Leading article

Our enemy is not global warming. In Britain, people are dying of the cold

Everyone talks about the human cost of climate change. What about pensioners dying in the cold?

30 November 2013

9:00 AM

30 November 2013

9:00 AM

Fanciful predictions of all the deaths that will result from climate change, decades into the future, are regularly thrown into public debate. Less attention has been given to a real statistic from the here and now, released by the Office of National Statistics this week, which shows the effects of one of the policies designed to tackle climate change: high energy prices. It emerged this week that there were 31,000 ‘excess’ deaths in England and Wales last winter, almost a third more than the previous year. Almost all were, in effect, British pensioners who died of the cold.

It’s odd: Britain is a rich country with a massive welfare state — and we know how to heat and insulate houses. We also send millions away in overseas aid. Yet somehow we have failed to find a way to stop our own people dying of the cold. Each winter, we tolerate a death toll which runs into the tens of thousands. Worse, we seem to have become inured to it.

The 2003 heatwave was blamed for 2,000 deaths, and treated as a national emergency. Sir David King, then chief scientific officer, declared that this meant climate change was ‘more serious even than the threat of terrorism’.

Since then, some 280,000 Brits have died from the cold and barely 10,000 from the heat. We have been focusing on the wrong enemy.

Yet still the government seems little bothered by the link between green levies, which are already jacking up our heating bills, and rising winter deaths. Whenever the Climate Change Secretary is presented with the charge that climate levies are hurting the poor he always makes the same claim: that one of the main roles of the levies is to subsidise home insulation schemes for low-earners, and that by doing so their energy bills will actually fall. This is a dubious assertion in that it relies on the elderly and the poor all being able to access subsidised insulation schemes. Many cannot.

[Alt-Text]


 

The green schemes always look better on paper. The proposed ‘Green Deal’ was supposed to have led to the installation of insulation in 10,000 homes by the end of the year. It emerged this week that barely a tenth of this figure, 1,170 households, have been helped. Little wonder – the IPPR think tank (below) has shown that Green Deal repayments on the extra insulation will add back whatever is saved in energy payments. People are no better off, which is why so few have signed up.

Green Deal

It is hard to escape the conclusion that by adding the cost of levies onto fuel bills (rather than paying them out of general taxation) the Blair and Brown governments hoped to deflect blame to the energy companies. And the Tories signed up to this agenda by voting for Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act.

Far from helping the poor, a remarkable amount of money raised in green taxes seems to land at the feet of the rich: wealthy landowners who rent their land to subsidised wind farms, and well-off homeowners who can afford to fit solar panels to their roofs or to invest in ‘green’ central heating systems such as ground-source heat pumps and woodchip boilers. This, in itself, is a scandal. But we are in a situation where people are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes. That fact that most of the 31,000 who perished last year are over 75 years of age seems to take the political sting out of this scandal. It is as if elderly lives are somehow less valuable.

Reports that David Cameron now refers to such initiatives as ‘green crap’ suggest that he has finally come round to appreciating the potential political cost of green stealth taxes on the poor. The failure of his famous wind turbine on his house in Ladbroke Grove ought to have alerted him to the false claims made of green energy. But it is no credit to him that he previously subscribed to such measures with enthusiasm. The price of ‘green crap’ is reflected not just in higher energy bills, but in the fate of pensioners who dare not turn on the radiator after having faced punitive hikes in their heating bill.

For years the Prime Minister has stuck to the conceit that the Climate Change Act would cut energy bills in the longer run by bringing forward investment in renewable energy which, though it might be more expensive now, will steadily fall in price while the cost of fossil fuels soars. It is becoming more apparent by the day that this assumption is deeply flawed. Fossil fuel prices are no longer soaring; on the contrary, in the US they are falling as fracking reduces the cost of extracting unconventional reserves. Global temperatures, too, have declined to follow the predicted path on which the Climate Change Act was justified. While other countries loosen their carbon reduction targets Britain remains legally bound to targets which threaten to render industry chronically uncompetitive.

It is highly desirable that carbon emissions fall — as indeed they have in the US as gas pushes out coal as the main form of electricity generation. But it shouldn’t come at the cost of economic growth or the welfare of the old and poor. If David Cameron really wants to tackle ‘green crap’, sooner or later he is going to have to tear up the Climate Change Act — and replace it with a policy aimed at lowering bills and saving lives.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.


Show comments
  • dodgy

    By now it is well understood that our ‘green’ policies are a pointless mess, threatening the entire country with an infrastructure collapse amongst other problems. But there still seems to be a belief that “We must stop generating CO2”.

    This belief is completely wrong. Human-generated CO2 is NOT causing any climate alteration at all. This fact is obvious since CO2 concentrations (from whatever source) are measurably going up, while global temperatures are not, and have been like this for many years. Why is this?

    The AGW theory goes:

    1 – the climate is delicately balanced
    2 – extra CO2 causes a little bit of warming
    3 – this warming is amplified by extra water vapour being generated, causing a torpospheric ‘hot-spot’
    4 – runaway heating results – and we can show this with models

    What is really happening is:

    1 – the climate is actually robust against variations of all kinds
    2 – extra CO2 causes a little bit of warming
    3 – this warming is simply swamped by the vast energy exchanges that occur in the atmosphere – clouds and thunderstorms routinely shifting orders of magnitude more heat out into space.
    4 – no extra water vapour is generated. This has actually been observed – average water vapour levels are slightly falling, and there is NO tropospheric ‘hot-spot’.
    5 – the climate continues to vary, influenced by the same (poorly understood) forces as before.

    The only thing extra CO2 does is make the planet greener, as it acts as a fertiliser for all plants. It is NOT ‘highly desirable’ that carbon emissions fall at all. If anything, we should be increasing them…

    • Peter Stroud

      You are absolutely correct. Well said.

    • Peter Stroud

      Well said. You are absolutely correct.

    • Tony Peart

      I like your Straw Man AGW you may become a climate scientist if you try a little harder
      4/10

      Try

      • global city

        but the positive feedbacks, that made the hypothesis plausible have been shown to not exist. CO2 is not responsible for any raising, or lowering of average global temperatures.

        The historic datasets, as well as the more recent weather station readings have been debased by the core teams at the heart of the scam.

        What is there, at any level of the mania, to ‘believe’?

        • Icarus62

          The evidence shows that fast feedbacks alone amplify global warming by a factor of 3, and there is little realistic prospect of slow feedbacks taking that to less than a factor of 6. This means that at 400ppm of atmospheric CO₂ we have already committed the climate to equilibrium warming of nearly 3°C, just from emissions to date, and no-one thinks that CO₂ is going to stop rising any time soon. It’s true that no-one alive today will live to see the full effects of human activity on the climate but young people today will see global temperature rise far above anything experienced by modern humans, and probably since we first evolved millions of years ago.

          At this point we just have to do the best we can to cope with the growing climate chaos ahead of us.

          • global city

            But all the research has shown that these positive feedbacks, so absolutely fundamental to the core hypothesis just do not exist, or if they do are so insignificant themselves that they can’t be identified in the real climate.

            It was an assertion and a fudge to make the role that CO2 plays into something that could be portrayed as scary.

            If I was you I would seriously concentrate on something else, as what ever you decide to do will not be spoilt by the coming climate catastrophe that isn’t actually happening.

            Enjoy life!

          • Jon Parker

            Is this supposed to be a serious contribution to the debate or an excerpt from a yet to be broadcast comedy script? No positive feedbacks? (!!!!!) climate science from at least the last 30 years is overflowing with data of these feedbacks -eg melting of polar icecaps, incidence of higher than ever recorded before temperature increases in Australia, near catastrophic hurricanes in USA (Hurricane Sandy in particular) – these are all feedbacks. Also, it might be helpful if you were to clarify exactly what your point is –

            eg ‘But all the research has shown that these positive feedbacks, so absolutely fundamental to the core hypothesis just do not exist, or if they do are so insignificant themselves that they can’t be identified in the real climate.’
            Either these feedbacks do not exist at all or they are too insignificant (ie small) to show up in the ‘real’ climate – but they can’t be both. Which of these positions are you advocating here? Also, research shows this? – what research? I have not seen a single research report or quote from a scientific study which makes this astonishing conclusion.

          • Martin Walsh

            No, these are not feedbacks. Feedbacks are those elements in the climate system that amplify the warming effect of additional CO2. This is the issue of climate sensitivity and the fact is that the model assumptions have been steadily dis-proven by the empirical data (e.g. Richard Lindtzen). The list of usual suspects (extremes of temperature, storms etc) have not been conclusively linked to the climate change bogey monster – even the IPCC acknowledge that!!!! see their special report on extreme events. Even the latest AR5 says so. Facts dear boy, facts.

          • Jon Parker

            ‘The list of usual suspects (extremes of temperature, storms etc) have not been conclusively linked to the climate change bogey monster ‘
            This term ‘conclusively linked’ is a bit of a thorny issue here – what exactly do you mean by this term? If you mean, as it looks from your post you do, that it refers to a piece of evidence which is absolutely, 100% linked to climate change then no, these ‘usual suspects’ are not conclusively linked. But then again, no variable or factor which has as yet been identified is 100% conclusive – so if you apply this kind of argument, then there is no evidence to support any aspect of the climate change hypothesis. There is, however, a very high level of support (97% of scientists support this) for link between these extreme events and man made climate change. Also, it might be useful to point out that this issue is something of a technicality which has very little relevance to this debate – the point AR5 does make is that there is not, as yet, 100% conclusive evidence to link any SINGLE event to the general trend of increasing climate change – that is a central aspect of the climate scientists’ case. Hurricane Sandy, for instance, being a single extreme event, would not be considered as supporting evidence for climate change. Take the sum of lots of different extreme events occurring around the world and with increasing occurrence, and you quickly reach a very different conclusion. This is really the point behind the IPCC’s statement re AR5.

          • global city

            er, the positive feedbacks are the ones factored into to the climate models that are supposed to act as forcing, they say up to 3x the actual impact that CO2 alone has. Without these then the CAGW models cannot reach the levels of climate change that would scare us.

            I think you got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

            The other things you mentioned are observations of climate change… and nobody suggests that the climate never changes. During the mania all of those observations, including some that were just made up, have been attributed to man made interference by increasing levels of CO2.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Evidence”? There is zero EMPIRICAL evidence of AGW. In fact the strongest empirical evidence available connecting CO2 and earth temperature is in the ice core record which always shows temperature rising AHEAD of CO2 rising and, much more damning, temperature then dropping AHEAD of CO2 dropping.

            If CO2 had anything to do with temperature continuing to rise after ~something else~ had started it rising then HOW COME temperature came back DOWN while CO2 was still high? The only way anyone could believe that would be to believe that the ~something else~ that began the temperature rising cycle, the one very weak that required CO2 to ‘amplify’ the effect to continue temperature going up – suddenly then went negative in SUCH a strong way it was able to counteract the high CO2 forcing that had been created.

            And then – MAGICALLY! – when temperature had returned back to a low regime from whence it started – that strong negative input turned weak again slowly decreasing as CO2 came back down.

            Occam’s Razor applies here – CO2 has no measurable affect on temperature at all. Whatever pushed temperatures up went away and temperature came back down. CO2 was a product of the higher temperature and slowly faded back down later after temperature fell – CO2 FOLLOWS temperature.

          • Icarus62

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”

            NASA.
            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “…greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.” I never denied that they do! You have ZERO evidence to show that CO2 has anymore than its own minor GHG affect on temperature which is about 1 degree C per doubling. Your hoax theory TOTALLY depends on water vapor “amplifying” the tiny amount of the extra warming from CO2 which is INSIGNIFICANT without that “amplifying” effect. Detection of the “Hot Spot” was to be your proof of “amplification” but … it never happened! No “Hot Spot” = No CAGW.

          • Icarus62

            In reality the water vapour feedback is a matter of simple physics, as is the sea ice albedo feedback, so we know that fast feedbacks will amplify the Planck response from elevated atmospheric CO₂ by a factor of about three. Then the slow feedbacks will at least double that, and Hansen’s palaeoclimate work indicates ~2.4°C/W/m² (9.5°C per doubling) at equilibrium. Hence our ~1.9W/m² of CO₂ forcing is already enough to cause 4°C of global warming.

            You knew that the main fingerprint of the enhanced GHE is the observed combination of stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, yes?

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “..water vapour feedback is a matter of simple physics,”

            Only ‘simple’ in your mind and the GCM’s. If it was simple then there WOULD BE a “Hot Spot”. There ain’t one.

        • Eileen Kuch

          What is really affecting global temperatures is the Sun. Temperatures here in the northern part of the US are below normal as well. Most of this is due to the declining level of sunspots which, btw, have been at their lowest in two centuries. Reducing CO2 emissions is not going to affect the Sun’s activity in any way; instead, it will cause major plant die-off if reduced too much.

          Plants are totally dependent on CO2 to survive, just as animals are totally dependent on oxygen. Plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen; thus, both kingdoms survive, simple as that.

      • dodgy

        I tried to become a climate scientist.

        But I was failed because I couldn’t lie often enough.. :(

        • Danceswithdachshunds

          If you were not working for a government program that relied upon scaring people to insure a continuation of funding then you had no financial reason to lie at all.

    • Richard_Spain
      • dodgy

        Interesting to see that there’s a site for it – but the principle is well understood, and there have been many papers over the last few years documenting the effect that the slight CO2 increase is having on greening the earth. Even the Stern report mentioned it.

        The problem is that there is a huge disconnect between the ‘Global Warming’ science (which was poor, and for the last 7 years has been non-existent) and what the activists CLAIM that the science says. Because the activists have the all the environmental advisory places in government, it is their agenda which is followed – an agenda which is often in direct contradiction to their own science…

    • Greg Van Gordon
    • ilma630

      To add to that and indeed correct it a little, but positively… A recent (peer reviewed) study has shown that because the IR absorption bands of CO2 and water vapour overlap, the overall absorptivity of the atmosphere is less than the component parts of the atmosphere without CO2 and the CO2.

      The “extra CO2 causes a little bit of warming” has always been just an assumption – something that’s been driven into our mindset by the endless repetition by those who are pro-AGW, but without any foundation.

      You would think this would be good news to the pro-AGWers, that CO2 is not the danger they thought it was, but instead, they seem to shriek and wail even more loudly.

      • dodgy

        Thanks for that (a cite would be nice..?). I haven’t seen that paper…

        In my defence, it’s hard to describe complex technical phenomena in an 8-word phrase…

    • zeltia

      yes but Governments need us all to be scared….permanently, that is the only way they can manage us!

    • tony newbill

      These are the same people who are calling for depopulation of earth , so illusion is the goal while death takes place !!!!!!

    • abinico

      What is really happening is denial. If you think that some 7+billion humans all belching, farting and driving cars has no effect on this planet, then you also probably think bitcoin is real money.

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        Termites belch etc as much or more greenhouse gas, (CO2 and methane) as humans produce burning fossil fuel. That’s only ONE other species. Let’s talk about all the microbial animal species that emit CO2 and methane and how they multiply in population by factors 100X to millionsX as earth warms up adding huge amounts of CO2 in addition to ocean out gassing in between each ice age.

        Nobody ever said we don’t have any affect – we do … and so does all other life on this planet. Your task is to measure how much that affect actually is and …YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO! Computer climate models are NOT evidence. They are thoroughly incomplete and unable to model reality – Dr. Freeman Dyson said so.

    • Danceswithdachshunds

      “there is NO tropospheric ‘hot-spot’ ”

      That was realized a long time ago too. They squirmed miserably claiming that the weather balloons were lying and that, instead of those faulty thermometers we should look at wind shear factors (or something?).

      Our mistake was back then, when AGW went from an ‘interesting theory’ to ‘likely wrong’ , in allowing the climate scientists to continue collecting taxpayer money to entrench themselves and write “climate gate” emails to each other. It was when the theory began dying and the hoax began growing.

  • Bernard Hughes

    The whole point about the Green Deal is that you won’t be financially worse off. The installation and loan repayments are financed by the savings in your energy bills. The scheme has a Golden Rule calculation which matches savings with repayments. The Green Deal isn’t something ideological – it’s just a way of helping people protect themselves against rising energy prices and improve their homes. You would have saved £382 against rising prices if you could have had a Green Deal 6 years ago: http://tinyurl.com/nl3hbtc. Bernard Hughes, Green Deal Finance Company

    • Baron

      Well, as far as Baron’s concern, they can FO with Green Deals, Golden Rules and all that crap, the energy generators ought to get on with generating energy burning whatever lowers their output costs, and that includes coal.

      There’s an agreement between the ecochondriacs and the common sense crowd on both the time series for the level of CO2 in the air, and the temperature between roughly the Norman invasion and today. In this span of time, the two series correlated only 20% of the time, roughly between 1800 and 1998. The seemingly correlative ‘bond’ between the two is a fluke not unakin to the correlation between the cases of dysentery in Scotland and the UK inflation in the middle of last century.

      What happens to the cost of energy matters alot. The post-war boom in the West was founded on cheap energy and credit creation. For reasons hard to fathom, we’ve turned against both, maligning banking, pushing energy cost up. If we continue this disastrous policy we’re unlikely to see any noticeable and sustainable growth.

  • Peter Stroud

    “It is highly desirable that carbon emissions fall -” why? None of the computer models have predicted the current ‘global temperature hiatus’: in fact, in any other branch of science their total disagreement with empirical data would falsify them. Scientific climate sceptics suspect that the problems with the models is that the climate sensitivity was overestimated. And there is an utter inability to model clouds. Yet the, so called, climate scientists merely arm wave: then try to guess where all the energy might be hiding. The deep oceans: the arctic: take your pick.

    • steve

      I’m with you on all those thoughts. However, one thing bothers me. Where is the scientist (or group of scientists) that are scrutinizing these models and rejecting them? Why aren’t we seeing more papers on that?

  • ChilliKwok

    “it is highly desirable that carbon emissions fall”

    You mean CO2 not carbon. Why is it desirable for CO2 emissions to fall? It’s a natural trace gas essential for plant photosynthesis. Increased CO2 leads to higher crop yields and faster forest growth. We all exhale 4% CO2 – it’s the kiss of life. The UK is only responsible for 1.7% of total man-made CO2 which itself only makes up 5% of total natural emissions from the oceans, volcanos and rotting vegetation. Evidently increased CO2 has negligible effect on the climate: there’s been no warming since 1997 despite a third of all man-made CO2 ever emitted having been emitted since that date. It is also clear that increased CO2 has no effect on the weather since there has been no detectable trend in hurricanes, tornadoes or storms. In fact there is good evidence that CO2 emissions are beneficial : increasing crop yields and forest growth.

    So why spoil a perfectly good article by bowing to the left-wing shibboleth of “cutting ‘carbon’ emissions” ?

    • Tony Peart

      Same debunked concepts dragged out over and over showing the lack of learning at

      the denial tent There has been plenty of heating since 1997 telling the same myths to each other over and over wont change anything . You are far behind in your understanding of the situation It isn’t lrft and right it’s your grand-kids survival

      • ChilliKwok

        Tony, please tell me which of these measured temperature datasets showing no warming since 1997 has been ‘debunked’:

        From the RSS and USH satellites:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997

        And from the warmists at CRU:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997

        And the warmists at NASA GISS
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997

        All show no warming since 1997. And how exactly does a temperature which may or may not be a few tenths of a degree colder or warmer ‘threaten my grandkids survivial’. I can tell you what does threaten thei

        • ChilliKwok

          .. cntd from above post which crashed and can’t be edited

          I’ll tell you what does threaten their survival (or at least their health and prosperity): Watermelons like you.

        • Justclimbit

          With the exception of the RSS MSU dataset, all of the regressions that you prepared and linked to show warming.

          • ChilliKwok

            Dude can’t spot a flat trend on a noisey signal but thinks he sounds clever if he calls a temperature plot a ‘regression’.

          • Justclimbit

            “Dude” can perform an OLS regression to actually display a trend…something that you apparently cannot. The fact remains that your assertions regarding “no warming” (apart from RSS) were simply wrong.

          • ChilliKwok

            The problem for warmists like you is that the general public don’t need to ‘perform an OLS regression’ to see that those graphs show no warming trend – and certainly not the runaway warming you alarmist dramagreens predicted.

          • Justclimbit

            Well, actually they do if they want accurate representations of the data. But, in lieu of the necessary skills, time, and motivation to analyze that data, it is easier to see what you wish to see (or not see).

            I’m sorry, this site is really buggy (hopefully not the same operators as our newly minted healthcare site), which makes it difficult to continue. At any rate, since you appear to have an interest in climate, please take the time to add the OLS trends from your earlier links. I don’t wish to be presumptuous, but if you are not aware, WFT only requires adding a new series (same settings) with the addition of “linear trend” to see that estimated trend for each dataset.

          • ChilliKwok

            Here’s one with a trendline overlay:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/none
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/none

            Not very impressive is it? The IPCC alarmists predicted 4oC warming by 2099. That’s 0.4oC per decade. So far this century we’ve a had bvgger all warming. At this rate it’ll take thousands of years to hit 4oC by which time we’ll probably be in another ice age.

            How many decades do we need to wait before we start tarring, feathering and suing these alarmists for the most costly pseudo-scientific fraud in history?

          • Justclimbit

            That’s great that you “discovered” how to use the trend estimation feature of WFT. And of course you chose RSS and the obsolete Had 3 to show off your new skills. As I have indicated from the beginning of our exchange, RSS is alone among the 5 major datasets in not indicating warming since ’97. And Had 3, while showing warming, had less Arctic coverage than its replacement, missing much of the rapid warming of that region. Also missing is your apology for incorrectly stating that there had been no warming in any of the datasets.

            But beyond that bit of selective (mis)representation, I am truly intrigued by your assertion that the IPCC “predicted 40ºC warming by 2099”. Somehow, I don’t recall that rather incredible projection, but you did succeed in providing me the best laugh of the week by asserting as much. The AR 5 states, “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5.”

          • ChilliKwok

            Hacrut4 show a negligible 0.05 degree rise over the period. An order of magnitude less than alarmist predictions.

            And above I referred to the IPCC 4oC warming prediction. (That’s a letter ‘o’, not a zero. Ie. 4°C. How typical of a warmist to willfully misrepresent and exaggerate a temperature rise).

            Here’s the ipcc’s 4 degree prediction:
            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

            Fact is there’s absolutely no sign of the rapid warming predicted by the IPCC, no matter how much you huff and puff. CAGW is a busted flush.

          • Justclimbit

            It is most definitely true that surface/atmospheric temperature rise rates have slowed somewhat over the period in question. But that is not the issue that I addressed. You asserted that there had been “no warming” since 1997, an assertion that I have proven false. Your inability to admit as much is disappointing…but not unexpected.

            In regard to the alleged IPCC “prediction” of 40º, I was admittedly having a bit of fun there. That would actually be something from the IPCC that would merit your oft-used pejorative, “alarmist”. But I am puzzled why you would not use normal decimal conventions to express a numeric value. At any rate (pun intended), your attempt to take attention away from your “no warming” gaffe by shifting focus to IPCC projections of future temperature rise shows the same bit of disingenuousness as your “selective” use of the datasets for warming. Your link is to the AR4 (you are aware that there’s a new one, right?) which includes a range of projected temperature increases. And of course, you chose the highest. That AR’s best estimates (note the plural) for temperature rise by the end of the century were between 1.8º and 4º.

            The fact (the actual fact) is that there continues to be an imbalance in the energy flux into and out of the climate system. The climate system will continue to accumulate heat until radiative equilibrium is reached. We have empirical evidence of this warming, from rising OHC and surface/near surface temperatures to physical evidence of the effects of that measured warming. Huffing and puffing from either of us (and from the number of your climate-related posts, it looks like you are the more prolific puffer) will not change that fact.

          • ChilliKwok

            Bollocks. This scam was built on the surface temperature record. Now that temperatures are no longer cooperating you try to move the goal posts to an obscure measure like Ocean Heat Content which we only have very short and inaccurate records for. Pathetic. Face it: the jig’s up. Time to find a new scare story you lot can use to impose socialism on the world. How about global cooling? Population control? Ocean de-alkalisation? Polly bears starving?

          • ChilliKwok

            Bollocks. This scam was built on the surface temperature record. Now that temperatures are no longer cooperating you try to move the goal posts to an obscure measure like Ocean Heat Content which we only have very short and inaccurate records for. Pathetic. Face it: the jig’s up. Time to find a new scare story you lot can use to impose socialism on the world. How about global cooling? Population control? Ocean de-alkalisation? Polly bears starving?

          • Justclimbit

            LOL. Cheers (again).

          • ChilliKwok

            I don’t get it. Your profile says you come from 3 generations of Detroit automotive engineers. Having seen how socialism and corrupt big government destroyed that city, why support the same destructive socialist ‘redistribution’ policies under the guise of the global warming scam? Do you want to see the whole world end up like Detroit? Also, I wouldn’t expect an engineer to fall for such patently idiotic pseudo-scientific scaremongering. And isn’t Detroit bloody freezing cold in winter? Couldn’t they do with some warming? Oh well. I guess it takes all sorts.

          • Justclimbit

            I’m drawn back one last time to clear up your apparent confusion…at least your confusion about my background and motivation to engage in discussions about climate…your confusion regarding actual climate science would simply take too long to clear up 😉

            I am not an engineer. I despise politics. My heart breaks for Detroit, even though I have spent most of my life in the mountains of Colorado. None of those bits have anything to do with my involvement with AGW. My domain is the science of climate. This would not be the “patently idiotic pseudo-scientific scaremongering” kind of science that you envision, but mostly just the plain old physics and thermodynamics kind (quantum mechanics is as exotic as I get). I have no interest in redistributing wealth, imposing taxes, forcing lifestyle changes on the public, taking lollipops away from crying children, or whatever other nefarious motivation you might assign me. My only interest is for folks to understand the science and not distort that science to support their ideology. But hey, I guess it does indeed take all sorts. Cheers (third and final).

          • steve

            I love the latest excuses: “the heat went into the oceans” and “if you add in the arctic….” funny that these things never came up before. Just makes me very suspicious of the motives of the IPCC and associated clowns.

          • Justclimbit

            Actually, climate science has known about and discussed the subjects of ocean heating and Arctic amplification for decades. You are only perceiving these factors to be “excuses” because they have become increasingly relevant to explaining current climate status. Natural variability is an integral part of the climate system, not an “excuse”. It’s interesting that from the early ’90s through 2002, the observed surface temperature rate was much GREATER than what models projected. And, the scientific explanation for the discrepancy during that mismatch? Natural variability. The same explanation that is being currently characterized by contrarians as a newly-minted excuse for slowed surface warming.

          • steve

            Actually, I don’t believe they are clowns, and in truth, I subscribe to the IPCC for the most part. I’m also aware of a few data points that you brought up, and the other ones I’ll look up. So here’s an interesting point, justclimbit: I’m usually in your shoes, explaining the science to someone in positive terms, responding to an often hostile comment (from either side). I think it’s the best way to go, but I never get feedback on that point. Your response was a good one, and shows me that the way I was going about it was right. Both sides will respond to accurate info, if presented dispassionately – that’s what science should be. If we’re going to make any progress on the climate issues, we’re all going to have to work together.

          • Justclimbit

            Consider yourself lucky that you don’t get feedback. I get lots of feedback from my comments, and it’s usually not that great! I can only relay the state of climate science and hope that those that see it actually take the time to pursue it. I have said many times that we must work together to solve a problem. Unfortunately, it is a problem that many refuse to acknowledge.

          • steve

            Chillikwok: it doesn’t matter if it never warms another degree. The only thing that matters is who has the power to make decisions. “You can keep your health insurance if you like it. Read my lips.” Does it matter 3 years later that he lied? No. We’re stuck with Obamacare, like it or not. Same is true with climate. We’ve got to fight like crazy every step of the way, or we’ll be saddled with carbon taxes forever.

          • steve

            You may want to refer to the IPCC report. You may be referring to a moving average, but the folks on here are talking about instantaneous global temps.

          • Justclimbit

            If they are talking about “instantaneous global temps” then they simply have no clue regarding climate science.

          • steve

            No, no, no. “Instantaneous” in the sense of an annual number, as opposed to a moving average. I’m aware that several years can see an annual temp drop, but the moving average can still be increasing, which is what I thought you were indicating. If they’re saying that the global temps have been flat for 15 years, then they’re right, regardless of cherry-picking the starting date. It’s just a data point(s), and is worth discussing, but in the larger scheme, means little.

          • Justclimbit

            First, let me say that it is refreshing to “talk” to a “skeptic” that is willing to listen. In regard to the temp data, the OLS trends that I referenced used monthly data, so no long term smoothing. If we use the new constraint of 15 years (the original poster was using 17), then the warming is actually more significant because it doesn’t begin with the anomalous super El Niño of ’97/’98.

          • steve

            Right, but both sides have their mantras, and a favorite of dishonest skeptics is “…global cooling for 15 years…” I’ve seen the data, they’ve seen the data – they don’t mean it literally, but it’s a data point, even if a tortured one (because of El Nino). On the other side, I’m disturbed by the 97% and 98% numbers that seems to be their mantra. I’m sure you’ve reviewed the three studies that generated those numbers, and what they really mean. In comments and responses to the authors, and those that quote them, I’ve gleaned that the AGW crowd thinks the exaggerated claims are justified, in order to combat the PR effectiveness of the skeptics. Hmmmm…. so, the AGW crowd is more than just science, after all. Fair enough. One final comment, regarding your thoughts that I might be a skeptic. My true thoughts are that the climate issue is the most complex, multifaceted issue ever faced by man, and there are thousands of data points. Some I accept, some I don’t quite understand, and some I’m skeptical about. However, I’m very skeptical when it comes to individuals stating that they know how to solve the myriad problems, and at the same time insulting their compatriots. Thus, even the question of whether I’m a skeptic is a complex one!

          • Justclimbit

            Understood.

            Regarding consensus, I have found many who take issue with it, thinking that it is anathema to science and how science is conducted. They invariably have the sequence wrong. It is not consensus leading to science, but science leading to consensus. Indeed, if over 90% of scientists dealing in a particular field come to consensus regarding a theory….and that is not an exaggeration for AGW theory…it is a solid indication of the strength of the evidence supporting that theory. In my experience, scientists are not that willing to join a club without very good reason.

            In regard to other inaccurate and exaggerated claims regarding AGW, that is simply an inevitable consequence of folks discussing an issue that they may, or (more likely) may not know very much about. There are no shortage of people and blog sites anxious to dispense their “version” of the science. Go to the source, read the reviewed papers, and stick to the actual science and what actual scientists have to say.

            Very nice chatting with you. Cheers!

          • steve

            I’m interested to know where you got the 90% figure. I’ve read the 3 papers, and that’s not the logical conclusion. Perhaps it’s moot. However, consensus doesn’t mean correct, I’m sure we agree there. As per your first comment, some folks take issue with it? They probably have another agenda, or, perhaps they’ve read the papers as well. I’d advise people not to use those 90%+ figures, because it’s ammunition for the other side. Anyone stating those figures understands math and statistics in a different manner than I, and therefore I hesitate to believe other things they say. I urge you to read those 3 short papers and state your conclusion.

          • Justclimbit

            I’m confused as to why you think the ~97% consensus is in question. I have indeed read the papers finding consensus (Oreskes, Anderegg, Cook, Doran, Powell) and find them to present a sound basis for their findings. And they are supported by the corroborating statements from virtually every scientific organization.

            In regard to referencing consensus in discussions, I too am wary of doing so simply because of the knee-jerk reactions by contrarians to dismiss it. However, if it is brought up, I am most certainly going to defend the significance of consensus as an indicator of the state of acceptance of AGW among those most qualified.

          • steve

            I agree that the theory is robust, and that the number of climate scientists who responded were overwhelmingly in support of the AGW theory. I’ll re-read the papers and state my opinion again – I’ll be the first to admit I’m wrong. As I said, the point may be moot. (not to quibble, but if the claims were “…97% of those who responded…” and in the other case “…98%, meaning 75 out of 77…” then I’d have no problem. But to say 98% of all climate scientists… or to say 98% of ALL scientists… those are wild, unsupported statements. in my book).

          • Justclimbit

            The studies generally report consensus figures for whole and subset samples. The specific study that you are referring to (Doran & Zimmerman) did not focus only on the 97.4%. And nowhere did they (or any of the papers) claim that 98% of ALL scientists accept AGW. They clearly started with the whole-sample value of 82% (for question #2 regarding human causation) and ended with the 97.4% value for “climate scientists” with more than 50% of their reviewed publications in the area of climate change. I see absolutely nothing unusual or misleading in using that approach. With the single largest scientific background category represented in the survey being geoscience (generally the least accepting of AGW), even the whole-sample 82% is noteworthy…and would be considered a very strong consensus in itself.

            Now, whether you can extrapolate from such small samples is more problematic. Obviously, there is no way to sample ~30,000 “climate” scientists. But some of the other studies get past that problem by addressing the content of the reviewed papers instead of enlisting the scientists. And again, the fact that virtually every scientific organization has stated their acceptance of AGW provides some additional support for the 90%-98% estimation (see Wiki, “Scientific opinion on climate change”).

          • steve

            Yes – agree with your second paragraph. Also agree that 82% is overwhelming. However, being involved with math, statistics, financial calculations and science for decades has developed my keen eye for math errors, and they jump out of the page at me.
            As an example, if there are 9 philosophers in the world, and it’s determined that 4 oppose the death penalty, one supports the death penalty, the other four don’t respond (or can’t be found, or take no position), then what can one conclude? You can say “80% of philosophers that responded support the death penalty.” I would have no problem with that. If someone states, “80% of philosophers support the death penalty”, I would state that this is a false conclusion. The person making that claim to me has a personal agenda, and I would discount the rest of his statements.

          • Justclimbit

            Ironic…on at the same time.

            At the risk of this horse being beaten beyond recognition, the studies accurately presented their findings. There were no “math errors”. As I have already conceded, extrapolating the results to the entire climate science community cannot be done with a great degree of confidence. But the larger point is, whether the exact consensus value is 98%, or 90%, or something in between, the consensus appears very real…and very significant. I see no reason not to cite this information.

          • steve

            Sorry for the miscommunication. As a manager of many young scientists and engineers, I’m constantly harping on clarity of communication. My example was given in order that you might accept or refute it, to see if we have common ground, math-speaking.

            Restating my original objection: I have no problem with the three papers. I agree with their methods and conclusions. It’s the way those conclusions are misstated in the media or by other scientists that I object to.

            In reviewing once again the three referenced papers, the conclusions are clearly stated in them:

            1. DORAN: 10,257 earth scientists contacted; 3,146 responded; of the 3146 who responded, 77 were determined to be the most qualified regarding climate. Of those, 75 support AGW. 75 of 77 = 97.4%

            2. ORESKES: 928 papers found by searching with keywords “climate change”; found none disagreed with consensus view

            3. ANDEREGG, et al, 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing (more than 20 climate papers) in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the IPCC.
            So, when someone claims “97% of all climate scientists support AGW…”, the statement isn’t supported by the research. I could accept “…up to 97% of climate scientists”. Or, “. ..of the 30% who responded to a survey, 75 of 77 of the most qualified climate scientists support AGW. Or other correct statements – it’s not that hard to express the thought succinctly. Thus, I have to suspect that when someone uses the term “…97% of all climate scientists…” they have an agenda, they are not a scientist nor mathematician, and the remainder of their article or post is somewhat suspect. Thanks – these are entirely my conclusions from reading the papers tonight.

          • Justclimbit

            We can agree technically, just not in practice. I simply find your requirement of support rather extreme (and curiously selective) for anyone stating that there is a ~97% consensus among climate scientists regarding AGW. The intended meaning is clear. It is supported by many studies (more than your referenced 3). It is supported in the statements of scientific organizations. And it is typically used as a summarized value resulting from surveys, not a scientific value requiring extreme precision. I, too am a stickler for accuracy…as evidenced by my first comment on this thread…but I have no problem with the “~97%” assertion. And I certainly would not automatically dismiss the rest of someone’s commentary based on that imperfect assertion.

            I indicated that I find your requirement of support not only extreme for something as innocuous as consensus estimations, but also a bit selective. It’s interesting that, in your earlier replies to me, you claimed that the “clowns” at the IPCC had stated that there had been no warming since ’97, that OHC and Arctic amplification had never been addressed before, and that (apparently) comparing two temperature anomalies years apart is more useful in determining trends than performing a linear regression. It seems that your requirement for clear, concise, and complete support was missing for those, more defined (scientifically and mathematically) points. One could even assume from those mistaken claims that the one making them is neither “a scientist nor mathematician”. I guess it’s a good thing that I didn’t make that assumption and dismiss the rest of your commentary.

          • steve

            Gosh – we’re really beating this dead horse. Shows how difficult this topic is. I certainly hope I’m not extreme, as you suggest, but I’ll give that some thought. You must understand that in the world of engineering, the way we express our opinions must be terse, provable and testable. And so, if a junior project mgr presented our leadership group with these types of statements, he’d be out on his ear. In summary, perhaps when I’m faced with those statements in the future, I’ll react in this way, “…let’s just agree that the scientific organizations are in agreement.” That way, we get to more important points, rather than go down this bunny hole and waste time. Thanks for your patience – it was a pleasure.

          • Justclimbit

            Not quite done with that horse. I’ve been successful so far in resisting the temptation to address your manifested “engineer syndrome”. Growing up in a family of successful engineers has provided me ample opportunity to witness an adherence to exacting standards and a sense of confidence that extends to many unrelated fields that seems endemic to the profession. I can understand how you might misapply those standards to a some random commenter making a claim of AGW consensus among climate scientists and hyperbolically assert that if he made those comments in your world, that “he’d be out on his ear”. But it does make me wonder. Suppose a junior project manager in your group made such statements as: The IPCC has stated that there has been no warming since ’97, that OHC and Arctic amplification have never been addressed before, and that comparing two temperature anomalies years apart is more useful in determining trends than performing a linear regression. Certainly, while terse, none of these statements are remotely accurate. Would that manager be out on his ear as well? Something to think about while you’re contemplating how to deal with those imprecise commenters in the future.

          • steve

            Hi, again. Yes, that mgr would be out on his ear, as well. Regarding your comment, “…I can understand how you might misapply those standards to a commenter making a simple (and simply valid) claim of AGW consensus among climate scientists…” I must point out that I never disagreed with that statement.

            The simplest expression of my point is:
            The statement, “98% of the climate scientists who responded to our survey support the AGW theory”
            does not imply that, “98% of all climate scientists support the AGW theory”
            A layman might make such a leap, but not a competent scientist, engineer or mathematician.

          • steve

            Justclimbit: I’m not sure what you mean, sir. Even the IPCC has acknowledged this in the latest report. Surely you’re not disagreeing with the science?

          • Justclimbit

            And I’m not sure what you mean in stating that, “Even the IPCC has acknowledged this…”. Acknowledged what? They most certainly did not state that there has been no warming since 1997. Simple linear regressions with all but the RSS dataset reveal warming. Surely you are not disagreeing with the math?

          • steve

            You know what I mean – the IPCC stated it. Further, they lowered the projection for the lower bound. Neither issues are huge, but it’s in the report – no need to dig it out, just acknowledge and move on!

          • Justclimbit

            The IPCC stated that surface/near surface warming rates have slowed. They did not state that there has been no warming since 1997.

          • steve

            Agreed.

        • Jon Parker

          Without going into even more hotlinks to websites with somewhat dubious names (and presumably intentions – woodfortrees? – sounds like a campaign group if ever I heard one) along with more spurious statistics, I think there is one thing you need to do which will add a bit of clarity to this discussion – define ‘warming’. This is not, unfortunately, as simple as it sounds – many thousands of scientists around world who have worked on climate change have identified many different kinds of temperature – eg surface temp, ocean temp, air temp – which all have an impact. Look at all these studies in more detail and you will see that there has been significant warming consistently since 1997. what do I mean by ‘significant’ ? – last summer the temperature scale in Australia had to be rewritten for the first time since records began – because it was hotter than it had ever been before. And to answer your question – a temp increase of a few tenths of a degree will start to affect some species a little but have no noticeable impact on humans. Problem is that nobody is talking about a temp change of a tenth of a degree – they’re talking about changes of 1 or 2 whole degrees – which is enough to decimate whole populations of certain species, which will in turn drastically affect the global food chain, radically alter the world’s climate, cause major problems for the world’ s economy – and that WILL threaten your grandkids (maybe even your own kids’) survival.

          • steve

            You have points, but so does he. The argument was built on the atmospheric temperature record. We hear it all the time “going back to 1850”. It’s highly suspicious that the argument is now diverted to oceans and previously excluded Arctic. I’m speaking from the layman’s point of view, although I’m a scientist. I actually believe the earth is warming due to AGW, and that we are probably doomed. However, seeing the erratic behavior of the scientists and the politicians, I completely understand the widespread skepticism.

      • ilma630

        TP, SHOW US THE EVIDENCE of this “plenty of heating since 1977”. Also, separate out in quantifiable and testable terms the natural and man-made components. Until you can do that, you are merely arm-waving. Remember, it only takes a single piece of observational data to falsify an hypothesis, which the static temperature record despite CO2 rises has done. Period!

        • Jon Parker

          ‘it only takes a single piece of observational data to falsify an hypothesis’ – sorry to tell you this but, no, it doesn’t. Modern scientific method is based on the evaluation of observational data – there’s a bit more to this than simply going out and observing. eg modern astronomers use some of most highly advanced computers performing far more calculations than any single human could to determine whether a new star has been actually identified. This is a far cry from the days when anyone with a cheap telescope could see something new in the heavens and immediately declare they had found a new galaxy. One piece of observational data will, by itself, add nothing to the general understanding of a scientific theory which has gradually been constructed over decades of patient, painstaking research.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Or alternatively made up on the back of an envelope of course.

          • Ilma

            Note too the pick up on ‘scientific method’ rather than addressing the real argument with evidence. A common diversionary tactic.

          • ilma630

            Unless the scientific method has been redefined for climatology (everything else seems to have been redefined by climateers, including core physics law), if a single piece of observational evidence is disagreement with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is junked and a new one sought. This has NOT changed. And let’s get the terminology right, this is about hypothesis, not theory. Let us also understand computer models (in relation to climate especially), they are NOT evidence, but merely simple ‘what-if’ calculators, unvalidated and unable to even hindcast. Just look at how much in error the IPCC models are.

            The AGW hypothesis is 2 parts, (i) that man’s CO2 emissions will cause temperature rise (above all natural factors), and (ii) that this temperature rise is dangerous.

            There are no two ways about this. The levels of CO2 have risen, but the global temperature record has stayed firmly flat for that past ~17 years. The hypothesis part (i) is therefore falsified, and no arm-waving or protestation will change that. Done. Period.

            The hypothesis part (ii) is also falsified as it is becoming clear that all the projected dangers have not materialised. Sure, there will always be severe storms, floods, heat-waves and droughts, but these have happened throughout history well before any industrialisation, and the observational data clearly demonstrates that the trends of these are downwards, not upwards.

          • steve

            I think it’ll take several more years to falsify part (i). I thought we’d know for sure by 2015…but now it might be another 10 years. As for the 400 PPM CO2, perhaps there’s a delay in the temp rise, or the heat is being stored in the oceans? I have a hard time buying that..but that’s what the scientists are saying they have evidence of.

          • Ilma

            Steve, The pro-AGW scientists said a number of years ago that ‘it would need at least 17 years’. Well 17 years has come, but they are now trying to move the goalpost (again). The sun acts on the atmosphere pretty much instantly, and we don’t feel any delay when the sun comes out or goes in, the temperature reaction is immediate. The vast majority of studies also put the CO2 dwell time in the atmosphere at between 3-15 years, not the >100 or >150 the IPCC claim. As for heat being stored in the ocean, well that’s another deflection to try and avoid having to admit that CO2 has little or no effect on global temperatures. It is very difficult to see how the heat can go into the deep oceans but have bypassed the surface layer (up to 2Km) where there are extensive buoys measuring this, that register no rise.

            This is where Occam’s Razor needs to be applied, in that the simplest explanation is normally the correct one, i.e. that CO2 doesn’t drive global temperatures, never has and never will. It must therefore be something else. How about looking towards that great big ball of nuclear fusion in the sky, … the sun.

            As for trusting the scientists, I think we are past providing them that automatic courtesy. We have to go by the observational data and therefore must be 100% sceptical of all scientists, and not just accept the scientist’s ‘belief’ and rhetoric (the computer models) is correct. The IPCC heavily relies on their belief/models, but they have been shown to be so far out as to be totally useless as predictive tools, yet so much political policy, tax and regulation is based upon them.

          • steve

            Well, you sure said a mouthful, and are passionate about your point. I, too, am skeptical on things until I read more and convince myself. However, the aggregate of scientists studying this aren’t of one political party, and although they can have agendas, I don’t think they would miss the points by as far as you’re suggesting. On the greenhouse effect, it truly could take a long time to ramp up, as the heat is dissipated or stored elsewhere until equilibrium is reached. I, too, am concerned about falsification of the hypothesis. I thought we would know by now for sure, but I guess not. Would be interesting to see what would happen if temps drop until 2020, or rise dramatically.

          • steve

            Overall, you are right, Jon, although don’t become too enamored with models. It takes decades to validate a climate model. “No model is right – some are useful.”

      • Richard_Spain

        The last believable article I read suggested that the predicted climate changes might take place in 1.75 to 3.5 billion years (or was it million?) I doubt if your grandchildren will live to that age anyway.

      • Tom M

        I’ve read and listened to the hysterical outpourings of the climate change brigade for over 15 years now. The prophets claiming that the planet had 2 years left before it was too late(we’re still here). Right up till recently where the prophets claimed C02 and temperature are inextricably linked. No ifs ands or buts, the computer models said so.
        It hasn’t happened, temperature and C02 are diverging but now you are in the game of goal post moving. We are cherry picking the data you say (that is extremely rich coming from the global warming camp). Your climate models didn’t predict this. If they didn’t predict it that means the models are wrong. Have a touch of humility and admit it.

        The whole global warming argument is peppered with lies, misinformation and political manoeuvering. Since politicians got invloved it does not deserve the name of science.

        • Jon Parker

          ‘The whole global warming argument is peppered with lies, misinformation and political manoeuvering’ – not like your argument then?

      • Jon Parker

        Well thank goodness for small mercies – somebody who is aware of the real danger, to all of us, of this crisis.

    • Jon Parker

      Some seriously dodgy misrepresentations of science here! –

      Just to pick up on some of these: –

      ‘..there’s been no warming since 1997 despite a third of all man-made CO2 ever emitted having been emitted since that date. It is also clear that increased CO2 has no effect on the weather since there has been no detectable trend in hurricanes, tornadoes or storms’

      No warming since 1997? – the latest IPCC report, in addition to thousands of scientists across the world who have expressed a view on this (which, in fact, amounts to 97% of the global scientific community) would strongly disagree with you on this. The reality is that there has been consistent warming year on year for every year since 1997. I’m interested to see that you have cherry picked 1997 as a year of note – why is this? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that 1997 was chosen as a particular target by the denialists because, according to various outrageously exaggerated newspaper reports (coverage by Daily Mail was particularly laughable), global warming had ‘stopped’ in this year. This is a scientific nonsense – part of the challenge of scientific research (as opposed to media sensationalism) into global warming is that you are dealing with some pretty big time scales. A decade of observations will not tell you very much about the changing long term trends – this is why all the leading scientific authorities on this subject take as their baseline changes occuring over timescales of at least 20-30 years before they will even consider using them as evidence of climate change. Climate change is about the long term pattern – within the qualifying period of 20/30 years there will inevitably be periods when the rate of change may stabilise or even seem to reverse – this is what happened in 1997. In terms of the overall pattern of climate change, data from just 1 year is meaningless – which is why climate scientists often describe such events as ‘noise’. In fact, studies analysing the long term pattern going back to the 1980’s shows a progressive rate of accelerated warming,year on year. I am also bemused by why you think a third of all man made CO2 has been emitted since 1997. Our CO2 emissions have been steadily rising since the early days of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. We’ve had, therefore, at least 200 years of rising emissions. If you’re saying a third of all that has been emitted since 1997, then we really are in trouble. Personally, I am extremely sceptical about this figure.

      ‘It is also clear that increased CO2 has no effect on the weather since there has been no detectable trend in hurricanes, tornadoes or storms’

      No detectable trend in hurricanes, tornadoes or storms? ! – just a few examples to whet your appetite here – Hurricane Sandy (the biggest hurricane ever experienced in the part of America where it hit [NE coast], also at the wrong time of year [out of hurricane season] and in a location largely unaffected by hurricanes. Current Typhoon in Asia. I could go on – once again this statement is a distortion of what the scientific reports have actually said about this – There is a definite detectable trend but this relates to the intensity of them (how big or powerful they are), not to their frequency. This might explain the confusion and why the media have misrepresented the basic science here – there is not, as yet, conclusive evidence that they are more frequent, but there is that when they occurr they will be much stronger, and therefore more dangerous, than they have been before. This is the direct consequence of increased CO2 emissions. (Just 1 quick illustration – tornadoes and hurricanes need energy (usually gained from heat) to power them. Why have their been such severe storms recently? Because there is more heat in the oceans which gives them more power. And why is there more heat? Because of rising CO2 emissions).

      • ChilliKwok

        Jon you can see the lack of warming since 1997 for yourself by looking at this RSS satellite measurement of global mean LT temperature:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/none

        It doesn’t matter what 97% of activists who earn a living from global warming scaremongering say – that line is still flat – contrary to their predictions.

        As to 17 years being ‘insignificant’, here’s what arch warmist and IPCC Lead Author Ben Santer said in 2011: “in order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” temperature records must be at least 17 years long”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

        Whoops. So even according to the alarmists, 17 years is significant.

        And here’s where the “third of all CO2 emissions since 2000” comes from: The EPA.  
        http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
        If you work out the area under that CO2 curve since from 2000-2013 you’ll find it makes up a third of the total area under the curve.

        Are the raging eco-loons of the EPA left wing enough for you to believe as a credible source?

        So there we have it: A third of all emissions, and yet no warming for a very significant 17 year period.

        As for your ridiculous comments about Sandy and Haiyan as if the US and Phillipeans never had bad weather before. According to NOAA New York has been struck by three Cat1  hurricanes prior to Sandy – including one back in 1821. Was my SUV to blame for that one aswell?

         And has it escaped your attention that the US has had ZERO hurricanes this year. And it’s been over 8 years since the US has seen a major (Cat3 or above) landfalling hurricane. The longest hurricane drought since the American Civil War?

        Even your friends at the alamist IPCC conclude that there is NO DETECTABLE TREND in storms over the last century.

        So in summary: you are talking a load of baseless, fact-free,  unscientific , superstitious, alarmist nonsense.

        • Jon Parker

          ‘So in summary: you are talking a load of baseless, fact-free, unscientific , superstitious, alarmist nonsense.’
          So are you! zero hurricanes this year? Well, I suppose it all depends on what you mean by ‘this year’ – Hurricane Sandy might (just) be said to have occurred within last 12 months. People can debate this until the cows come home. But since then I can recall, within the past 6 months, numerous reports of other, albeit smaller, hurricanes making landfall. Anyway, leaving all this quibbling about definitions aside, you are missing the point of my last post. As I said there, the point concerns not the frequency of hurricanes (how often they occurr) but their intensity – and for this trend IPCC, along with numerous other scientific bodies conclude that there most definitely is a detectable trend. Haven’t got time to go into all the specific details of this now – so instead, can I suggest you look at this site -skepticalscience.com – which is awash with reports, articles, features,data and graphs to back up my point. Next time maybe you would like to read what I say before coming back to me.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            You are desperately grasping at straws. You have no evidence at all and you ignore the evidence supplied such as the link to earth’s temperature since 1997 – 16 years, almost 17 that shows no significant warming trend in all that time.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1985/plot/rss/from:1997/trend (There is no “cherry picking”, it’s the furthest you can go back and produce a flat trend line – PERIOD.)

            In fact, you can go back ~25 years, ~1988, and see that earth’s temperature right now is the SAME as is was back then! I don’t deny a warming trend overall in between but HOW could anyone suspect that a NATURAL variation that allows for having a temperature no different than 25 years ago, while varying up and down over 1.2 degrees – could not also be FULLY responsible for a net natural warming trend over that period? It’s there before your eyes in that data – but you remain willfully blind.

            The cooling going into the little ice age was natural, the warming that brought us back out is natural and I defy you to PROVE otherwise.

          • Jon Parker

            So, your hypothesis is that the global warming that virtually the entire climate science community is getting so worked up about is in fact not man made at all but natural? And the evidence for this is in the data? So, how come thousands of highly trained scientists working for the most respected research institutes in the world have, unaminously, failed to spot this obvious link?!!!!! – Just in case you missed out on the various headlines of the past 30 years or so here’s an update – global warming is heavily influenced (many would say caused) by man made activities, in particular the increasing levels of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere; this has been established by almost 200 years of painstaking research from scientists working right across the globe – it is not, therefore, ‘natural’; that said, climate science is complex and people commenting on it need to bear in mind 2 very different concepts – ‘climate’ and ‘weather’. The last of these is a measure of presently occurring conditions – eg whether it is sunny, raining, snowing etc in a given location today. ‘Climate’, on the other hand, is a long term measure – what are the long term ‘weather’ trends. As such most scientists agree that it is necessary to assess weather trends over quite a long period of time -eg current practice uses a figure of at least 30 years – before any valid comments can be made about ‘climate’ or ‘climate change’. What this means is that the current emphasis on 1997 – barely 16 years ago -, much beloved by denialists such as yourself, is utterly meaningless to any consideration of climate change. This is why the supposed ‘halt’ to warming which 1997 is supposed to illustrate is widely accepted as being nothing more than a temporary pause, not a halt, with the expectation that in the next couple of decades the warming will continue; the supporting data for the AGW is derived from studies going back much further than 1988 – just to take 1 example, data concerned with the shrinking polar ice caps is derived from both present day observations and studies of ice cores which date back over 2,000 years. It is this kind of comparative research which has led scientists to the undeniable conclusion that current global warming is NOT natural. If you want further info on this, go to a reputable science site like skepticalscience.com who have pages and pages of graphs, tables, charts & commentary from real climate scientists.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Your so called ‘experts’ are all reliant on GOVERNMENT FUNDING. If any of them declared that human emissions had no detectable affect on climate – THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE NEEDED! (They realized that fact a long time ago.)

            “uses a figure of at least 30 years”
            Rubbish! It was a climate scientist, Ben Santer, who declared that 17 years of no warming would be adequate to disprove the reliability of the model projections. One data set has already crossed that requirement – the RSS satellite data set.

            Here’s the LINK to a REAL science site: https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

            ” They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”

            Let’s see your hoaxer John Cook explain why the Lawrence Livermore Labs are wrong….

      • steve

        Jon: I’m in agreement with you overall, but you misstate the science, which fuels more skepticism, justifiably so.
        1. the global temp records are everywhere, and have been relatively flat since 1997 or 1998. Not a big deal – it’s just data points.
        2. the 97% number is not accurate – you may want to review that survey, which says no such a thing
        3. cherry picking is ok – it’s just discussion points. the IPCC picked 1900 or 1850 or other years as starting points. It’s OK for discussions – why not comment on it and move on?
        4. the IPCC states low confidence in the link between weather events and global warming. It is predicted to increase over the decades.
        The IPCC is not the bible of climate change, in the sense that it can’t be wrong. It’s our guiding light, and anyone can step forward and challenge it. It gets stronger every year because of those challenges.

  • Leslie Graham

    I can’t believe the ignorance in this article. Is it intentional? I don’t know the Spectator but this particular peice is just shocking – sounds like something Monkton or Lawsom would write.
    Global warming does not mean a gradual even increase in temperatures all over the Earth.
    The last few extra cold winters have been due to the Jet Stream meandering further south and bringing Arctic weather south with it. This in turn is due to the loss of of 75% of summer Arctic ice volume over the last 35 years.
    As the rapid warming in the Arctic continues it is even possible that the Gulf Stream will slow ever futher and North western Europe cold return to a freezing continental type climate for the next century until global warming finaly over-rides that effect too.
    And emissions have NOT fallen in the USA – that is purely creatinve accounting on the part of the fracking industry who do not include the huge volumes of methane lost at source in their tallies.

    • CarbonFooledYa

      Actually there has been no warming in the Arctic since 1998, same as the rest of the world, and it’s 15-year warming pause. The Arctic ice is coming back, as it always does. It comes and goes in cycles.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-finds-warming-has-also-paused.html

      Even the Guardian admits the ice went because of wind, not warming:

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/22/wind-sea-ice-loss-arctic

    • Tony Peart

      The Spectator; Helping Out big industries in their money making destruction of an ecosystem . Is this a Murdoch paper?

      • global city

        People like yourself and leslie graham above think you are in some way intellectually superior to those who have not fallen for the CAGW scam, but quite the reverse is true.

        You are gullible fools and/or useful idiots. The notion that you are somehow breaking the stranglehold of the men on Wall St is particularly humourous/ironic.

      • bengeo

        No the Barclay Brothers own it. Big business types, who live reclusively on the sister island of Sark, which they own. Catholics.

    • Craig Austin

      What colour is the sky in your world?

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        And your starter for 10 points, why is the sky blue?

      • JohnLaw1

        He can’t tell, its already fallen in.

    • Fergus Pickering

      I don’t believe you.

      • bengeo

        We don’t care. This is not a political argument that can be won or lost. It is just happening. Do you think the people struggling to deal with it, wanted it to happen?

  • ChilliKwok

    Watermelons refer to carbon dioxide as ‘carbon’ in the same way that europhiles refer to the political construct of the European Union as ‘Europe’. Both are entirely dishonest and politically motivated distortions masquerading as shorthand.

  • foxoles

    ‘Green crap’ is a luxury fad for the rich that the rest of us cannot afford. Literally.

    • dalai guevara

      …which is why we are cutting support to increase efficiencies for poor households? Why are you willfully stoopid? Perhaps you don’t actually know what is going on at all, so ‘willful’ does not come into it.

  • ilma630

    Just look at the parable of the Good Samaritan. Did he see the injured man on the road, ignore him, go back to the authorities and campaign that robbers are growing and have reached a ‘tipping’ point, and that huge taxes and regulations must be put in place in case future generations are also mugged. No! He showed care and compassion to the injured man RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM! To continue the myth of global warming (and indeed that CO2 can cause warming in any way at all – it can’t) is to be diametrically opposed to the example of the Good Samaritan (so opposed to God himself) and ignore the plight of the thousands and thousands of elderly and infirm who will perish this winter from the cold.

    The sad part is that many of the main stream churches have bought into this vile, unChristian scandal.

    But I don’t pin the blame entirely on the politicians, but to the core of alarmist ecomental campaigners and advocate (so-called) scientists, e.g. Michael Mann, James Hansen, etc.

    As Edmund Burke said, (in summary) evil prospers when good men do nothing. It’s good to see then that Tim Yeo has been deselected. It’s a start, and the sooner DECC and the CCC is abolished and a rew, rational energy policy that supports the elderly, families, business and industry is brought in, the better.

    • Tony Peart

      There are less of you buffoons swallowing Koch bothers propaganda every day

      not that it matters . The obstruction has slowed down the needed response so that the damage will be worse that it should be if intelligent people had been able to effect

      changes. The Next mass extinction brought on by selfish old men count yourself as one

      • ilma630

        Buffoon! Selfish! What on earth are you prattling on about? We ‘buffoons’ have the temerity to actually look at observational data and core physics principles, not listen to the alarmist rhetoric and pseudo-science sprouted by the IPCC and their ‘followers’. We are what true scientists should be – sceptical, asking the questions. We do not ‘believe’ anyone just because they have this or that qualification, or sprout a moralistic line (the Good Samaritan story is an example of a caring practical response to an immediate situation, not a moralistic jibe).

        If you can produce any evidence that is reproducible by experiment, or observational data that isn’t doctored and agrees with the ‘warmist’ conjecture, then we ‘buffoons’ will look at it, but to date there is none. Show me the physics basis that CO2 causes global warming, that the greenhouse effect of ‘back radiation heating’ is anything other than a political/environmental invention that defies thermodynamic law, or that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere can ‘trap’ heat (0.04% is definitely no blanket!). A core example of the warmist tripe, put out this week by Greenpeace, is that the Arctic or glaciers are rapidly meting. What rot! Arctic ice is increasing, as is Antarctic ice, but more to the point is that they go in cycles. Just the simple FACT that global temperatures haven’t risen in 17 years despite continued rises in CO2 must tell you that the AGW conjecture is false. No amount of arm-waving of crying ‘denier’ (buffoon) will make it true, and even some politicians are now beginning to realise they’ve been had, big time.

        And for your information, I have no idea what the Koch brothers propoganda is, nor am I in the pay of ‘big oil’, or any other of the manufactured anti-sceptic accusations regularly bandied about.

      • steve

        Tony: you may be right. However, I’d offer that there’s a good many of us seeking the truth, and we look at the data as well. I read scientific papers every day, and I see very strong (but not overwhelming) data in support of AGW. There are many scientific claims that haven’t been borne out, and this is not the fault of Koch. So, I don’t agree with the far-right skeptics, but I do have respect for them. If we implement an incredibly costly climate change solution, they’ll probably be paying most of the bill!

  • foxoles

    ‘We have been focusing on the wrong enemy’

    Who is ‘we’, btw? The public know that cold kills – they suffer from it. Corrupt and lazy MSM and greedy politicians, on the other hand, take years to see the obvious …

    • dalai guevara

      You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not grasp the difference between making savings on the carbon footprint and the reduction of oxidised carbon levels. Carbon ≠ CO2. Energy ≠ burnt energy.
      You will not learn. You do not want to, never mind the media.

      Now observe cuts applied to increasing efficiencies (ECO levy), not cuts applied to renewables levies. In a few monthsfrom now politicians will back-paddle and lauch yet another initiative…

  • Tony Peart

    Falling further and further behind in our understanding of science are we ? I wonder if you will look back from around mid century and think how some old power mad rich guys went out of there way to doom us to this . It may have too late to stop the changes when the temp stopped cooling in 1950 and started climbing >Then there were only one billion on this lifeboat . Now we have seven billion and little chance of stopping at 4 C . You never know being pushed to the brink of extinction will be good for this species . this planet will be unrecognisable in one hundred years

    • global city

      Why are you still trapped by abstract and theoretical assertions, rather than empirical evidence?

      The problem is not with ‘global warming’ or CO2. The real problems are being ignored whilst people like yourself are continually indulged. Get a placard and walk round your town centre if you wish, but don’t expect society to continue to hold firm to discredited ‘science’ in order for you to feel worthy and powerful.

    • Fergus Pickering

      I will not look back from mid-century. I will be dead. I take it you are young. I don’t believe what young people tell me, particularly arrogant ones delighted by their own verbosity.

  • Augustus

    We need to elect politicians to undo the damage and cost which climate change alarmists have perpetrated. Bureaucrats and journalists, carbon profiteers and crooked scientists, who often live a jet-setting, carbon-profligate lifestyle themselves while preaching asceticism for everyone else, all on a mission to gain some personal advantage. And much of the media has supported them and been co-conspirators, desperate to maintain what is probably the greatest hoax of the modern era. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the Earth’s atmosphere do not cause it to overheat, either today, or at any other time when atmospheric levels were far higher. Blaming mankind for destroying the planet with carbon emissions was never about saving the Earth from global warming, but socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

    • global city

      Yes. Reformers are insufficient, we need to sweep out the whole political class. This was shown to be so when the Communist reformers in the Soviet Union were shown to be incapable of the root and branch changes their system needed as they were still emotionally wed to many of the old tropes.

      Our whole political class; the three ‘main’ parties and vast swathes of Whitehall are fully wedded, intellectually and emotionally to the tropes of the soft left, patrician fads of our age.

      They will never be able to adapt mentally to the task at hand.

      • steve

        Don’t forget that the French did the same with the guillotine. I know how they feel – any politician that votes for mandatory health care for all while excluding themselves is too corrupt for any possible cure, except to be weeded out in any manner possible.

    • jaffa99

      Unfortunately anyone who wants to be a politician is likely to be a self-serving narcissist who is thinking about all the personal benefits that might come their way – like Tim Yeo

    • PJ London

      Life is real crook, when the bloody Aussies have got more intelligence than our lot.
      Makes a bloke want to emigrate.

  • global city

    To the person who wrote this leader. If you take the final leap and so feel able to remove the comment about ‘cutting carbon being desirable’ you would then be able to more forcefully convey to your readers how the whole Green mania is not merely a folly, but a downright crime!

  • https://twitter.com/FrackingBan Global Fracking Ban

    Between 1500 and 1800 people die on UK roads every year. Around 400 of those deaths are a result of speeding. But the cost of installing and maintaining fixed and mobile speed cameras is immense and the revenue generated from speeding fines is even greater.
    In comparison, the number of deaths caused by the cold is far greater, yet the amount of money being provided to combat death by cold is minuscule.
    Why is it that drivers are fined for speeding when only 400 people per year are dying, but nobody is fined for allowing 30,000 deaths per year from cold??

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Why, indeed?

    • Fergus Pickering

      Because the people who die of cold are old and often sick would have died in a few years in any case. Well, you did ask. If you can produce a lot of children who died of the cold here, then you might get somewhere.

  • Icarus62

    Winter temperatures in the UK are rising at 0.2°C per decade according to the Central England Temperature series. Anthropogenic global warming continues unabated and there is no realistic prospect of it slowing down any time soon. What that means for us here in the UK is less certain – there may well be benefits such as a longer growing season for crops, but accelerating sea level rise will bring enormous costs for coastal areas. Politicians need to ensure that the vulnerable receive adequate help with winter fuel bills but we also need to prepare for the effects of our rapidly warming climate.

    • ChilliKwok

      There’s been no change in the rate of sea level rise for hundreds of years. Man made CO2 has no effect on sea level which has been rising since the end of the last ice age. To state otherwise is superstitious clap-trap with no basis in science, measurement or reason.

  • Chris

    Another article written by someone who is out of touch with reality…. Obviously, they do not have a BS or Phd in any scientific field.

    • CarbonFooledYa

      And if they did have a PhD or BS in some field, you’d change your tune to say: ah but it’s not in climate science. Always changing the goal posts.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Are there any degrees in Climate Science? It sounds rather like a degree in Astrology.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Good heavens! No university degree.The man is scarcely fit to live. Whereas if he had a B.Sc. in rat-catching from the University of Steeple Bumpleigh…

  • lol@this

    @ dodgy – Well said. It has become apparent that at the very least the whole climate change was a knee jerk reaction with little supporting evidence.
    At worse its a deliberate scam to make certain companies and individuals more wealth at the expense of the average person. The elderly are giving their lives so some one somewhere has a few more pounds / dollars in his account.
    It is wrong!
    Please everyone do what you can to educate people about the realities of life and the climate change bs. Explain that it might be their grandparents that are the next victims of the ridiculous prices of energy bills. <– That is the reality.

  • lol@this

    Besdies how about we focus on the real things destroying our planet?

    The deforestation and cutting down of vast amounts of rainforest.
    The pollutants that are dumped in rivers and oceans worldwide. The hormones we allow to accumulate in the water table etc…

    However it seems that dumping toxic chemicals and waste is a ‘minor’ issue compared to the ‘CO2 monster’…..
    Its absolutely crazy how we approach everything these days. Backwards logic.

  • Vierotchka

    Extremes of cold are also a consequence of global warming, as anyone with more than one and a half functional brain cells knows.

    • global city

      does that mean you half or one functioning brain cell?

      • Vierotchka

        Judging by your inability to put a proper sentence together, at the very least 100 billion more than you, obviously.

        • global city

          My mistake is an obvious typo, what’s your excuse for falling for such emotive scams? :)

          The whole ‘global warming could make the UK weather colder’ scenario was/is predicated on the failure of the Gulf Stream. That clearly hasn’t happened, so could our run of cold winters and slightly milder summers be down to something other than CO2 messing stuff up?

          • Vierotchka

            It was no a typo which is a typographical error, it was messy thinking at best.

            The slowing down and ultimate failure of the Gulf Stream is just one element. The distortion of the Jet Stream is what is bringing bouts of extreme cold to the UK and most of the Northern Hemisphere, as well as bouts of extreme heat. CO2 is but one of the greenhouse gasses that are increasing rapidly and dramatically. Methane – 21 times more “powerful” of a greenhouse gas than CO2 – is also rising sharply, largely due to the 1.3 billion heads of cattle and countless sheep world-wide farting all day, plus the vast amounts of methane produced by pig and chicken feces, and to the melting permafrost releasing methane that had been trapped for tens of thousands of years.

          • global city

            Jeez. If you wish to persist, it was clearly a typo. There is a whole word missing. Did you not also notice the little smiley face at the end of the sentence? Using that is usually done to indicate that the writer is not being malicious to you, but just joking…but, anyway, I notice that you have made one yourself… what ever they are!

            As for the rest of your reply, there is no evidence that the extra ‘greenhouse gases’ are causing the jet Stream to buckle or distort in any way, just as there is no evidence that CAGW is actually occurring.

          • Vierotchka

            It was most definitely not a typo – a missing word is not a typo.

            You obviously are oblivious of the different mechanism involved in Global Warming, and there is a plethora of evidence that it is actually occurring. Either you are ignorant or you’re a shill paid by Big Oil and other vested interests.

            With regard to the Jet Stream’s distortions, I did not say that it was directly distorted by greenhouse gases, either. Reading comprehension challenge to boot?

            For your obviously desperately needed edification and education, just in case you happen to be intelligent enough to understand, by someone who, unlike you, is eminently qualified to talk on the subject:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETpm9JAdfcs

          • global city

            Feck…What a wanker?

            I have doubtless studied the subject more deeply than you, as you’re still stuck with the ‘shill’s propaganda’ version…. dumbarse.

            http://green-agenda.com/index.html

          • Vierotchka

            The fact that you twice called me names indicates that you lost the argument even before you chimed-in.

          • global city

            I have no interest in arguing the toss with you really. I am just commenting on your breathtaking arrogance, faux-intellectual posturing and thin skin.

            If you think that your CAGW ‘adversaries’ are utterly thick and uninformed then try flapping on one of the sceptic site’s blogs, rather than this one?

            If you do that actually you may find yourself coming away having been educated a bit better than you are now.

          • Vierotchka

            Judging by your manner of expressing yourself and on your glaring spelling mistake, it is obvious that I have had a far better education than you could ever hope for, dearie.

          • global city

            Or, perhaps, you sit there, for an hour and a half taxing yourself in the attempt to craft the most perfect, if tortured prose, but still fucking it up, whilst I just knock em out, unchecked, as fast as I can think and write, but still end up with posts that are much more pointed than yours?

            Who cares soft lad? it is why I called you a wanker, as you tried to be superior in your ‘knowledge’ of CAGW science, when you are clearly not and went on about a petty nothingness, even if I had signaled my lack of any serious intent to insult you by putting a:) at the end on one of my sentences.

            Your inability to let it lie just proves how right I am.

            Now, seriously. Go and select one of the many sceptic sites and engage with some of the posters on their forums. proffer your second hand info about the Jet Stream. They will laugh at you, but then they will provide the real science that is being used to research tat and the other CAGW related issues. You will discover for yourself that there is one hell of a lack of consensus, as well as a hell of a lot of serious science and investigative journalism that backs up all that scepticism.

          • Vierotchka

            You are deluded beyond any cure.

          • global city

            Nah, I’m just yanking your chain, but you’re too thin skinned to let go.

            It does you no good to parade your massive but wafer thin ego on an internet newspaper forum. You should try being a little more humble.

            Have you given your brain cells a washing yet over on ‘the enemies’ websites? I imagine not.

            There are none so blind as they who will not see.

          • Vierotchka

            Quod erat demonstrandum – thank-you for making my points over and over and over again!

          • PJ London

            Can I ask NASA to fund my posts?
            Can I be a NASA shill please?

            “A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere. “

          • Vierotchka

            Funny – there is no trace of this report on NASA but that sentence abounds on kooky conspiracy sites! Why am I not surprised… I have a very original tinfoil hat that I can sell you – I make a fortune selling tinfoil hats to insane conspiracy theory buffs like you!

          • PJ London

            Try Google, NASA Co2 cooling

            About 2,240,000 results (0.18 seconds)

            “insane conspiracy theory buffs like you”, do try and keep up.

            “In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

            Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

            “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

            In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals

            No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

            By Dr. Kevin Barrett”

            At least I am not a hostile, paranoid crank, which it appears that you may be.

          • Vierotchka

            Oh, of course conspiracies exist, they are the fabric of History, both the successful ones and the unsuccessful ones. I was referring to the kooky insane ones, the Reptilian people, end of the world, chemtrail and Illuminati types which have no basis in reality and to which you most certainly adhere.

          • PJ London

            I hope that you are being paid by the word, as there can be nothing explanation for your nonsense.

            I was referring to the CO2 scam and showing that NASA has scientifically shown in peer review articles that CO2 is not a cause of Global warming / climate change. You then start harassing me on “Conspiracy Theories! When I show that people holding such views are more sane and less paranoid than people who adhere to the conventional view, you then go off an other tangent.

            Chemtrails do exist and have been acknowledged by USA government,

            I have no view on your other list, except that the Illuminati did/does exist “The movement was founded on May 1, 1776, in Ingolstadt (Upper Bavaria) as the Order of the Illuminati, with an initial membership of five,[2] by Jesuit-taught Adam Weishaupt (d. 1830),[3] who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt.”

            If I may repeat. At least I am not a hostile, paranoid crank, which it appears that you may be.

          • Vierotchka

            The only nonsense here is you.

            There is no CO2 scam, your mendacious articles notwithstanding.

            Chemtrails do not exist and the US government has never acknowledged that they exist. All those theories about them are based on bad and phony science and do not withstand logic and true science.

            The Illuminati did exist in the 18th century and had nothing to do with what crazy people today call the Illuminati. They did not last very long, either.

            If you think I am a hostile, paranoid crank, you are simply projecting your own flaws onto me.

          • PJ London

            You are the one who began name calling, “…Conspiracy “buffs like you”.

            ““Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

            That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

            “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

            For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.”
            We agree that the Illuminati exist.
            Chemtrails:

            “The Idaho Observer reported with considerable skepticism that the General Accounting Office admitted that chemtrails exist but that they are “merely” fiberglass particles coated with aluminum whose health effects are unknown but whose existence is now acknowledged after decades of official denial.”
            “Interestingly, the United Nations (UN) and various Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-backed groups have recently been forced to admit that such sprayings are taking place, and that the emitted particles are not normal contrails. But their excuse for why chemtrail sprayings are being done is that they will somehow save the planet from the devastating effects of so-called “global warming,” that ever-present, pseudoscientific environmental theory that is often used as justification for all sorts of outlandish policy proposals.”

            “According to Snowden, chemtrails are part of a ‘benevolent’ program to stop global warming. By cooperating with jet fuel manufacturers (and though he doesn’t say this, likely branches of the military) the government has been spraying the skies with chemicals in order to keep us from severe draught and other weather patterns which would cause famine in large swaths of the United States. But here’s the biggest shocker – with cooperation from Monsanto, a secret geo-engineering lab was set up, known by insiders as the ‘crown jewel’ or Muad’Dib. This lab has been operating since the 1960s without the knowledge of the people.

            “I (Snowden) am only revealing this program because there is no oversight in the scientific community, no public discussion, and little concern for the side-effects which are well known only to a few privileged people interested in continuing the decades-long chemtrail program in secret.”

            But hey, if you say they don’t exist…

            …..”I was referring to the kooky insane ones, the Reptilian people, end of the world, chemtrail and Illuminati types which have no basis in reality and to which you most certainly adhere.”…

            My reference to ” hostile, paranoid crank, ” was a quote from a scientific medical paper regarding those who adhere to the koolaid.

          • Vierotchka

            “Conspiracy buff” is not name-calling, it is a statement of fact.

          • Vierotchka

            Also, with regard to the true Illuminati (and from the same source as yours) which you omitted, a very salient point:

            “Historically the name refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776 to oppose superstition, prejudice, religious influence over public life, abuses of state power, and to support women’s education and gender equality.”

            That was a pretty positive and progressive agenda, don’t you think? If only the plethora of pseudo-Illuminati groups that abound today shared in that same agenda, the world could become a better place.

          • lol@this

            So you are telling me chemtrails don’t exist? I have both photographic and video evidence. I do not claim to know the specifics of what is happening but I assume it is to do with geo-engineering.

          • Vierotchka

            Furthering your edification and education,

            Jennifer Francis – Understanding the Jet Stream

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo

          • lol@this

            Hello Vierotchka. Interesting name by the way. Do you realise that it has been noted that this summer saw the arctic ice cover return to levels not saw for about a decade or so?
            I will not be idiotic enough to say we are NOT cause damage to our planet because we most certianly are.
            However the whole “carbon tax, defeating the CO2 monster” is a blatant political and corporate ploy to generate money.
            How about the chemicals split around the world? Nuclear waste that cannot be secured? The mass deforestation of major forested areas? That is the real problem and it is overlooked. I think it is overlooked because it is a much harder problem to face. Hence the powers that be continue the push against CO2 even when evidence is showing us we were at least party wrong about it.

  • MissMagoo

    Good to see some lateral thinking from the MSM. The problem that this article highlights has, to a very great extent, been exacerbated by the professional sheep sometime called journalists.
    On the fingers of one hand were those brave enough to stand up and be ridiculed for daring to speak the obvious truth. Fortunately the tide is now turning and we are beginning to see more and more realism creep in.
    What it needs now, ladies and gentlemen of the press, is for a serious rethink and revaluation of the evidence staring us all in the face.
    We need to spend money where it will do the most good.
    Filling the coffers of the green energy brigade is not the right way.
    See what the Japanese are proposing – an enormous solar farm to be erected on the moon. That’s how we should be tackling any possibility of adverse effects of climate change – the way that the human race has always done – by using their intellect to move forward – not giving up and giving in.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Global warning is BS.

  • Jon Parker

    Now here’s an interesting fact – elderly people, by virtue of being elderly, sometimes die. This is a fact of life. So I’m not quite sure of the accuracy of this fascinating hypothesis that ‘31,000 pensioners..died of the cold’. How do you know this? There may indeed be 31,000 (to use the NAO’s official terminology) ‘excess’ deaths last year but how many of these can be attributed to simple natural ageing? Here are some more interesting facts..until we find ourselves on the edge of a full blown environmental disaster like Hurricane Sandy (which is pretty unlikely in the UK), few of us are going to die directly from climate change. But what of the changes to our general quality of life? When you factor in all the many different levels on which climate change, some direct, some not so direct will affect us-eg the overall economic impact (rising food prices as direct consequence of changing climate in those parts of world [eg rice in Asia, wheat in US] ), more direct impacts of environmental damage – eg persistent flooding, earth tremors) you start to get an idea of the scale of this threat (its actually global) which puts this article neatly into perspective – 31,000 deaths from cold? Compare to the millions affected throughout the world by (just a few examples) ..catastrophic rising temperatures in Australia, the current Typhoon in Asia, hurricanes in the US and last, but not least, the general (though gradual) devastation of the whole natural resources of this planet which, incidentally, power all of the industries on this planet and fuel all the economies of this planet. It is, therefore, a pretty big deal. And one final fact I should point out – none of these effects specifically targets the poor. They target everybody, whether rich or poor. That’s the point. And that’s why the attempt, made by this article to downplay all of this and focus instead on a single issue affecting one single group within our society (as dubious as this analysis is) is particularly unsettling and ethically outrageous. Our planet is under threat and all its authors can think about is the present financial situation in one tiny set of islands? It is this kind of insular, small scale thinking which has contributed to the climate change crisis we are all facing in the first place. And we are supposed, instead, to worry about a tiny piece of fairly insignificant taxation when the whole of our planet is under threat? This kind of puerile nonsense is truly breathtaking – its comparable to people, when their country is facing a war or threat of military invasion, quibbling over the likely impact it will have on their bank balance in ten years time. Do you think that in the last major world war we were involved with (WW2), the people left at home started protesting about the fact that there were rations or they went hungry once in a while? Of course not – because they realised that the war was so much more important on every single level of analysis than the short term and temporary hardship they were forced to endure. This is the kind of response which we should be making towards the climate change crisis. Instead, we quibble and bicker over incidentals like a tiny bit of taxation. Unbelieveable.

    • CarbonFooledYa

      According to the charity Age UK it’s cold homes that kill people, most of whom are over 75:

      http://southweb.org/blog/uk-winter-deaths-increase-by-a-third/

      During the cold years more old folks die; there’s a clear link between cold and mortality. If you have an alternate theory for why more old people die during cold years, if not from the cold, please let us know, so that we may tackle the real cause.

      Then you say: “..full blown environmental disaster like Hurricane Sandy..”

      So hurricane Sandy was linked to climate change? Actually hurricanes are down:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/25/2013-slowest-hurricane-season-in-30-years/

      You seem not to realize that bad weather has always been a fact of life on this earth. Same for Typhoons in Asia, they are down:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/

      What you’re saying is the poor and the elderly shouldn’t receive special consideration for the negative repercussions of action on climate change because the effects of climate change will be as equally cruel to all groups.

      In way it’s very egalitarian of you to want to spread the pain around so evenly. In another way, it’s cruel and indifferent. I wish I could feel so cold-hearted toward these “expendable” people, as you. I wanna view people as pawns in my game too, just like you!

      • Fergus Pickering

        Why should we bother? Dying of the cold is probably better than dying of lots of things.

        • global city

          Why do you flap about global warming then? If it’s correct we’ll just be nudging the global population somewhat nearer to the ‘optimum’.

          Dick!

    • Swiss Bob

      This is an example of why noone believes you loons anymore:

      to worry about a tiny piece of fairly insignificant taxation

      And if you don’t understand what ‘Excess Winter Deaths’ are then before you write your nonsense maybe you should have looked it up.

      It’s you dramagreens who are happy to correlate and assume causation so why don’t you correlate energy prices to Excess Winter Deaths and then you can see as a matter of fact that Ed Miliband is killing tens of thousands with his mad ideology.

      • Jon Parker

        ‘It’s you dramagreens who are happy to correlate and assume causation so why don’t you correlate energy prices to Excess Winter Deaths and then you can see as a matter of fact that Ed Miliband is killing tens of thousands with his mad ideology.’
        dramagreen? no, I just believe more in the merits of scientific research, patiently and painstakingly collected and verified by scientists who have spent decades learning and developing their craft than I do in the emotional outbursts of politicians and the media who simply latch on to the latest rumour to do the rounds in order to sensationalise the issue and sell more of their products. To be specific, current scientific thinking, based on these decades of patient work, tells us that the relationship between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures is one of linear causation (the one causes the other), not correlation (unless you are suggesting a 100% correlation between these 2 factors which is just another way of describing causation).
        1 other thing – I’m not a lawyer but I am wondering whether accusing a leading politician of mass murder is actually legal? Maybe you want to get some advice on this before you post any more highly emotive and sensationalist posts.

        • Swiss Bob

          I’m not a lawyer but I am wondering whether accusing a leading politician of mass murder is actually legal? Maybe you want to get some advice on this before you post any more highly emotive and sensationalist posts.

          Couldn’t give a flying and he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on the mass murdering psycho.

          To be specific, current scientific thinking, based on these decades of patient work, tells us that the relationship between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures is one of linear causation

          Thinking maybe, fact, no. There is a correlation but no one has proved causation and that is looking less and less likely given the flat temps for the last decade plus, while the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has continued to rise.

          • PJ London

            And in addition : “A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere. ”
            All kinds of scientific voodoo.

        • Vitaly Klitschko

          You can make the same argument about rising temperatures increasing sales of sunscreen or holidays abroad. You could even plot a graph to “prove” that reduction in smoking cigarettes is causing temperature to rise. Or that sales of dog food have caused global warming. In fact, you can say anything you like. A correlation doesn’t mean there is a relationship between the variables. You need a repeatable experiment and you need prediction. AGW isn’t science because it can offer neither of those things. It’s voodoo.

        • Fergus Pickering

          If you’re not a lawyer there is no need to worry your pretty little head about it. Politicians are always being accused of mass murder. Some of them are guilty, some not.

        • dodgy

          …I’m not a lawyer but I am wondering whether accusing a leading politician of mass murder is actually legal? ..

          I can assure you that it it were possible to make it illegal they would have already done so.

          They would also have made it illegal to accuse them of expenses fraud, speeding, and perjury…

  • Fergus Pickering

    People are always dying of the cold in winter. And not just in this country. How many of them died because they could not afford to heat their homes?.

  • Swiss Bob

    Last winter there were 30,000 excess winter deaths, a rise of nearly 10,000 over the previous year.

    These figures have been kept quiet and only recently published. Ed Miliband is killing tens of thousands a year, an excellent Marxist, another thirty years of this and he can count himself among the greats, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and all the other mass murdering loons.

  • Vitaly Klitschko

    The existence of an Arrhenius atmospheric greenhouse was discredited by Robert W. Wood in 1909. What followed was a monumental misuse of science by meteorologists, who have behaved like quacks.

    The crucial point is that thermalisation of energy does not occur in so-called greenhouse gases. While CO2 molecules do absorb IR, the surplus IR energy is redistributed as kinetic energy. The CO2 molecule itself does not get any warmer. This is one of the horrifically crass mistakes made by incorrect climate science physics. The re-emission of photonic energy by individual CO2 molecules is not thermalisation!

    In reality, the temperature of any heterogeneity of the atmosphere (i.e. clouds) is governed by Local Thermal Equilibrium (LTE) – without which we can neither physically define the temperature nor the pressure of a parcel of air. Energy transitions include two components. Firstly, the kinetic translation of these molecules through space (thermal temperature). Secondly, rotational, vibrational and electronic transition components (plank temperature – or in layman’s terms the energy transitions within the molecules). Maintaining the LTE requires that thermal temperature and plank temperature be equivalent.

    This means that there can be no back radiation and no atmospheric greenhouse, which was demonstrated in R Wood’s classic 1909 experiment.

    The Earth is not a black body and heating at the surface is governed by coupled radiation and convection. A colder atmosphere cannot heat the surface (see above) and therefore there is no increased emission of IR and therefore no greenhouse effect. This conclusion is proven by the fact that there is no increased lapse rate of heat from the surface of Venus.

    • Justclimbit

      I generally don’t make it a habit of engaging those who deny the existence of the “greenhouse” effect, but just to satisfy my own curiosity, I would be interested in your responses to some basic questions that I have regarding your views.

      You’ve indicated that you believe there to be no “back radiation”. If photon emission from IR-active gases is isotropic, what do you think happens to those photons that are emitted downward? What are surface instruments mistaking measured DLR for? Why is the Earth’s surface radiating nearly 400 W/m2 when that flux is only ~240 W/m2 at the TOA? Without a “greenhouse” effect, why is the surface temperature 288K and not 255K?

      Thanks in advance for your anticipated response.

      • Vitaly Klitschko

        It’s a con. You measure DLR with a pyrometer – as opposed to a thermometer. This is the clue since these instruments are measuring different quantities. The missing 33K is simply faulty thinking. A vector quantity cannot be subtracted from a scalar quantity. DLR can do no work because the Earth’s surface is warmer than the atmosphere.

        This is how pyrometers calculate DLR from voltage:
        http://www.kippzonen.com/Product/16/CGR-3-Pyrgeometer#.UpxLJCd8dkg

        The radiation budget is also incorrect because it is based on the assumption that the Earth is a black body. In order to get the 400 W/m2 you have to add the entire atmosphere’s irradiance (radiation in all frequencies) to the net IR emitted from the surface. This means of course that the UP measure you quote is arbitrary and… WRONG.

        • Justclimbit

          Thanks for the reply. I’ve seen this same reasoning almost verbatim from a very few individuals elsewhere. I am a bit confused however, in that you first asserted the DLR doesn’t exist, and in this more recent comment, state that “DLR can do no work” and seem to agree that pyrgeometers do in fact detect it. And if I might pursue this just a bit, you really didn’t answer my question regarding energy emitted toward the Earth’s surface. Again, what happens to those photons?

          • Vitaly Klitschko

            It is true that DLR has no physical reality if you describe it in terms of temperature. It is a vector not a measure of temperature. The DLR is in fact the vector sum of the Poynting Vectors measured by a Pyrgeometer. And we are supposed to believe this vector quantity heats the Earth’s surface. You are confusing how you believe a (hypothetical) individual photon should behave with an (actual) volumetric unit of air. The hypothetical photon is non-physical, whereas the unit of air is subject to the general laws governing Local Thermal Equilibrium. Because thermalisation cannot occur in greenhouse gases, back radiation also cannot exist. Heat flux can only go one way, from hot to cold.

          • Justclimbit

            Thanks for the response.

          • Vitaly Klitschko

            I recommend the following essay by former Chemical Process Control Systems Engineer on the Apollo space program, Dr Pierre Latour:

            http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect

          • Justclimbit

            Thank you. I appreciate your suggestion, but I am quite satisfied with the established physics of the consensus “greenhouse” effect.

          • PJ London

            And there is no way I am going to allow facts to cloud the issue.

          • Justclimbit

            That’s unfortunate. I, on the other hand, find them to be quite useful.

          • PJ London

            Then why not examine them?

          • Justclimbit

            It’s a bit presumptuous on your part to think that I have not. If you were/are referring to the “dragon slayer” script, I have spent some time looking at their claims, and actually seized the opportunity to clarify some of that investigation with my questions to the previous poster. Was there other information that you wish me to consider that you have been in sole possession of?

  • Augustus

    Average wind speeds have decreased between 5 to 15% since the 1960s. From this we can conclude that the increase in storms and hurricanes that the AGW lobby predicted simply isn’t true. This then is coupled with what this will mean for wind-power generation capacities. Well, the decrease in wind is the least of the problems for this pretty useless form of green energy. Here in the UK, research has shown that energy by windmills is now twice as expensive as that sourced from coal or gas, while everyone was saying that wind power would be cheaper. In the last five years there’s been an increase of over 50% of the costs for installation, and now it is being reported that energy costs may go up by another quarter.

    Because of unreliable and varying wind speeds, a whole lot of coal and gas power stations will still be kept continuously in operation as backup for the times when the wind doesn’t blow. And as wind speeds are at their lowest in January and February, just when demand is highest, the added connection of the power stations will deliver more CO2 emissions than the windmills can save. How stupid is that!

    In Britain we pay an annual £1.3 billion extra energy tax to cover the cost of these unprofitable windmills. With this sort of loss of capital a nuclear power plant could be built producing 13 times more energy in 20 years than the windmills do, without CO2 emissions, and with a high reliability.

  • Rillian

    ‘Green Subsidies’ anywhere up to 12% on our fuel bills, legislated by the EU.

    That’s what’s killing people here.

    • global city

      Have you noticed that while this huge debate is taking place about all sorts of energy related issues, the main cause of it all, the EU, is protected?

      Milibats Climate Change Act was a gold plating, arse licking implementation of EU directives.

      Why are they protecting those most at fault for the mess we’re in?

  • apeman2502

    You have the queen lizard’s men at BP with BlackStone investments and her Skull and Bones Society in Halliburton and Transoceanic to thank for this travesty. When they intentionally (according to the U.S. Senate) blew up the Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico a few years back, They sent oil throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Not being satisfied with a largely recoverable slick, BP and the Skull and Bones numbskulls sprayed several millions of gallons of an extremely toxic Corexit through out The Gulf to sink the oil. This killed the Gulf of Mexico Loop current, which was a major engine for the Gulf Stream, which used to propel warmer water north for the Labrador and North Atlantic Currents to use to warm western Europe. This chilling effect for England was soon widely predicted. Al ‘D’ Gore, the queen lizard’s wizard, however, did not consider this possibility. So, to those freezing in England, behead your leaders, at once. They want to kill us all. There are many attacks going on against innocent people world wide to pay their exorbitant debts. Many are dying in agony. For the British welfare state. Have the queen scoot over. We know her place is plenty warm.

  • CyberDurden

    According to the CarboNazis, snowfall and cold winters would have been a thing of the past by now due to Global Warming™ . . . .

  • Rogoraeck

    “Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:”Britons never will be slaves.”To thee belongs the rural reign;
    Thy cities shall with commerce shine:All thine shall be the subject main,And every shore it circles thine.

    “Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:”Britons never will be slaves.”

    Please DON:T LAUGH!

  • hvaiallverden

    There is a lot of good coments here and i recomend people to actually read some of it, and to gain insight in what drives OUR motives against this corrupted science and politicaly constructed AGW, a fallacy of everything regading science and to prodject the facts, the even more corrupted MSM.

    What initialy made me awaken to this scam, over 10 years ago, was the use of climatic and consequences of it as “facts”, and since then the long list of “famous” people, backing this “facts”, and with the sudden disapearance of any kind of talk about Polution and Industrial cemicals, flameretadants as one ex. only, the hormone mimicer, and on the so caled ecological side, about Bottomtrawling, the moust insane way of fishing anything ever invented, pure madness.
    And the constant hammerings of various doomsdays senarious, like old time prdicats they scream about pain and evilness, if you dont follow our teachings and do as we tell you to, AGWcult is a religion, based on false science and made by Finnacial/Corporates and corrupted politicians, and the so called NGOs whom all scream about WE been payed by Oli, well I dont mind anything, but belive me, not a f… dime as comed from that direction, and I am not like the Parasittic NGOs that getts its finnacials directly from the same goverment that is corrputed to its core.

    And to take the future away from our children by destroying this child hood with this insane drivel, to ruin their prospects and to drown their hopes in any consivable senario to simply scear them into submission to their insane policys and belifs.
    This is infact my main drive, and the fact, that industry have been around for some centurys, PC just some decades, I know for a fact that right now, physics is undergoing a massive change, and new ways of cattching sunlight and make it to be usefull with better efficiencygrade, with simpler materiale.
    I am not for a second afraid of the humanitys ability to make or someday find up something that will revolutionalise everything regading elecrtical power, I am not afraid at all, and we still have pertol for centurys to come.
    WE have all the time in the world, but not against ignorance regading the poisoning and destruction of our entire eco system, and specaly where we dont see it so well, our Oceans.
    Out of sight, out of mind.
    When do we learn.
    Flameinhibitors, are the biggest threat to polarbears, not clima since they have been around longer than WE have, and stil is here and right now, thriwing.

    All in all, we where fooled.

    peace

  • Venharis

    It’s all a “soft kill” policy by the Globalists and Global warming is but one of their running scams. Their aim is to destroy the middle class in the Western World and then take us down the road to a Fascist Euthanasia program. They have started with the fluoride in the water and poison vaccines and GMO’s that sterilize rats after the third generation in laboratory tests confirmed over and over again. If you want to take a peek down the rabbit hole tune in to Alex Jones at infowars(dot)com…. Their ultimate goal is 99% World De-Population and man-machine integration and immortality see – 2045(dot)com. And YOU are not in their plans…

  • zeltia

    Future generations will hopefully be more practical and less greedy and learning from our appalling greedy international corporations will put into effect all the new technologies which use the very thing that we were given by mother nature, to heat the planet i.e. the sun (duh)! It is entirely due to corrupt corporations and frightenend governments that these technologies are not already in use, cheap and effective as they will surely prove. I agree we should worry about the future but let us not forget about our fellow beings and ensure that everyone is at least warm in winter and has at least one hot meal a day…surely not too much to hope for in the land of plenty. Turn on the heating for the poor and pay for it…otherwise you will have to pay at the other end when they get taken into hospital for pneumonia and malnutrition….its simple math so make local government get it right. The way we treat our children and old people is a sign of how healthy our society really is….l

  • zeltia

    Someone below mentions fracking….I am frankly nervous about fracking…I think we just make life more difficult for ourselves…get the mathematicians to sort out the energy problem,…they are apparently already on to it…vortex math and all that

    • Jim

      “Nervous” based on what exactly? And don’t cite fracking information made up by the people who perpetrated the global warming hoax because everything they’ve said so far has turned out to be the opposite, in real life..

      • zeltia

        nervous that we are once again going to be taken in by someone with a private financial agenda.

  • apeman2502

    By blowing up the Deepwater Horizon and dumping a few million barrels of corexit in the Gulf of Mexico, The Loop Current was eliminated and with it, the ability oif the Gulf Stream to propel warm water to the north and across to the British Isles. that is your British royalty and Bush criminal cabal in unison. Add to that with the Fukushima sabotage and you all can see that we need to remove these perfumed knuckle draggers and put them in cages before their retarded soldiers kill us all along with themselves.

    • Danceswithdachshunds

      Conspiracy we much!

      • apeman2502

        Your comment is false and counter productive. The Loop Current did not engage in a conspiracy because the Loop Current WAS a flow of Gulf of Mexico water and not human. Do your homework, knave. Danceswithdachsunds FAIL.

        • Danceswithdachshunds

          If it’s false then refute it.

          • apeman2502

            I will watch the webmaster erase my responses knowing that he has not the foggiest idea that this cold spell for western Europe was forecast AND WIDELY PUBLISHED just after the Loop Current was stalled. Queen lizard II picked Al ‘D’ Gore to be her ‘Global Warming’ wizard, even though he only earned a ‘D’ in his only college science class. This is why all of the talent leaves England for the U.S.. The sycophants made the British royalty into morons. The editor of this column continues this tradition.

    • apeman2502

      You Bozos need to learn how to earn respect. Do your homework.

  • Mnestheus

    Our enemy is not global warming.

    Only the French die like flies when the wind turns southerly, and all British pensioners need fear is air conditioning rendered unaffordable by the high price of wind power.

    Has the Speccie’s Lawsonoid Tendency finally crossed the line from ga-ga to Dada?

  • TheYoungOpinion

    Global warming is just a fad created by the energy companies for when the oil runs out. Therefore, they’re trying to capitalize on “green” energy before the transition to a new energy monopoly.

    • Danceswithdachshunds

      There’s a partial truth – the big oil companies and the federal government are partners in the hoax. The hoax gives the government the excuse to limit fuel supply which drives up prices thus increasing big oil profits. Government gets 40% of that profit. Small exploration oil companies are squashed by the EPA and are beaten down by IRS tax codes disallowing a quick write-off of capital expenditures on drilling equipment that they have to sacrifice at unproductive wells. Big oil doesn’t have major exploration costs, their money is in moving and refining.

  • lol@this

    I must just point out two last things here.
    A. If we (as a global people) were really concerned about messing up our planet, there are many many things we could do that are not done. That plainly tells me any real issues are of no concern to the power elite who dispense the information to the unsuspecting public.
    B. Global warming seems to have done a good job of putting a steak through the two sides of the heart that is – us humans that genuinely care about our environment… thus making us fight each other instead of fighting the real criminals.

  • http://Www.keezmovies.com/ Beefudder Factormeat

    There is no winter anymore. The stories on the news about snow storms is propaganda paid for by oil companies to create doubt.

    • Danceswithdachshunds

      Plus they have invented something that looks like and is as slippery as snow. Like a weapon of mass destruction, they are dropping it from black helicopters on our roadways causing a countless numbers of deaths, injuries and property losses. On top of that, somehow, they’ve created a nanobot that nullifies the insulation properties of clothing so you feel colder too.

      • LewSkannen

        Yes and this fake snow is OIL BASED!!
        It will cause more warming.

  • Danceswithdachshunds

    The three pillars of the man made global warming hoax:

    1. Warming is bad.
    2. Warming is happening and will accelerate out of control.
    3. Human CO2 is the cause of #2.

    There is exactly ZERO empirical evidence to support ANY of the above. There however strong evidence of the OPPOSITE to #1 and #2.

    In all of history, warmer has always been BETTER than colder. There was generally more food and less disease in warmer times.

    On top of that, mother nature did not cooperate with the climate charlatans for almost the last 17 years and no warming has occurred in all that time.

    Kill this HOAX!!! Start burning coal again, (cleanly of course as it has already been for decades with scrubbers, etc.) and forget about CO2 – it is a harmless beneficial trace gas) and LOWER energy costs. We all CANNOT AFFORD this nonsense any longer.

  • chotiius

    Not very many generations ago, our northern ancestors were cold from fall through spring. Now we – with so much technology at our fingertips – are heading back that way, not because we lack the ability but because we cannot afford to be warm (although we could, if creating the energy necessary to stay warm were not virtually a crime). I’m quite sure, however, that those who make these laws are not themselves huddling cold in their little apartments. That would be unthinkable.

  • robert peter Dunford

    conservatives are busy taking down our welfare state you must see this,even the EU has said how can a Country give Billions of Pounds to other Countries While there own People Suffer,The State Pension is the Lowest in Europe unable to live on,dying of the Cold Cannot afford to put there Heating on,Starving,Living on Food Parcels,Every thing is the Same Price for Them as any one Else, The Lump Sum they will give you,You will Never get a Increase Again,When that Runs out what then While the MPs in Goverment take 6 000 Pounds per year in Heating Expenses,They do not think the Elderly get Cold to,David Cameron takes 200 000 in Expenses for his Mortgage and his Second Home

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here