In the same category

Global Warming Chickenlittleism

IMG Auteur
Published : January 11th, 2014
2801 words - Reading time : 7 - 11 minutes
( 11 votes, 4.1/5 ) , 37 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
Category : Editorials

The nature of the recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is extremely alarmist. The report warns, with a 95% certainty, that global warming is man-made and that the resulting  climate change will lead to:

  • Rising temperatures, drought and increasing desertification
  • Warming of the oceans and rising sea levels
  • Shortages of food
  • Loss of ice sheets & shrinking of glaciers
  • Increasing intensity and size of storms

There’s no doubt our climate is changing, but are the charges the IPCC is making correct? Are the global climate changes we’re experiencing man-made or part of earth’s natural climate cycle?

Let’s take a look under the ‘hood’ of ‘man-made’ global warming.

Fact - The Earth's climate has been continuously changing throughout its history. From ice covering large amounts of the globe to interglacial periods where there was ice only at the poles - our climate and biosphere has been in flux for millennia.

”it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.

Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.

Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier…

The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).

If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier?” Michael Fumento, Global Warming Proof is Evaporating, New York Post

Global warming stopped almost two decades ago despite warmists arguments about man putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. There has to be other factors at work, they are:

  • Variations in solar activity accounts for ¾’s of the variability in earth’s temperature. Changes occurring within the sun affects the intensity of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. These changes in intensity can cause either warming - stronger solar intensity - or cooling when solar intensity is weaker. Solar activity has dropped to a 100 year low.
  • Variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity - the shape of the orbit around the sun, a 100,000 year cycle.
  • Changes in obliquity or tilt of the earth’s axis - changes in the angle that Earth's axis makes with the plane of Earth's orbit, a 41,000 year cycle
  • Precession - the change in the direction of the Earth's axis of rotation, a 19,000 to 23,000 year cycle
  • Albedo or the total reflectivity of the earth’s changing cloud cover
  • Volcanoes often affect our climate by emitting aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Aerosols block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling, but do not stay in the atmosphere long enough to produce long term change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. Throughout human history, volcanic eruptions have produced some of the coldest winters ever recorded - in 2013 there were a record number of volcanic eruptions.

These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them:

  • The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.
  • The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in ocean currents. Ocean currents play a significant role in distributing heat around the Earth so changes in these currents can bring about significant changes in climate from region to region

Approximately every 100,000 years or so our climate warms up temporarily, this temporary reprieve from the ice we are now experiencing is called an interglacial period - the respite from the cold locker began 18,000 years ago as the earth started heating up and warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

The close of the Pleistocene Ice Age started when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise in temperature - this raised gas levels over the next few hundred years and the resultant greenhouse effect drove the planet's temperature higher, which drives a further rise in the gas levels and so on. The exact opposite happens when sunlight weakens, we get a shift from emission to absorption of gases which causes a further fall in temperature... and so forth.

Small rises or falls in temperature  - more, or less sunlight - causes a rise, or fall, in gas levels. Changing atmospheric CO2 and methane levels physically linked the Northern and Southern hemispheres, warming or cooling the planet as a whole.

Historical Atmospheric CO2 Levels

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are @ 400 ppm. Over the Earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm.

Everyone should watch, and carefully listen to, the following: In Defense of CO2

Useful Idiots, Chickenlittleism and Climate Change

Just as the weather has changed over time, so too has the reporting – media outlets blow hotter or colder following the short-term changes in temperature.

It’s easy to follow mainstream media’s climate change coverage dating back to the late 1800s with several major publications, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek reporting on four different climate shifts since 1895.

In 1895 the page six headline of The New York Times warned about the looming dangers of a new ice age. Reporting on ice age threats lasted from the late 1800s well into the late 1920s.

When the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with sensational stories about the new threat with the Times out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

British amateur meteorologist G. S. Callendar was arguing that mankind was responsible for heating up the planet with carbon dioxide emissions as early as 1938.

In 1954, Fortune magazine was writing about another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.”

Stories about global cooling started in the ‘50s but didn’t gain much traction until about 1975. Some of the stories were remarkably similar in subject to today’s - severe weather and deadly storms would occur much more frequently, climate changes pose a major threat to the food supply.

In 1975, The New York Times reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

“The Cooling Worlds” was the title of a Newsweek article in 1975. The paper wrote;

the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change…..a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions”

Just 6 years after publishing “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” the New York Times, on Aug. 22, 1981,  quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

Global cooling, warming, cooling again, and finally today (well maybe not so finally) warming.

Interesting that the term ‘Global Warming’ has recently morphed into the much more flexible ‘Climate Change’ - which of course means any major shift or major climate event can now be easily blamed on man’s activities.

IPCC Skeptics

Critics of the latest IPCC report are many but don’t expect to read any of them in mainstream media publications. Here’s a link to, and a short snippet and graph from, an excellent article by Great Britain’s The Mail.

"Global warming just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong."

“The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science. 

They are cited worldwide to justify swinging fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy…

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.”

A key new study in the journal Nature Climate Change revealed that nearly all climate models are dramatically inaccurate. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has produced a report titled ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II’ by the Heartland Institute, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project.

“This work provides the scientific balance that is

missing from the overly alarmist reports of the United

Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), which are highly selective in their review of

climate science and controversial with regard to their

projections of future climate change. Although the

IPCC claims to be unbiased and to have based its

assessment on the best available science, we have

found this to not be the case. In many instances

conclusions have been seriously exaggerated, relevant

facts have been distorted, and key scientific studies

have been ignored…Most notably, its authors

say the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming

they predict to occur in response to future increases in

atmospheric CO2. Any warming that may occur is

likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the

global environment or to human well-being.”

Also from the Executive Summary:

"No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human related CO2 emissions…

Evidence is accruing that changes in Earth’s surface temperature are largely driven by variations in solar activity…

The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades."

I found the following on It’s an article by Joseph D’Aleo with 25 key rebuttals to the man-made global warming side of the debate.

(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only

(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s

(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.

(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.

(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.

I gave you the first 5 of 25 rebuttals, follow this link to read the other 20 points.

97% Consensus - polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton, 17th January 2003, speaking at the California Institute of Technology


“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence.  They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.” MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen speaking to Climate Depot

I agree with Dr. Lindzen, with so much garbage going into, and considering the non-use of so much key data, one would have to expect nothing but garbage to come out of the IPCC report, after all garbage in =’s garbage out.


It’s not gas that initially causes the rise in temperatures, its more, or less sunlight.

+- Sunlight = +- temperature = +- gas

What the IPCC is doing is chasing a symptom, you cannot cure, fix or regulate how much sunlight reach’s the earth surface.

As far as this skeptic is concerned the IPCC’s ‘scientific’ opinion on climate change is influenced by nothing more than funding and political factors.

So what might be their agenda?

“the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming is embraced not because of any “science,” (that sham is for the “useful idiots,”), but because it is a justification for a government takeover of the energy industry, with massive increases in regulation, taxes and government spending.  The United Nations loves it because it inspires fantasies of the UN growing up to be a world government, with real government powers of global taxation, spending and regulation, all “to save the planet.”  Scientists who go along with the cause are rewarded not only with praise for their worthy social conscience, but also with altogether billions in hard, cold cash (government and environmental grants), for their cooperation in helping to play the “useful idiots.”  Moreover, many academic scientists are “progressives” themselves, and so favor sharp increases in government spending, taxes and regulation, because they are certain they know how to run your life better than you do.” Peter Ferrara,The Coming Revelation Of The 'Global Warming' Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie, Forbes

Is the real science of climate change, and the political machinations in regards to the UN and the IPCC’s global warming agenda on your radar screen?

If not, they should be.

Richard lives with his family on a 160 acre ranch in northern British Columbia. He invests in the resource, biotechnology/pharmaceutical sectors and is the owner of His articles have been published on over 400 websites, including:

WallStreetJournal, USAToday, NationalPost, Lewrockwell, MontrealGazette, VancouverSun, CBSnews, HuffingtonPost, Beforeitsnews, Londonthenews, Wealthwire, CalgaryHerald, Forbes, Dallasnews, SGTreport, Vantagewire, Indiatimes, Ninemsn, Ibtimes, Businessweek, HongKongHerald, Moneytalks, SeekingAlpha, BusinessInsider, and the Association of Mining Analysts.

Please visit

If you are interested in advertising on Richard’s site please contact him for more information,


Legal Notice / Disclaimer

This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment.

Richard Mills has based this document on information obtained from sources he believes to be reliable but which has not been independently verified.

Richard Mills makes no guarantee, representation or warranty and accepts no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of Richard Mills only and are subject to change without notice. Richard Mills assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information provided within this Report and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission.

Furthermore, I, Richard Mills, assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use and existence of the information provided within this Report.

<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.1 (11 votes)
>> Next article
Richard is host of and invests in the junior resource sector. His articles have been published on over 60 websites including - Wall Street Journal, 24hGold, Kitco, USAToday, Safehaven, SeekingAlpha, The Gold/Energy Reports, Gold-Eagle and Financial Sense. If you're interested in learning more about the junior resource sector, bio-tech and technology sectors please visit his site at Site membership and our AOTH newsletter are free. No credit card or personal information is asked for.
WebsiteSubscribe to his services
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
About 90% of GHG is produced in the northern hemisphere and likely stays there. Recently there has been extreme cold conditions NYC area.
Oh well,it is winter there.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
I hear that Australia is having a heat wave. And I hear that the US had an extremely hot summer and for several years running has had serious bush fires.

So what's your point? My feeling is that you may be over-simplifying an extremely complex problem which will benefit from even more powerful super-computers to improve the modelling.
Rate :   1  6Rating :   -5
Oz has always had heat waves and bush fires. Today Adelaide hit 42.0 degrees.
This was predicted to break all records.
A higher recorded temp in adelaide was in 1858 at 46.833 degrees C.
In 1939 it was 47.6
There were 833,600 people in OZ 1858 not including aborigines.

These are facts…not oversimplifications.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
SW, really! How can you go using facts in a discussion on MMGW? That sort of thing is nonsense as it has no actual bearing on the discussion because it simply does not further the cause these people have! Please never bring facts or irrefutable data into a MMGW discussion again. Or are you looking to be called a "denier"?

Rate :   4  1Rating :   3
Reality is that I like to think I have an open mind about the issue.
I suppose it can be argued that my shown facts here are an oversimplification, and they certainly do not amount to a debunk of the MMGW hypothesis.

My skepticism alert fired up after sitting thru the most boring doco ever made…Al Gore's an Inconvenient Truth.
I then read Prof. Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth ( of course it was panned because the guy is a Geologist and works for mining companies)
The book has 3000 references.

Anyway its hot this morning and Im off for a swim before the oceans starts to boil.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
“A rumor is a social cancer: it is difficult to contain and it rots the brains of the masses. However, the real danger is that so many people find rumors enjoyable. That part causes the infection. And in such cases when a rumor is only partially made of truth, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the information may have gone wrong. It is passed on and on until some brave soul questions its validity; that brave soul refuses to bite the apple and let the apple eat him. Forced to start from scratch for the sake of purity and truth, that brave soul, figuratively speaking, fully amputates the information in order to protect his personal judgment. In other words, his ignorance is to be valued more than the lie believed to be true.”
― Criss Jami
Rate :   1  1Rating :   0
The problem with climate science is that it is by no means exact and that it is a work in progress. The problem with the debate on climate change is that not that there are doubters but rather that there are trolls who seek to sink this Titanic in spite of the consequences.

A quote from Albert Einstein who also put forward an inconvenient theory: "there are only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the universe".
Rate :   1  7Rating :   -6
"there are only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the universe".

Why is it that you use such quotes to target the anti MMGW crowd. This applies equally to the pro MMGW side, in fact only "stupid" people believe what the popular media or governments tell them. Thinkers will always look at all aspects of an argument before making a judgment. Gullible "stupid" people take what is shoved down their throat and simply say yummy without ever asking if it was good for them.

I am still awaiting a response from you on the comment Dr. Gray made:

Only one individual has been a reviewer of all of the reports issued by the IPCC. Dr. Vincent R. Gray has had a long career in scientific research in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. He has published many scientific papers in professional journals, founded the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and is author of the book The Greenhouse Delusion. He shares the 2007 Nobel Prize that went to the IPCC. But in October 2007, after 17 years as an expert reviewer for the IPCC, he stated: “I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage, would be its abolition....Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide 'evidence' that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to 'prove' their case.... The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable....Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.”

These are the people who want to help you understand that your being fed lies but you ignore them. What more credibility do you look for before you say, hey this guy has a point, I better rethink my position?
Rate :   6  1Rating :   5
A man who risks the place he lives for a piece of paper (money) is a fool.

If the IPCC disappears it will be because big business interests who are threatened by the findings of the IPCC have seduced governments elected by big business money and have won. This would not mean that climate change is not occurring and it certainly will not stop what is happening.

"Economic damage" - what a load of total bullshit. The amount of money spent on climate science would I am sure be miniscule compared to most other government programs. This is a sham and you insult the intelligence of the general public by claiming such nonsense.

Please keep your opinion to yourself Schwerpunkt. I want no more of your rubbish. Good bye.
Rate :   0  7Rating :   -7
I've been following this and I have to tell you ranbotrader, your out of your class here. You said "If the IPCC disappears it will be because big business interests who are threatened by the findings of the IPCC have seduced governments elected by big business money and have won."

This causes me to ask you who you think will be the ones gaining from carbon taxes, purchasing carbon offsets, carbon sequestration, and all other schemes the UN has created which will take money from the common folk? Where in the world do you think this money is going to go?

I'll tell you where the money is going to go, the same large corporations you complain about, big oil companies and their subsidiary companies that hold the patents for carbon sequestration and other schemes to temporarily HIDE co2. All that money will be transferred from first world countries in the form of carbon credits to these big companies so that they open or expand operations in the third world countries. You’re not naive enough to believe that money was actually going to go to some poor countries government so that it could help its citizens are you?

You really need to get an understanding of how the world works and in particular how the UN works, who runs the show in the background. Let me put you on the right path, it’s the big banks, you know the ones you suggested Schwerpunkt was working for.

Schwerpunkt made comments that you really should take to heart. Every so called scientist who claims the world is undergoing warming due to elevated co2 levels caused by man is getting government funding, none are independent. When you have this kind of condition there can be no real peer review, especially when every scientist that isn't on the UN payroll that makes contrary statements is simply shrugged off and called a heretic, denier. That's is not real science but it suits big oil and big banks just fine. Look at t this way, not allowing those scientists who say that the MMGW issue is a false alarm to have input is like a hockey game where one team isn't allowed to use hockey sticks. It stacks the deck and you have predetermined the outcome. This means that real science was not allowed to prevail.

Everything you have said here makes you a shill for the big oil companies and ultimately the big banks.

How does that make your little green heart feel now? How do you feel knowing that you have been used as a cheap expendable pawn by big oil and big banks? The green movement people always fail in this area, identifying who the real threat is, and as long as some large organization seems to be on their side the gladly jump in with both feet never asking how deep the bullshit really is and whether or not they will drown in it.

So to sum up, what you’ve missed is the hedging the big oil companies and big banks have done. They’ve bet that they could keep drilling, digging (oil sands), fracking, and burning coal PLUS convince the people in first world countries that they are responsible for a catastrophic future event if they don’t change the way they live. All the while they have been securing the methods they will use to extract (mine) more money by making us all pay more in the form of carbon taxes and other related bullshit ideas with the intention of raising prices in the future because they too have to pay more in the form of carbon taxes. SO we get hit with higher fuel costs plus carbon related taxes with no benefit to anyone outside of big oil and big banks.

Please, open your eyes to the obvious scam that is man-made global warming.
Rate :   6  1Rating :   5
I doubt whether there would be too many people in the world who would like to hand over to their children a worse environment than the one we are currently enjoying.
And I say that because the environment overall and consequently the living conditions for the great majority, are far better today than at any time in history.
Let us say that the planet is warming.
It is much easier to live in a warmer climate.
Sure some recorded temps have been extreme and CO2 levels have reached ??? 400 ppm but I recall from reading the Red Alert…Turn Down the Heat, that some temps broke records of 500 yrs ago by 0.01 deg c.
In other words 500 yrs ago when there was no cars,no industry,far less people, virgin forests everywhere it was 0.01 degs cooler than (today).
In other words it was still bloody hot mate.
Yin becomes Yang,Yang becomes Yin. In stead of spending TRILLIONS on trying to bring down the global temp for no real apparent reason,maybe we could spend a lot less and learn to adapt to a warmer climate.
Oh and BTW I do not know of anyone who has sold up in the mainland and move to Tasmania South to get away from the heat.!!!!
Rate :   2  0Rating :   2

I can't opine on the anthropomorphic angle of global warming.
I do think Michael Mann faked his data, i.e. the 'hockey stick' was fudged
by cherry-picking tree-ring supported data, and the emails from
the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia are troubling to those
whom may suspect that voodoo has once again asserted itself into the minds
of humans. IPCC report said that there has been no data-supported warming for 16 years.

So here's the arithmetic problem when it comes to the above stated issue regarding;
"Warming of the oceans and rising sea levels"

Big numbers about the overall potential increase in the height of ocean levels have been
trotted out, so let's start small.

Lets' consider the arithmetic of a simple 1 foot, yes 12" rise in the ocean level globally.
That's approximately 30 cm for those of us who think in SI.

Now, I've done this parlor math for over a decade, and I'm bored of throwing it all on a silver platter
just to be spat at by those who either believe in voodoo, are lazy, or have invested in GE and
Samsung wind turbines.

Here are the steps, give yourself a break and work it out for yourselves:

1) Go to a World Atlas site and get the number(s) representing the total square miles, or square
kilometers of the world's surface currently covered by water.

2) Given that number of the surface area of exposed water on earth, assume either a 1 foot depth,
or a 30 cm depth, according to your pleasure.

3) Use a scientific calculator to give the the cubed root of that number; that gives you a big square block of water, or ice

4) Now, and this is the really hard part:
convert the length of your cube into feet, meters, yards, miles, or kilometers according to your pleasure.

5) Have you now noticed what a huge f*****g block of water/ice that is, or have you calculated how far into space it reaches?
(yeah, i didn't account for the fact that water, unlike many other elements, expands when it gets cold,,,,, BT&DT!!!! )

6) last step, ask yourself seriously, "Where is all that ice currently residing?" or, how much of the world's current ice
reserves would have to melt to make Al gore's doomsday predictions come true?

If you've suffered to do the arithmetic, then you've begun to realize that it is hard to find ice reservoirs around the globe
large enough to contain all that ice today. Even if you consider Antarctica or the North Pole's ice cap.

Now, some people have seriously talked about sea levels rising 10 feet or more, that's 30 deci-meters, or that's
3 meters for those of us that think in SI.

Is that kind of melt-off possible within the next 4 years, as Al Gore said about 6 years ago?

I don't know, I think that kind of melt off would leave just enough ice in Green Land to chill a martini.

Anyways gents, don't take my word for it, I've shown you the method, plug in your own numbers
and make your own decisions. We know the polar caps were once huge, and that glaciers extended
past Pennsylvania.

No, I'm not buying property in Venice, New York, or Holland.

Yeah, this is a metal trading site, and yeah, I like gold and silver.
I don't like BitCoin, uranium, oil, or GM, and I don't like GE or Samsung.

I like DCA for small investor guys like myself. I like the the fact that silver is
trading very inexpensively, right now. It is also trading at an historically
huge spread vis-a-vis gold, around 61 : 1.

My associate Ranbotrader points out that population and industrialization are on the increase,
and he is absolutely correct on both counts. Silver production is decreasing however, as
demand for the metal, both by the population, and by industry, are increasing.

The mantra is 'buy low, sell high", but only a few ever do.

Forget global warming, climate change, GE, Samsung, Bitcoin.
Buy some gold or silver at 'low' prices dear gents, and don't get
whip sawed by margin, short trading, day trading, Bitcoins, etc.
Buy some metal while it is cheap. Forget the fancy collector coins, buy bullion.

DCA, All The Way!

Rate :   1  4Rating :   -3
I've already had a debate with one person who is unpalatable so not looking to trade insults. I will help if I may.

Water expands when heated just like other liquids. Water behave strangely between 0C and 4C. It expands when cooled below 4C but apparently begins to contract again below 0C. I believe the behaviour has to do with the covalent bonds between the hydrogen and two oxygen atoms.

I understand that ocean temperatures and the vertical temperature gradient are increasing, but then the deniers will claim, like everything else, that things are always increasing and decreasing. An easy way out but I'm not buying in as with all things to do with this new frontier of science we will see as time passes.

The huge rises which are flashed around sound like science fiction. Personally I cannot come at 3 metres in a few years and I do not know if the science community have made any such claims. I'd be thinking that sea level rises will play out over maybe 100 years but average people will find it difficult to debate predictions as we are talking serious computer modeling which may or may not include all factors and may end up a best guess in the right direction. I believe that scientists have to be careful and moderate predictions ( with statistical probabilities) as well as err on the side of caution because the deniers are a well funded and aggressive bunch who are waiting for the least slip up to come in hard to scuttle the science and end the research.

It is good to see you come back on task: I do not understand how this article slipped in....maybe to see who is paying attention.

I wonder if silver is a short as has been suggested for some time on this website. Experience (and pain) has taught me that small investors are normally burnt. I never buy a hot tip in the paper as this is when the big boys are off loading. So I wonder if the same is happening with silver...there was an increase in production in the past 12 months and Comex had a net inflow whilst gold had the opposite.

Ain't investing fun. A real mind game. I'm with you though on the metals and have a balanced portfolio. Good luck....and stay away from sea level. A good place for the deniers to put their money where their mouth is.

Rate :   1  6Rating :   -5
Well, no offense intended Ranbo, life is too short.

When the actual quantity of ice needed to generate a 1 meter
rise in sea level is calculated, the size of the ice block is staggeringly huge.

The surface area of water on earth is about 360,000,000 square kilometers, rounded down a bit. Ocean area is about 334,000,000 sq km.
If the oceans were to rise a full meter, you would need to find 335,000,000 square kilometers times 1,000,000 cubic meters of ice, approx, to do that, as a square kilometer is 1,000 meters by 1,000 meters, so 1,000,000 meters-cubed of water.

Assuming the coast line remains the same, which it won't if the oceans rise a meter, but to keep it simple, the additional water would occupy a volume of 335,000,000 times 1,000,000 meters cubed of water/or ice uncorrected for volume/temperature.

So, that's a mere 335,000,000,000,000 meters-cubed of additional water to raise the sea level one meter. 335,000 cubic kilometers of ice.

Let's take the cube root of that number to find out how big block of ice, currently sitting above the ocean, not floating in it, would be required
to melt to raise the oceans.......the cube root is 69,451, so the block would measure close to 70,000 meters on each side.

A block of ice approximately 70 kilometers on each side would need to melt. It's hard to find that volume of ice in glaciers. I'm not saying it isn't there, but this is not current sea ice, its ice in the cordilleras, the Alps, the Himalayas, places like that.

What I've never seen is the data/audit covering the reservoirs of that ice on the planet's surface. I would like to see that.
Greenland supposedly has approximately 2.7 million cubic kilometers of ice, but right, I don't see that melting in the next
few years either.

As for silver, it is hard to conceive it will drop much lower than $18 in my lifetime at this point,
there is too much uncertainty about fiat currencies competing in a race to de-value.

The good news today is that the Fed announced that they may taper even faster, the Dow plummeted, but silver went up a few cents.
It means that silver is acting more like money and less like a commodity, which is good news, because it indicates that the taper is
priced into silver and we may be at or near the bottom. It is still a guessing game, where the bottom is, but it looks good when
charted with historical data and you include the almost unprecedented explosion in fiat (Weimar, anybody?)

Yeah, the small investors get burned when they listen to faddish advice and hot tips.

Buying low is a very difficult thing to do, selling high is just as tough.

Good luck as well investing.

Rate :   1  3Rating :   -2
Haven't done the math but maybe something better left to the experts. The reason I say this is that I hold concerns that the profile of the oceans is not constant and that it is more complex than melting ice alone. I'd have to put in some time to make a better call but it still appears that the main driver of rising sea levels would have to be the warming of the oceans. By example if 1 cubic metre of water has a temperature increase of 1 degree then it will then have a volume of > 1 cubic metre. This means that ocean water should rise as it has nowhere else to go other than up. The melting ice, some of which sits above sea level would of course compound the problem.

I have no idea of exact correlations between temperature and volume without doing a bit of research. But as I said before this is most likely better left to career scientists who would have a much better handle on giving a sensible answer. I am not of the opinion that scientists are liberal frauds and I also do not subscribe to the propaganda put out to sabotage a work in progress. In all fairness its a bit like when the T-Ford hit the was a car but needed a century of refinement to improve the concept. Climate science has a way to go and I expect plenty of healthy discussion to occur and of course the trolls sent out to discredit the science so that big corporations which seek to protect their markets are not disrupted. And so the game will play out.

What concerns me about the current price of silver is that it has, even at the current price, tripled in not too long a time frame. Having said that I do read the articles but have to admit that I still have a healthy disrespect for market callers who are often wrong...whilst the big end of town gets out. But for those who are concerned about the printing presses perhaps a long term investment is the way to go. Personally I like to have a few bets going, gold and silver being one asset class.

You know what they say about market tops and lows: nobody announces them. So we are all punting and some have to lose. Hope you can sleep well at night. It is important. Nice talking.


Rate :   1  7Rating :   -6
Yeah Ranbo;

Those numbers I used are 'static' ones I took from an online atlas, they haven't changed much from my 1960's atlas here at home.

You made me laugh when you pointed out that "Haven't done the math but maybe something better left to the experts',
I laughed because it is the experts and their math, their computer models, their data numbers, all that calculation stuff
they find so hard to get right..... ;)

And for the market math.....don't the experts send you around the bend?.....

All I ever have to work with are 'trailing indicators', I'm so far from 'leading indicators' and the 'inside', I might as well be
crunching numbers in Antarctica myself right now!

All the best,


Rate :   1  2Rating :   -1
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. Scientists should all be skeptics. There a lot of scientists who are not climatologists who do not accept MMGW as fact.
Aside from that, rarely is anybody in junior school taught that MMGW is anything other than fact.
They are all going to grow up believing that will fry before they are 25 yo.

The ego of all those MMGW believers knows no bounds ,to somehow believe that we can bring down the average temperature a couple of degrees by putting on a carbon tax and massively subsidise alternative energies and research. A Carbon Tax..they cannot even get the nomenclature correct.

In australia we were told by Tim Flannery that Adelaide would runout of water about 2 years ago, our main dam would be dry here in Sydney soon ( spent 2 billion on a water plant) wasted money to find out that the rains came, dams are full. No statement that he was wrong or sorry for his alarmism.

Rate :   3  1Rating :   2
Funny how a climate article was allowed on what is a Gold and Silver website.

By all means be "skeptical". I respect that. What I do not respect is the cash for comment drones who live on websites seeking to tear down what their employers do not want. I'll argue the toss all day long but when the credentials of those who oppose climate science have no credibility then one has to stand up and call bullshit.

Whilst I am no expert neither are most other folk. The best we can do is to rely on those who work in the area as well as use the common sense we are born with to figure out that something is happening on the planet around us. I see red when the deniers talk about time frames of millions of years when comparing changes which have occurred in much less than a century. Indeed it is rapid change which points to intervention by mankind, not natural occurrences as the deniers would have us all believe.

And by the way I do not believe that "There a lot of scientists who are not climatologists who do not accept MMGW as fact". The fact is that most of the science community are in agreement that the climate is changing.

It disturbs me that few deniers ever point to population increase and the industrialisation of the third world. Both of these are a key to where we are headed.

In the end deniers as well as believers need to confront research. I do not accept that scientists are part of a plot and I do not accept that research is not studied at length so that flaws can be identified. We can expect the vested interests and their paid scientists to do this task well for us. The result is a consensus which is not fiction....unlike the constant stream of opposition which comes from the skeptics.

I would have thought that people who give a damn about their children and their descendants would try to make the world a better place to live or indeed one where future generations can live. It just shows what is in the hearts and souls of some folk when it is easier to take the money and run and let the next generation figure out how to solve the problems they are going to inherit. Ain't we a lovely bunch!
Rate :   2  9Rating :   -7
"Whilst I am no expert neither are most other folk." Yet you feel free to challenge others credentials and try to influence what others might think of your challengers.

"What I do not respect is the cash for comment drones who live on websites seeking to tear down what their employers do not want." Tell you what I can’t stand, it's people who use misdirection and in fact claim that others are doing exactly what they themselves do, in other words what you’re doing. You have no way to prove your claim that I or anyone here has been hired to discredit the IPCC MMGW bullshit any more than I can prove that you have been hired to discredit anyone who opposes the myth of MMGW.

"The fact is that most of the science community are in agreement that the climate is changing." Please feel free to list those who are pro MMGW, but at the same time please provide proof that they are not being paid directly (by the UN) or indirectly (through governments) to mislead the world on MMGW and that they are really “climate scientists”. Then please list all of those real climate scientists that actually reviewed all of the IPCC data. This is something that can be done as there is a tracking procedure for all reviewers which is how we know that less than a handful actually read, reviewed, all of the material. Contributing something is NOT the same as reviewing what others have contributed and then doing the research to prove or disprove what was submitted by these others.

Has it ever occurred to you that the warming we're supposedly experiencing may be a natural phenomenon? When you consider that real science can prove that in the past, 2000-3000 years ago, the earth was a much warmer place than it is today why are humans suddenly responsible? 1000 years ago it started to cool off does this now mean that the cooler temps are supposed to be the new norm? The old line, follow the money certainly applies here. Who benefits the most with the carbon taxes and other transfers of wealth due to the crap the IPCC is trying to get the world to believe?

All we've seen from you is regurgitated garbage spewed by the liberal pro MMGW bunch, nothing new, no personal experiences, no credible data, nada. You have taken on the man at every opportunity rather than the subject.

"In the end deniers as well as believers need to confront research." How about the pro side confronts real data, you know the things we can all see, things like receding ice sheets supposedly tens of thousands of years old exposing Viking farming communities that are only about 1000 years old? Too much real data for you?

"I do not accept that scientists are part of a plot and I do not accept that research is not studied at length so that flaws can be identified." So, you accept that all scientists that agree with the IPCC crap are honest and not in it for the bucks they get in the way of grants and all "deniers" are slime balls. It's ok for you that all those with a financial interest to keep perpetuating the MMGW myth are the ones supposedly giving peer reviews. It's also ok for you that all who do not agree can't possibly be real peers, real scintists. In other words only those who are with you can peer review your material and as long as you keep paying them they will be your friends.

“I would have thought that people who give a damn about their children and their descendants would try to make the world a better place to live or indeed one where future generations can live. It just shows what is in the hearts and souls of some folk when it is easier to take the money and run and let the next generation figure out how to solve the problems they are going to inherit. Ain't we a lovely bunch!"

Where to start with this stinking pile of liberal tripe? Again, anyone who doesn't agree with you must be corrupt or not give a damn. You would sell our kids into debt slavery for the benefit of all those who reap rewards from things like carbon taxes or the mega corporations who will make billions trying things like carbon sequestration (which by the way has been proven thus far to be faulty technology). You complain about the same mega corporations making money from selling fossil fuels, coal and the like. Where exactly do you separate these two? It's easier for you and those like you to swallow the crap the MMGW bunch feed you then do the research yourself and in the meantime let the mega corporations run away with the money.

What a stinking pile of hierocracy!
Rate :   7  1Rating :   6
Peer review is very often a load of bullshit.
Rate :   2  1Rating :   1
This is the kind of article climate deniers love. Whilst statements about the long term future (millions of years) may be correct the survival of the human race is measured in a much shorter time span. Hence the need to guard against changes which occur over hundreds of years as opposed to millions of years for some of the patterns Mills talks about in this piece of literature.

One of the doubt creating techniques the denier community uses is to claim that because global temperature increases are not linear then the science is flawed or corrupted. This is as dumb as those who expect share markets to increase in a linear manner. They don't and never will. So when I read that there has been no measurable temperature increase since the 1990s I had to laugh. Clearly Mills may well be another Lord Mockford style head in the sand guy funded by vested interests.

What this article does not mention is that the IPCC report is not from a few lone scientists. The information contained in the report is also not from from a handful of oil and coal industry backed scientists (the deniers). The report is compiled from research submitted from hundreds of REPUTABLE scientists around the world who are conducting studies on climate. Trying to rubbish a GENUINE attempt to get a handle on climate change by attacking the report is like the argument which cigarette companies used to run to diffuse the health debate around their cancer causing product. Cigarette companies held off the inevitable for decades and made billions of dollars before bans and restrictions were introduced. In the mean time people died in their millions from smoking. Sickening really but that is how big business works: if you can't own the government and stop dissent then produce propaganda to create doubt and division.

Mills then goes on to state that Obamacare is a lie. The ignorance in this one liner defies logic and one only has to compare the US with the rest of the world to understand how ludicrous the statement is. Citizens in all other first world countries are afforded varying degrees of health care. This is what civilised countries do. It appears that the US stands alone in the belief that the poor should heal themselves and that it is preferable to see them die in the gutter rather than provide the poor with medical care. Only a country without conscience could feel this way. And who is driving this policy? You guessed it, the party run for the benefit of the rich which is also currently stopping reforms on issues like gun ownership reforms so that gun manufacturers can do as they like. They do. And thousands of innocent citizens are slaughtered every year as a result.

I question whether or not Mills is an investor in coal and whether there is a link between his financial self interest and this article, which is little more than the next attempt to scuttle the work of those who are trying to help humanity in an area of science which is still in its infancy. One also needs to ask Mills if he is receiving funding (directly or otherwise) from the oil and coal industries or any other big business enterprise facing future restrictions due to climate change action?
Rate :   2  8Rating :   -6
I see we have on this site another “Man Made Global Warming” champion. And as is typical of the majority of these people, this person lacks any real understanding of what so called “Man Made” global warming is all about. This individual also makes mention of the IPCC panel of experts without doing any research into the list of so called experts, they simply take it in the reputation of the UN that these were experts. Does this person know that the within the experts were many who contributed material that was contrary to what the IPCC report states? Do they know that even though they disagree with the report their names are still used to provide validity to the mess that is the IPCC report? Does this person know that many reputable scientists have had to file suits against the UN to have their names removed from the report?

And like most liberal morons this individual calls those of us who see MMGW for what it really is “deniers” rather than thinking of us as those who don’t get charmed into buying sand while we live in a desert as individuals who looked at the evidence and made up our minds based on scientific facts. It’s common for any scientist that doesn’t spew the same stupid mantra as the so called MMGW experts as backwards, garage scientists, and all manner of other names which more adequately suit those who are so easily inducted into the cult of MMGW.

While I could spend many pages refuting the garbage the IPCC, a completely political body not a panel of scientists, has published I fear I don’t have the room here. So let’s take a quick snap shot of the situation. Let’s look at the IPCC experts first of all.

Please allow me to offer up an applicable quote that is often attributed to Hitler but actually belongs to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's master of propaganda. He said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the Lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." This certainly applies to the whole MMGW controversy as almost every state on the planet is driving the lie with all who are opposed being dismissed and shunned. The UN pushes the MMGW propaganda out to the public to the point that people believe it is factual, scientific, currently happening, and almost irreversible.

Let’s look at who the experts that contributed were:

Have a read and to make sure that you understand just how pathetic the IPCC is make sure you read this, contained in the site above:

Only one individual has been a reviewer of all of the reports issued by the IPCC. Dr. Vincent R. Gray has had a long career in scientific research in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. He has published many scientific papers in professional journals, founded the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and is author of the book The Greenhouse Delusion. He shares the 2007 Nobel Prize that went to the IPCC. But in October 2007, after 17 years as an expert reviewer for the IPCC, he stated: “I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage, would be its abolition....Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide 'evidence' that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to 'prove' their case.... The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable....Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.”

How about some of the other crap coming out of the IPCC and the “real scientists”.

Let’s look at one of the popular theories of MMGW, more frequent and sever hurricanes. One has to go no further than page 15 to get a list of storm activity as of 1851. This is the NOAA (US Gov data, not some nasty old MMGW denier site) official site. Browse through the chart on page 15 and then tell me how storms have been more sever in the last 25 year and how this can only be attributed to the increase of co2 that is being released by nasty humans. When you look at the stats the only high winds are those emanating from the cheer leader on the MMGW team.

Then there’s the whole coral bleaching problem that supposedly came about because of MMGW. If in fact the individual posting here were to do some investigation on their own they might discover that corals bleach for many reasons of which warming ocean temperatures is only one. Personally I have logged thousands of hours underwater in the Caribbean as a dive instructor and have seen the causes of coral bleaching and in not one event has a rise in temperature been the cause.

To all those who still cling to the myth of MMGW please do explain how the earth was warmer 2000 and even 1000 years ago but we should all be riding bikes or jogging to work because we’re causing the earth to warm when, as the ice recedes in Greenland (ice that is supposedly tens of thousands of years old) is exposing Viking farms. Yes the Vikings were agrarians! But this too must be a myth because as any educated liberal MMGW pusher will tell you if the ice in Greenland melts the oceans will rise hundreds of feet and we’re all doomed! Someone is playing a nasty trick, digging down in the glaciers and recreating Viking villages, farms, and ruins.

Co2 traps the heat reflected off the earth within the atmosphere. What about the fact that for every action, such as trapping heat, there is also an opposite and equal reaction, such as co2 reflecting the sun’s rays back into space before they can even strike the earth? Ya we never here about the real science when the liberals spew their propaganda, only those things that push their agenda.

Even the flawed hockey stick graph the idiot Gore uses to corrupt school kids minds with, if examined does tell more than he wants you to see. When ice cores are examined it shows that co2 does not lead (cause) warming, instead warming is followed after a long period of time by rising co2 levels. Look at it this way, all that bio mass in forests worldwide that breaks down and releases co2 releases it faster and thus also more if the mean temperature is higher than when its bound up in ice. This is third grade science, something with the IPCC experts obviously never passed.

Is it just me or does every scientist who pushes the MMGW crap also receive government funding from all levels, federal to municipal? Could this possibly be the driving force behind endorsing a bad theory, personal monetary gain? Naw, scientists are all honest. The scientists who tell us the truth don’t get funding, probably because there’s no money in telling the world that everything is ok, saying things are normal doesn’t get you paid, only stirring up mass fear generates cashola.

To quote a line from the site listed above “Science is not about consensus but about discovering the truth. The claim that a consensus is “proof” of the validity of an idea is, in fact, a double fraud: it proclaims a fraudulent idea as true based upon a fraudulent standard.”

There is so much truth out there for anyone who is willing to take the time to educate themselves rather than be spoon fed shit by the media and their masters.

Yes go ahead and believe in MMGW if that’s what gets you the ladies but know this, you’re an idiot for being so gullible.
Rate :   7  2Rating :   5
Given the length of this response it is apparent that this author is not a casual reader.

In response:

1. the real danger is the person who sticks his head in the sand and hopes that it will all go away. It won't.
2. by all means attack the IPCC. It is easy to rubbish research when you have no scientific credentials yourself. The important question is WHO PAYS YOUR SALARY? This is the canary in the coal mine (sic).
3. The data which does have credibility comes from organisations and individuals who have credibility and who are not funded by self interest multi-nationals (coal, gas and businesses who are trying to contain costs to their survival). The author needs to take a look at the graph of CO2 produced by Nasa: By all means discredit this organisation as well .... but you won't get very far. The graph shows the increase in CO2 over half a million years. Around 1950 the graph went beserk. You can run but you can't hide.
4. The author goes on the justify the increase in CO2 as being from forest bio mass. Good try. The truth is that there are a whole lot of reasons why CO2 is being released into the atmoshphere, the major factors being population increase and the burning of coal to produce electricity. Third world countries are developing and joining in as well thus enunciating the problem. Add to that the burning of forests with mass land clearing and you get an idea of where this issue is coming from.

I can only but believe that Schwerpunkt is a cash for comment individual employed by the very industries which are the very cause of the problem. Credibility and honesty are the hallmarks of a good debate. Whilst mistakes are made on both sides the real danger is in the intentional lies and clever deception. You won't get any of that from me and name call all you like as it has no effect. The old saying about playing the ball and not the man is as true today as when it was coined.

By the way, I checked out the link provided. It is the work of a guy called Edmund Contoski. I checked his background and was not too surprised at what I discovered. Here is an extract:

"Edmund Contoski has had a varied career. He is a former director of planning for an internationally renowned environmental consulting firm doing business in more than forty countries. He has been an urban planner and held responsible positions with major real estate development companies. In addition, he has lectured widely on international monetary issues and done economic research on a variety of subjects, including world trade."

Apart from having no science credentials the last sentence puts this person into perspective. As I said previously the deniers hard at work!!
Rate :   1  7Rating :   -6
Who’s more dangerous, the person who sticks his head in the sand or the one that further disseminates lies?

Your correct, I have no alphabet soup behind my name, neither do the people on the IPCC. As for my salary, I pay myself so unlike you I am self-employed, in fact I employ others in my own company. The real question here is, are you just another one of those who are hired to cast dispersions on anyone who would dare to challenge the IPCC and the fools who created it for political gain.

You dare to complain about data being provided by self-interest multi nationals when your defending so called experts who are sucking at the government teat knowing that if they keep putting out crap that says we’re all gonna fry they will keep getting money for free. Here’s another tid bit for you, the guys screaming about MMGW are the same morons who back ion the 70’s were screaming about how we were headed for an ice age. Go figure. As far as the NASA co2 graph, I have no issues with it, all it does is prove that after things started to warm the co2 level rose. You still bare the burden of proof to back up this scam that is MMGW. You completely ignored the Viking farms being exposed as the ice recedes. Funny thing is you’re not the only MMGW advocate on the payroll of the IPCC that has does this. IPCC science does not allow for data that does not fir its model, hence truth in IPCC data has no place and so must be discarded.

Are you thick? Did you think that the bio mass example I gave is a final piece of the puzzle? It’s an example and anyone with the intelligence to look into the matter themselves will discover far more data that shows co2 levels increase after temperatures rise. Whether this be from forest bio mass or oceans spewing out more co2. One volcano can spew out more co2 than all of mankind can produce in a year. Another fact your IPCC champions don’t want you to know.

Interesting how you can’t attack the story, you know the one I provided a link for that tells about how the IPCC is made up of politicians or bureaucrats rather than scientists and real scientists have had to sue the UN to have their names removed so you attack the author. Another typical liberal tactic, your so transparent. But to help along someone less educated allow me to provide other links that explain the creative way the IPCC used real scientists names for their benefit without the blessing of the people whose names they used:

Did you even bother to look into the qualifications of the so called experts that contributed data to the IPCC that is in agreement with their desire to put out a document consistent with their agenda? These are people like mechanics, HVAC engineers, and people from various other professions that have nothing to do with climate data. On the other hand those who are real experts contributed data that is inconstant with the desire of the IPCC and yet they are still named as contributors that agree with the finished crapola.

I see no comment about Dr. Gray, the only real scientist who has reviewed all of the IPCC data and how he would like to see the IPCC sunk down a deep hole for its unscientific methods. Afraid to take on a man with alphabet soup credentials are you?

You claim there is a consensus amongst scientists that man MMGW is real, really? Well how about this little item?

Some more items that may help you discover the truth:

Here’s areal zinger for you since you took on Edmund Contoski’s credibility rather than taking on the data he provides “The old saying about playing the ball and not the man is as true today as when it was coined.” Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you? I doubt it, liberals are immune to truth.

So tell me, who’s the cash for comments person now? It also appears that you have little to no real life experience that would allow you to evaluate MMGW science and come to the understanding that its crap. I on the other hand do have some of this experience, that coupled with 30 years in varied scientific fields has ensured that I don’t fall for the line of crap you have.

As I quoted earlier, “Science is not about consensus but about discovering the truth. The claim that a consensus is “proof” of the validity of an idea is, in fact, a double fraud: it proclaims a fraudulent idea as true based upon a fraudulent standard.” The IPCC reports is based on exactly what is described in the quote.

You have provided no data to back you stance. So what we have here is someone who is hired, and working very hard, to discredit real science and anyone who opposed the IPCC. This is standard operating procedure for the IPCC.
Rate :   6  1Rating :   5
Now we are getting to the heart of the issue. Perhaps state what your business is so that we can all see if you are conflicted. And yes you need to be HONEST.....yeah right!

I won't bother analysing every piece of tripe you have written as it is a waste of what is left of my weekend as it is clear that your position has nothing to do with "evidence" and everything to do with put downs and rhetoric with a heap of hot air in between. But I will respond to your response to the Nasa CO2 graph: the graph spans around half a million years. In that time CO2 has increased and decreased. But around 1950 it went ballistic. Perhaps if you had bothered to look you might have noticed, unless of course you have problems understanding what the grapg is saying. Your response "As far as the NASA co2 graph, I have no issues with it, all it does is prove that after things started to warm the co2 level rose" defies logic. The implication of the graph is not that "things started to warm". You have to put the graph into context with fast population growth and industrialisation of big population countries like China, India as well as many others. This is where the graph begins to tell a story and as much as you seek to discredit my position you can run but you can't hide.

Oh, by the way your so called expert Edmund Contoski, well what can I say: not a scientist of any worth from what I can see. But then this is par for the course for deniers.

So please keep your offensive foul attacks to yourself my friend. We may not agree but but it would be nice if you could remember that acting with respect is important no matter what one's own beliefs. You clearly do not understand that....oh yes.....a German. Lastly I do not work for an employer, which is why I am on an investment site. I feel sorry for your employees as it appears that you are the sort of boss employees loath.

Neither of us is going to see this debate resolved in the short term and it will play out over decades. It would be nice to debate this with you again when you are older, when climate change has made a statement (or otherwise) and when your manners improve.
Rate :   1  5Rating :   -4
Alrighty here we go.

My company has nothing to do with energy but it is a high tech innovator. I’d sure like to see what experience you have backing yourself, what maybe a few years of college, a failed attempt at some degree, a B of arts? Your obviously not completely uneducated, just gullibile.

You won’t go ahead and bother to analyze every piece of tripe I’ve written as it’s a waste of your time. No it’s not a waste of time, it’s simply the truth and you liberals who want to put more money into big corporations hands don’t want the truth exposed. In fact I’m sure the truth of MMGW burns your eyes never mind that single cell you call a brain.

You never mention the NOAA chart detailing the severity of tropical storms and hurricanes since 1851, you know the one that shows there has been no increase of severity or number of storms. Come on, take a look, see what the truth looks like.

“Oh, by the way your so called expert Edmund Contoski, well what can I say: not a scientist of any worth from what I can see. But then this is par for the course for deniers.”

You once again conveniently ignored Dr. Gray completely and went after Contoski. How about you man up and take on Dr. Gray, the focus of what Contoski wrote? You got nothing you can use to counter Dr. Gray so you go after the author of the article rather than the substance and here AGAIN you accuse me of doing this exact thing. How about going after all of the other links I presented you, got no guts to see that your actually wrong? This is a typical liberal bullshit tactic, if you can’t refute the truth then go after the man presenting it.

You have yet to provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims, oh wait you did give that link to a NASA graph which you have used as the sum of your argument. I have offered several items that blow your little attempt to further the bogus claims of the IPCC out of the water.

Be a man, or at least a grown up, have a look at how many of the contributors are having to take legal action against the UN to have their names removed from the list of scientists who support MMGW because the contributed data that shows there is no MMGW. Come on, grow a set and have a look and what the final list of supporters looks like, mechanics, refuse engineers (garbage collectors, how appropriate) and dozens of individuals, while not stupid, that have no education or profession that actually can be a linked to climate science.

Our powers of observation fail you. I have used a German word, Schwerpunkt (you may want to look up it's definition) but it does not mean I am German and even if I was that would be nothing to be ashamed of as Germans have been, are, and always will be hard working people, the people others like you look to for support when you fail.

You’d like to debate this with me when I’m older, what just short of sixty isn’t old enough for you or is it that I simply have far more life experience and it threatens you that you would write such a blatantly stupid comment? What a classic juvenile attempt to gain respect for yourself.

Global warming has played out now for over 20 years and none of the predictions that have been used to back up the IPCC crapola has actually happened. All that has happened is that the world has kept going, weather has been alternating between warm and cold just as it has been for hundreds of centuries. The only thing that has changed in all of this time is that a bunch of liberals supporting big corporations has come along and tried to make man responsible for something that doesn’t actually exist. Hocus pokus, wishes and dreams of the liberal crowd, and large piles of manure is all that’s left of the theory of MMGW.
Rate :   4  1Rating :   3
You certainly are an offensive son of a bitch. Perhaps Schweinhund might be a better name rather than Schwerpunkt. In your attempt to throw your mud as you behave like a gen Y on steroids you fail to understand that ich bin ein jehmahls Berliner and I hold a degree in Aeuronautical Engineering. Sorry if this does not fit your model and that you think that I must be a dumb arse idiot. I'm sure you'll have an offensive come back given your posts to date.

Ok big mouth: WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION? I fessed up but you again avoided the question. Maybe you are a public servant or worse still a Central banker.

You make me laugh when you talk about climate change playing out in a 20 year time period. Although the canary in the coal mine has been sending a message only simpletons still cling to linear changes in such short time frames. Oh yes...liberals, communists, bankers and the like. yeah right. What can I say.

The problem with climate change deniers is that they for the most part want to dissect a whole pile of data, draw conclusions which may not be valid (this is how Jehovahs' Witnesses operate) and then create dissent so that they can claim that the science is a fraud. This issue will play out over a longer period of time and no amount of hocus pocus as you call it is going to make nature act with German precision as you expect.

Don't bother responding. I have no more time for debate with offensive despots. You are a lost cause Schwerpunkt and I wish you well in your rantings.

Rate :   1  6Rating :   -5
"ich bin ein jehmahls Berliner" Really? You sure seemed to hate on Germans, you have some sort of self-hate thing going on?

My profession, RF and software engineer. No central bank positions, or any bank positions for that matter, on my resume.

Ok big mouth, Shweinhund, wow, you really can’t argue the subject so you take on the man. Wasn't that what you accused me of? And you have the gall to state "You certainly are an offensive son of a bitch." I understand this, its the last resort of any liberal when they face the truth and can't answer the accusation, they deflect and start name calling.

"you think that I must be a dumb arse idiot". I never thought that until you started acting like a dumb arse idiot. Sorry for coming to that realization so late. I should have simply assumed it from the start and saved a lot of time.

"Although the canary in the coal mine has been sending a message only simpletons still cling to linear changes in such short time frames."

Ok, go ahead and tell us what the canary has been singing, show us the proof you have so far completely avoided. Given the way the pro MMGW crowd distort things the canary should have croaked from over exposure to co2 or heat, either that or be 20 feet underwater but in any case dead. But that's the funny thing about this canary, it’s still singing and I didn't see any water wings on it.

"The problem with climate change deniers is that they for the most part want to dissect a whole pile of data" Do you have even a rudimentary understanding of how scientific study is conducted? If there is a weak link it MUST be taken into account when looking at the over all. The only way to prove any scientific theory is to test, reproduce, and otherwise either confirm or disprove the theory as a whole. Based on the fact that the MMGW theory encompasses the globe you cannot simply choose NOT count any item that goes against the theory and then say the theory is still sound.

The 20 year period is what the IPCC, not me, stated it would take to prove its theory. In that time the oceans temperatures would rise by >3 degree C, didn't happen, In that period of time the world temperatures would increase by >3 degree C, didn't happen. If you’re going to defend a theory then at least bother to understand the basic premises the theory was to be gauged against.

You hold a degree in aeronautical engineering! You don't understand basic scientific procedures but they allow you to design systems or parts that fit onto aircraft, aircraft that actually has to rely on your methods to safe guard people?

Ahh and there it is, the final attempt to discredit, "Don't bother responding. I have no more time for debate with offensive despots". As I had said earlier, juvenile attempts to discredit someone else in order to make yourself look good. Any reader here will see that you haven't presented one item to back your stance where as I have provided data and commentary by real climate experts which you cant even bother to read as it may cause you to doubt your beloved theory.

ranbotrader, you are a real drama queen, in fact your more than that, a real princess.
Rate :   4  1Rating :   3
I do not hate Germans as I was born in Germany. What I hate is arrogant individuals who have a big offensive mouth and no idea of manners with empathy for nobody other than themselves. I have to (sadly) admit that I normally do not get into the gutter with people like you. On this occasion I failed and as a result now have fleas.

You continue to demonstrate the German methodical manner of dissecting an argument. Proof is of course essential but I'll leave you to stand in front of the mirror and echo the same rumblings over and over. An intelligent person puts problems into context and you sir are not even able to assess the nature of the problem nor the potential impact, preferring instead to label anybody who disagrees with your dismissals as a"liberal" and claiming conspiracy theories.

Seriously Schwerpunkt you are not worth the time of day. Your dogmatic idea of how science works can be found in a Cornflakes packet and has the same flavour: bland with no substance. Its not that I do not want to argue the ISSUE with you but rather that there is no point because you have little worth discussing. I'll happily debate this and any other issues with folk who have common courtesy, are not trolls and who want to assess evidence rather than tear down the house. Your form is clearly the latter because as you will claim the house is corrupt. IT ISN'T.

Perhaps you will enjoy the rest of your selfish life. Don't give a thought for your grandchildren because the world is flat and your grandchildren can look after themselves. And if they can't then tough luck. And don't give a thought to people who live at sea level either. Their problem. Not yours. So, apparently. we have to worry about wasting money.....yeah, don't get me started on governments wasting real money as climate change studies and all the other 'studies' which benefit society do not even touch the sides.

Auf wiedersehen. No....good bye.
Rate :   1  5Rating :   -4
In all seriousness, you have on several occasions now avoided the comments by Dr. Gray, the only person on the face of the earth who can claim to be a real climate expert and who has read everything the IPCC has published and who has been part of the flawed process the IPCC uses. You indicate that you want evidence, don't ignore it when its produced. Why will you not allow yourself to come away with some doubt about the validity of what the UN is cramming down our throats when real experts tell you it’s wrong? Sagen Sie mir nun diese, warum do you believe so steadfastly in MMGW? As I indicated earlier, your obviously not stupid, certainly not as uneducated as the majority of ‘believers’ I’ve had the misfortune of debating. Do you have no suspicions that this is rigged science with so many in the climate science field speaking out against it?

If you look into what makes sound scientific research you'll find I'm on the right side here, whether you believe me to be dogmatic or not. I've had to put up with all manner of fools for years spewing MMGW BS for years. In virtually every case these individuals have no scientific background, wouldn’t know if something was scientific if it blew up in their face, but vehemently keep backing up a bogus theory with nothing more than what they read in a newspaper or saw on the 6 o'clock news. It allows boils down to these common folk wanting to look like they have a clue, they understand science and are concerned.

As for the people who built at sea level, your correct, I don't care about them, just as I don't care about people who build and rebuild homes on sand bars in hurricane prone areas of the gulf. Why should we care about their losses? They chose to build where they did, in most cases they were even stupid enough to pay big bucks for these soon to be wiped out parcels of land. Speaking of low land, it’s been common knowledge for years that Al Gore’s family bought an island in San Francisco Bay well after he started telling the world that the second flood was imminent. Now why would Al Gore allow his family to do such a thing if he has the inside scoop on what’s going to happen? The wise man builds on rock solid high ground.

Schade that you can't come to view everything the government throws at you with suspicion. Do you believe everything the government, FED and all tell you about how the world’s economy is doing? Why would you then believe the UN, the biggest hindrance the world has ever been subjected to on the road to peace and prosperity? That the UN is backing this pile of crap should have caused your alarm bells to go off never mind the fact that well respected real scientists have said that there is much wrong with the theory.
Rate :   7  1Rating :   6
Though I lack a bunch of letters after my name, I enjoy studying most all of the sciences.

I learned that several years ago research was done on gas diffusion in polar ice. Turns out that atmospheric gasses diffuse through ice quite nicely. Couple this with Graham's Law in chemistry and any spikes in atmospheric CO2 that should be frozen in ice have long ago diffused leaving far lower levels to be detected. Think of it as a lovely lady wearing perfume entering the room. Soon the perfume molecules permeate the entire room rather than stay on the lady's skin.

I learned that cold water holds far more atmospheric gases in solution than warm water. As an example with CO2, take 2 cans of your favorite carbonated drink, put on on the kitchen counter and the other in the refrigerator. Leave both overnight. Next day, take the cold one out of the fridge and open it. Open the one that was on the counter. Compare the out-gassing results.

I learned that volcanoes predominantly out-gas CO2, H2O and SO2. And just where were the CO2 readings for the so-called hockey-stick taken? On top of Mauna Loa, an active volcano. Perhaps a few of you might recall the NASA screw-up over SO2 readings in the high southern hemisphere that NASA originally attributed to coal-fired power plants in the northern hemisphere. Turned out later that it came from Mt. Erebus in Antarctica.

I know we are coming out of the last ice age. I know that most consider the end of the ice age as the point where temperatures begin to rise. This directly infers global warming. I know we had a Little Ice Age between roughly 1150CE and 1850CE. Does anyone recall the story of Washington and his troops crossing the ice-choked Delaware River? Maybe folks walking across the Thames River in merry old England. How about the story of Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates from Holland? The Vikings bailing out of Greenland? Not so green now.

I know that we are not yet in the middle of an interglacial period. The poles are still ice covered. Remnants of continental glaciers still exist in sub-polar regions such as Alaska, Greenland, Baffin Island and others.

I know that the environmental community violates a basic tenant of science by reporting to the general public before undergoing critical peer review. I further know that the same so-called scientists vet one another. If you are one of them, you are qualified. If you aren't then no matter what your true qualifications are, you are unqualified. And as justifiably presented in the article, science has no need of consensus and can't afford the luxury.

That being said and if the planet is warming, then coastal cities are threatened by sea level changes. Infrastructure will be lost and people displaced. Just deal with it.
Snow pack in the mid-latitudes will melt earlier requiring better water management practices through the summer and fall. This earlier loss of snow-pack will be somewhat off-set by more frequent rains.

I know that successful organisms survive and thrive by rapidly adapting to an ever changing environment (Darwin pointed this out). The nature of nature is change. The complete fool's concept of preservation requires going head to head with the "Law of Entropy." The Law of Entropy is NOT a talking point or a suggestion, it is the LAW. Sooner or later, the equation must be balanced. Unfortunately, there is always over-shoot. The more we mess with entropy, the greater the over-shoot. Kinda falls into that Law of Unintended Consequences thingy.

But like I said, no fancy letters after my name. And unlike the IPCC members, I never cost the taxpayers anything for my observations.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. You can observe evidence. All models face the same problem: GIGO garbage in- garbage out. The model represents the researcher's belief system aka bias. Now couple that bias with the demand for future funding based upon desired results. There is NO greater threat to scientific inquiry than a belief system based upon the need for continued funding by ignorant taxpayers and their elected representation. Ignorant never elects wise, but rather just more successful versions of the themselves.

Good article.
Rate :   4  2Rating :   2
A couple of observations:

1. "I know that the environmental community violates a basic tenant of science by reporting to the general public before undergoing critical peer review." - the IPCC report IS PEER REVIEWED, unlike articles from deniers.
2. gas diffusion in polar ice? Never heard of that one. What exactly are the conclusions drawn and their limitations?
In fairness I had a quick look. The paper I read stated that measuring trapped gas samples with time scales around one and a half million years may become unreliable. But have a look at the the graph on the following link: You will notice that the time scale is only half a million years and that the graph goes off the chart beginning around 1950. No arguments about gas diffusion here.
3. Organisms adapt over MILLIONS OF YEARS, not hundreds.
4. "Ignorant never elects wise, but rather just more successful versions of the themselves." - if you are going to attack scientists as being wasted money then have a closer look at real waste in government. And remember that your flat screen TV and cell phone are marvels of science. No complaints there.

For a guy who has "no letters" you are very well spoken. Its just that some of your statements, just like Mills in this article, are suspect and cheap shots which lack credibility doing little other than tearing down what vested interests have tried to destroy because it does not suit their financial interests. We all need to be careful so that we are not groomed.
Rate :   1  8Rating :   -7
#1 "... before undergoing critical peer review."
No "critical" peer review exists when the only peers it was submitted to are those who already agree with the basic tenant.
Science only advances by being a skeptic. Remember that bit of nonsense with Pons and Fleishman?
Oh and the IPCC report undergoes INTERNAL review. Sort of like a thief on trial where the jury is composed of thieves.
And thank you for trotting out the term "deniers." Is that some kind of "Borg" thing? "We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Read my lips, "science is a skeptic". In the field of logic this would be a case of:
If a then b.
Not b, then not a.

#2 see:$=activity
Not so grounded in science are we? "In fairness I had a quick look." Bubba, science is NOT about quick looks, but rather hard critical examination of the evidence. Once again, science is a skeptic.

#3 Once again you got it wrong. You confused "adaptability" with "viable mutations resulting in a new specie". Homo sapiens is NOT 1 million years old. Then consider bacteria adaptability resulting in antibiotic resistance within the last few decades. Using my location as an example of adaptability, non-Alaska natives aka immigrants from the lower 48 states routinely adapt to living and operating in temperatures that kill those not adapted. -20°F is plenty warm for running a trap-line on snowshoes. Cutting and hauling firewood out of the woods is quite pleasant at 0°F. Then there is the high altitude adaptation exhibited by those in the Andes or Himalayan Mountains. Still wanna claim "MILLIONS OF YEARS"?

#4 Flat screen TV and cell phone development wasn't paid for with tax revenues. The "waste in government" argument is a red herring. You change the subject to add credibility to your argument?

The "vested interests" argument is a logical fallacy and can be seen as such through "reducio ad absurdum". Example: Vested interest determines that continued use of chemical "X" will result in great loss of life, ergo vested interests deny knowledge of the determination. The "How was I to know" defense.

You failed to clearly define who are those supposed "vested interests".
If we assume these so-called vested interests are corporate entities, then you fail to understand that corporations are owned by shareholders who expect, nay demand that the corporate officers shall maximize shareholder value. In this case, the vested interest is shareholder value. The high costs of environmental damage clean-up results in minimal to no dividends and a substantial drop in share value. You trotted out the cigarette issue in another comment on this thread. The reason those CEOs rescinded their "I don't believe cigarettes cause cancer" is just because the shareholders figuratively took the CEOs out behind the woodshed and beat them with a baseball bat for being such dumb-asses. The shareholders recognized the much higher costs that come with kicking the can further down the road.

I can only assume, by your argument using the undefined "vested interests" , you have limited experience with the real business costs of environmental clean-up. The reality is business attempts to stay ahead of any potential environmental damage. Prevention is always far cheaper. That being said, failure still exists. Fukushima is a recent example as well as the recent railroad derailments of oil tankers and subsequent damage.
I stated "if global warming" because evidence clearly presents the picture of stability over the last 15 years. I did not state that global warming is NOT happening in the long term. In fact I, perhaps wrongly, assumed that my presentation of "not yet in the middle of an interglacial period" would have been a clue that I tend to think we are warming up. My argument is against garbage science claiming AGW using CO2 production as the catalyst. Look at some of the CO2 figures for the early Holocene. Any fossil fuel usage back then would have been highly localized and limited to campfires. Now were these last two sentences indicative of today's data? Not one bit. It is, for the most part, irrelevant. Just as much as ice cores are irrelevant. All either indicates is what possibly was and only then if we can get beaucoup data correlations between several different disciplines sharing common dating.

note: The science and technology of today clearly demonstrates a classic example of the "Peter Principle" in action. Specialization such as PhD demonstrates "knowing more and more about less and less". Worse, the general public fails to recognize the logical fallacy of "argument from authority". So-called experts routinely comment on subjects far outside their area of competence. Even worse, "argument from authority" often morphs into "argument from consensus". Some famous guy (Publius Cyrus?) said something to the effect, "The opinions of 10,000 people means nothing if they don't know anything about the subject." There is a vast difference between know and believe. To know is to have knowledge. Knowledge is tested by application. Knowing is about confidence while believing is about faith.

I'll leave you with these:
There is about 100mg per liter of CO2 in the oceans. This is about 140X more than the atmosphere. As earlier presented, kitchen table science and a couple cans of beer demonstrate cold water versus warm water solubility of CO2.

Now do you see the problem?
Too many variables, minimal data, belief systems (pro and con), theories trotted out before adequate testing of hypotheses, uncritical peer review, general incompetence about science and math among a very vocal public, grant-driven science and hardly the least being, politics. Ever run into that phrase about "doing your own due diligence?" The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance but rather believing something is so that just plain ain't (again attributed to some smarter guy than me).

But please do continue. Every thesis requires critical review. Always do your own due diligence. Believe no one. That most assuredly includes me.
I reserve the right to change my opinions as new data becomes available for analysis and possible incorporation.

Continue? Y/N
Rate :   3  1Rating :   2
Overtheedge in name as well as nature. I'll bite:

#1 you are talking bullsh**. You have to be a scientist and have detailed knowledge in the area you are reviewing to actually review. And the fact that you have an opinion will not detract from the results if they are lacking. YOU know as well as I do that the vested interests have endless amounts of capital to find holes and that apart from living in denial they try to make a mountain out of a mole hill so that they get their way.

#2 I had a quick look was at YOUR so called expert. He is a fraud.

#3 don't know if you are just plain dumb or simply guilding the lily. My reference to the time frame was in response to statements made trying to stitch up things like ice ages and volcanoes (which do spew out copious amounts of CO2) as being a valid reason to ignore the HUGE CO2 increases in....wait for it.....only the last 60 years. Do yourself a favour and check out the Nasa link ( which I gave you previously. Check out the graph. Its there to see.

#4 my example of flat screen TVs was simply to establish the place of science and the benefits it brings to mankind. So how many R&D projects have gone belly up? Thousands! These cost all taxpayers too. But none of us would say that we should not do research to find new products. This is where your argument attempt to demonise the few dollars spent on climate studies and choose not to put this into context. Yet another climate denier tactic to bring down the science.

The "vested interests" are those large well funded businesses which choose to pervert history for their own benefit. A bit like (don't get me started) Obamacare is about not letting poor people die in the gutter and about background checks for gun owners is about stopping loonies with massacres on their mind from owning guns. Oh I forgot, no large multi-national behaves immorally. And of course the oil and coal industries would not stoop to trying to stop society from employing scientists to determine whether or not climate science is real lest they discover that it is and have to watch their industries shrink or even disappear.

You stated "evidence clearly presents the picture of stability over the last 15 years". That is the point. Just like the financial markets one cannot expect a linear change or for a smooth change. This is a fallacy and rarely occurs. Just like the stock market has hiccups I expect that nature will also have pauses (maybe) and fight back ....... but will lose the battle in the long run.

You stated "The opinions of 10,000 people means nothing if they don't know anything about the subject." True. And it depends on the 10,000 and on the varying degrees of knowledge. My response is that you should look around you: the shrinking ice caps, the acidification and warming of the oceans, and the established increase in global temperatures....quite apart from what the studies are saying. I'll give you a quote from Australia in the past week: "hottest day, hottest week, hottest month and hottest year on record". The 10,000 people you mention may not agree but the statisticians will tell you otherwise. Maybe another conspiracy theory!

Your last 2 paragraphs show a glimmer of hope my friend. Whilst we will not agree I do acknowledge some of the problems. This is why the IPCC does come in for a bit of criticism. Their computer models, just like weather prediction, are not always 100% spot on. But this does not mean that the science is a sham or being manipulated. And it will get better and better as the capability of computers continues to grow and despite vested interests who pour money into funding for anyone who opposes climate change science. But these people are generally not scientists or at best they are scientists who have sold their soul for money (cash for comment) whilst abandoning objectivity and honesty to live a comfortable life. Despicable people. But fortunately there ain't too many of these around which is why vested interests have to employ folk such as Lord Mockford and Edmund Contoski who was put up by one of the deniers above. Both are frauds from what I can see.

Perhaps in the end people have to make up their own minds as the show rolls on. Personally I don't know why I gave up my personal time on a valuable weekend to debate a non gold and silver topic other than the future of my grandchildren and their descendants does matter and I for one am not happy with handing on the world in a dilapidated condition. Anybody with a rental property will readily identify with how it feels when they rent their immaculate property to somebody who abuses their kindness and then departs leaving the mess and damage for the landlord to fix. If you think this issue is any different, well it isn't. And those we claim to care for the most deserve better than having a rampant and disrespectful bunch of yahoos live their lives and leave a dump when they go. Not on my watch friend.

Rate :   2  5Rating :   -3
"Just like the stock market has hiccups I expect that nature will also have pauses (maybe) and fight back ....... but will lose the battle in the long run." In one sentence you show hope that you may actually understand what's going on and then you obliterate that hope. Stock markets and nature do indeed have hiccups, nice that you understand this much. But for nature to fight back? Really, nature is a sentient being that understands what's happening and how to fight back? That's some mighty fine liberal wishful thinking.

It never fails to amaze me how everyone who pushes MMGW is an expert but everyone who says it’s a lie is a fraud. Nice set of blinders your wearing.

One thing you and those who are so easily misled have neglected to mention, because it obviously doesn't play well for the people who are making money off of the MMGW crap, is that this warming if it actually is warming is due to the earth’s natural rhythm and not due to co2 being released by man. How can it be that facts which show that 2000 and 1000 years ago the earth was warmer than it is now be so easily discarded by MMGW proponents if they are looking for truth, real science?

Do you read your own posts? Do you realize how stupid your comments are in regards to Lord Mockford and Edmund Contoski? You would discredit Lord Moncton but bristle whenever MMGW scientists are taken to task for not being real scientists. You keep bringing up Edmund Contoski as if he was put up as some sort of an expert. Read the bloody article that he WROTE wherein he quoted DR. Gray. Dr. Gray is the expert but you would rather deflect the importance of what Dr. Gray has to say by slandering Contoski.

All you have done is towed the liberal MMGW BS cart a little further down the road. Like all in your camp you ignore real science and mock anyone who disagrees with you. And here’s the kicker, you’ve been a shill for the very people you call despicable, your vested interests - the big conglomerates, the heartless corporations. I’ve pointed this out to you previously, who do you think is going to collect the money from carbon taxes, carbon credits purchased to offset co2 production? It’s a neat shell game, making it look like the big guys are paying to produce harmless co2 but taking the money back at the other end after its washed through government coffers. And people who think like you are helping them to perpetrate this crime. Well done good and faithful servant of the big corporations.

Get your head out of the sand, start looking at things with a critical eye and stop listening to popular media.
Rate :   5  1Rating :   4
Its best to stay ahead of the heard.
That way you stay out of the bullshit.
Rate :   2  5Rating :   -3
Rate :   1  3Rating :   -2
Latest comment posted for this article
"Just like the stock market has hiccups I expect that nature will also have pauses (maybe) and fight back ....... but will lose the battle in the long run." In one sentence you show hope that you may actually understand what's going on and then you oblit  Read more
Schwerpunkt - 1/27/2014 at 4:36 PM GMT
Rating :  5  1
Top articles
World PM Newsflow