to my final point, and that is all the above is controlled by the Sun.They are all natural processes and depend on the single source of energy affecting our world to modify it.The Left Ignores Newest Climate Science,, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate”, , “P. Gosselin: Yet Another Paper Shows “The Enormous Importance Of Solar Activity Fluctuations On Climate”,

Interestingly, almost all other periods of drought occurred during times of solar minima, among them the Oort Minimum, Wolf Minimum, Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (see Figure 1 above). Every time the sun goes into a slumber for a few decades, the rains on the Tibet Plateau stay away. A frequency analysis of precipitation curves also delivers evidence on solar cycles. Here the Gleissberg Cycle (60-120 year period) and the Suess/de Vries Cycle (180-220 years) are seen in the datasets.

It was found that century-type variation in Greenland and Antarctic nitrate correlates fairly significantly with the corresponding Gleissberg cycle: (a) in sunspot number over 1700–1970 AD; (b) in 10Be concentration in Central and South Greenland over 1576–1970 AD. Thus, presence of century-scale relationship between polar nitrate and solar activity was confirmed over the last 4 centuries. That proves that NO3 concentration in polar ice caps could serve as indicator of long-term solar variability.

Yet more evidence of natural variability being the cause of climate change, rather than this hoax of CO2 the driver of temperature.

It was found that century-type variation in Greenland and Antarctic nitrate correlates fairly significantly with the corresponding Gleissberg cycle: (a) in sunspot number over 1700–1970 AD; (b) in 10Be concentration in Central and South Greenland over 1576–1970 AD. Thus, presence of century-scale relationship between polar nitrate and solar activity was confirmed over the last 4 centuries. That proves that NO3 concentration in polar ice caps could serve as indicator of long-term solar variability.

Yet more evidence of natural variability of climate, rather than this hoax of CO2 the big driver of temperature.

“The Greenland Ice Sheet is gaining near record amounts of ice this year, (July 20, 2017 ). Very little melting has occurred this summer, which is about to start winding down ….

Temperatures on the Greenland Ice Sheet have been extremely cold, and broke the all-time record for Northern Hemisphere July cold on July 4, at -33C. …

We see the same pattern year after. Lots of ice gain over most of Greenland’s surface, particularly southeast Greenland. …

Despite all evidence to the contrary, government scientists insist on believing fake GRACE data which shows almost all of Greenland losing ice. …

Science used to involve data, facts, integrity and thought, but now it involves striving for grant money. Meanwhile, the climate mafia insists the Arctic is experiencing record melting, and “cracking up.” …

These are criminals, not scientists. “

I could not agree more with this assessment. While you are suggesting that burning of fossil fuels is causing Greenland to melt, a good bit of Greenland is actually increasing in ice extent.

It’s time, I think, TreeParty, that you find something new to worry about and that probably should be Global Cooling, as the sun has been in Solar Cycle 24 for some time now, and the number of sunspots are already falling off, meaning that more cooling is in Earth’s future . In fact, National Geographic reported in 2011 that our sun was likely go into hibernation at what would have been the beginning of the next solar cycle, that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020. It’s the smallest cycle in 100 years,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center research scientist David Hathaway said during a recent press teleconference conducted by the Marshall Space Flight Center. Recently, the National Solar Observatory‘s Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona. They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun’s magnetic field won’t be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict. Astronomy Now reported in July 2015 that Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) presented a paper with conclusions that the world

would enter a Little Ice Age in 2030-2040

Here’s another video for you to watch, this one by by David Dilley, former NOAA Meteorologist and current CEO and senior research scientist – Global Weather Oscillations, Inc. , this one will answer all of your questions and disbeliefs regarding Global Cooling, I believe

SSRC President John L. Casey, who worked as a consultant for NASA and was a White House space program adviser, has stated “We’re Heading Into a Long Cold Climate Era” , Similarly Piers Corbyn, the UK weather forecaster who has routinely beaten the Met office at their forecasts, says that we’ve already passed our peak in global temperatures, and are headed for a period of global cooling , and Mr. Corbyn goes on to explain how future Winters will now be Coldest in Centuries in England, Europe, and even America.

TreeParty, I used to be like you, thinking that mankind was destroying the planet. But then someone told me that Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park erupted hundreds of years before, throwing lava for hundred of miles around. I checked it out, and sure enough, it was true. Of course, we all know that the meteorite which struck the Yucatan Peninsula killing all the dinosaurs. Those were my Epiphany moments, when I started to do more digging and questioning my own ideaology. I wonder if you will question your own ideology, as former Greenpeace member Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World , which uses actual facts to show that the quality of the environment of the Earth has been improving, or as KlausEckert Puls did?

As far as your CO2 theory goes, here’s the latest from NOAA and NASA, regarding 2014 being the hottest year ever:

Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘According to NOAA, that probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 52%.
According to
NASA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 62%.

It is more likely than not that the warmest year was a different one than 2014.”

Since man continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere don’t you think that temperature should be much higher then it is today?

Finally, the only thing I have to ask you is: Is there anything anybody could ever say, show, write, demonstrate, ask or explain/comment to a blog, that will make you change your mind?

If your answer is “No”, I suspect you have a “Congealed Mind as described here., so there’s no point in any further debate with you.

But, I have enjoyed you where you are wrong, I believe, but please continue, but please bring some real data to the discussion on your next go round, rather than this extreme environmentist dogma you so willingly spout. Perhaps you can also provide a scientist or two willing to go on the record as far as supporting both of your beliefs.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s