tip off

A medieval climate

Dr Andrew Glikson, earth and paleoclimate scientist at ANU, writes: The end of the IPCC?

Just last week, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments.

Let me offer some examples of the ‘rationale’ in the background of this vote:

Representative Luetkemeyer (Missouri) said: “Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”

US Congress Representative John Shimkus (Illinois) said: “Today we have about 388 parts per million [of carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere… I think in the age of the dinosaurs, when we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.” He goes on: “The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

The Representative is correct in pointing to the wealth of fauna and flora in the age of the dinosaurs.

The only error he makes is in overlooking the fact that humans, as a part of nature, are the product of environment changes associated with cooling of the Earth since the mid-Pliocene about 3 million years ago, followed by the glacial-interglacial eras during which H. sapiens and civilization arose. The other error is that rapid shifts between climate states result in mass extinctions.

But then its not clear how many of the new House majority accept Darwinian evolution?

Representative Joe Barton (Texas), who is competing for the position of chairman of the Congress Energy and commerce Committee states: “Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.”

Never mind that in nature winds move air from cold high pressure to warm low pressure zones, such as in onshore sea breeze or the polar vortices.

E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, argued that because the “biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God, humankind couldn’t possibly be affecting the climate.”

Some are happy with ongoing carbon emissions, since they apparently serve as “plant food”, in what some of them regard as a “carbon starved world”.

A new kind of science is being invented, free of data and unrelated to the basic laws of physics and chemistry.

Just in case those who reject the science may not be correct, at least Congress continues to support space research programs.  In search of habitable planets when Earth is no longer suitable for human life?

Defenders of the IPCC are in retreat. Representative Waxman (California) stated: “The US contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without US support.”

In Noam Chomsky’s view: “All of this combines the latest election a couple of days ago…. You could almost interpret it [the Republicans victory in the Congress elections] as a kind of a death knell for the species.”

How consistent is Noam Chomsky’s prediction with climate science projections?

With rising global and in particular polar temperatures:

And the acceleration of extreme weather events (Figure 3), predicted by the IPCC, the rise in energy levels of the atmosphere-ocean system, evaporation and precipitation, are increasingly expressed by a series of extreme weather events – cyclones, floods, snow storms, heat waves.

The emission of >320 Gigaton carbon over the last two centuries leads to a shift in state of the climate (>2 Watt/m2; +0.8C mean temperature; ~2 ppm CO2/year) on a scale unknown from former interglacial periods and the last 3 million years of geological history.

How should Noam Chomsky’s claim the return of the Republicans constitutes “a kind of a death knell for the species” be interpreted?

Is Chomsky referring to the self-fulfilling prophecies of the “rupture” by fundamentalists? Is it the ideology of human mastery over nature, vested fossil fuel interests, well funded “conservative” think tanks, media cover-up, cowardly politicians, the basic reluctance of people to face global issues beyond human power, or all of these factors combined?

Hopefully the Representatives are correct and Chomsky is mistaken. As “internet science” tells, the world is not warming or, at least, not due to human factors, and climate research organizations (Hadley-Met, NASA-GISS, Colorado-NSIDC, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM) and peer reviewed science are all in error?

Should this not be the case and the future lies in the hands of those who reject the scientific method, claiming authority to speak in God’s name, this would herald the end of the enlightenment, an era of intellectual, scientific and cultural life emerging from the 18th century where evidence and reason are the basis for legitimacy and authority.


Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :

  • 1
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    A good article Dr Glikson. Unfortunately, those of us in the reality based universe can’t begin to imagine what goes through the minds of the (mainly) conservative troglodytes such as those that inhabit the US Congress at present. Australia has a good helping of these selfsame fools who mainly populate the party rooms of the Liberal and National parties. Of course you make a strong argument, but these people are not interested in argument but I know for a fact that no argument will change the minds of these morons. But thanks for the effort anyway.

    PS Xtian fundies talk about the “rapture” not the “rupture”. I know, tomayto/tomahto both make as much sense.

  • 2
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Oh and a clever title, too.

  • 3
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    The sentence “A new kind of science is being invented, free of data and unrelated to the basic laws of physics and chemistry” says it all.

    AGW sceptics are closer to New Age fruit loops than biological twins are to each other.

  • 4
    Peter Smith
    Posted February 26, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Interesting that they prefer the age of the dinosaurs. Seems appropriate, somehow.

  • 5
    Posted February 26, 2011 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Dr Glikson claims “A new kind of science is being invented, free of data”, yet provides no evidence for his many alarming claims.

    He writes “How consistent is Noam Chomsky’s prediction (of a death knell for the species) with climate science projections? With rising global and in particular polar temperatures:”
    Polar temperature projections are not mentioned.
    Global temperature predictions and data are not mentioned.
    Maybe that’s because global temp cooled last decade when IPCC projected 0.2C warming.
    Glikson’s science is ‘free of data’.

    Which scientific paper is cited for “acceleration of extreme weather events”?
    An insurance company report. A new kind of Glikson science is being invented.

    The link for “predicted by the IPCC” is to an article by Glikson himself, on a poltical opinion website. It contains no IPCC predictions. Zero. Another Glikson claim free of data.

    “are increasingly expressed by a series of extreme weather events – cyclones, floods, snow storms, heat waves.” That link is to an article which states “A cursory reading of the popular press (in the UK at least) would suggest that various elements of the Earth system have already passed a tipping point.” A new kind of Glikson science is being invented.
    Cyclones, floods, snow storms and heat waves are never mentioned in the entire article. Another Glikson claim free of data.

    No wonder there is a war on climate science.

  • 6
    Posted February 27, 2011 at 12:39 am | Permalink

    tones9…resident denialist

  • 7
    Posted February 27, 2011 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    quantize…of no intellect to contribute

  • 8
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Tones9, heard of the ‘IPCC”? It’s an obscure panel that has published referenced synthesis reports/meta-analysis for several decades. If Dr G cites them,it’s because they provide information that is ‘rich with data’.

    Global temperature did not cool last decade. NASA GISS.and the two satellite based records show warming. Hadley barely dropped. Run it from 2000,and all four metrics are in agreement on a rising trend. Who gives a stuff anyway? You’re looking at too short a period given what we know about decadal variability. So very,very many papers have discussed natural variability within the trend of CO2 forced climate change,I’m surprised you’ve not come across them.

    Given the IPCC’s AR4 has been available for almost four years,Dr G probably assumes you know where to find it,and in which chapter [10] you will find discussion of extreme event outlooks.

    Given that Munich RE’s annual Topics GEO reports are available online,you should know how to find them and use their references.

    Then perhaps you can stop exemplifying the ‘free of data’ paradigm that Dr G identifies.

  • 9
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Oh heavylambs, even you should see the hypocrisy of a scientist critical about “a new kind of science, free of data,” who provides no relevant data, cites non-scientific reports, and links to websites which don’t provide the evidence he claims they do.

    Your advice to do the research myself is wise, as Glikson provides little evidence to support his claims.

    I shall have to repeat here:
    IPCC uses Hadcrut.
    IPCC projections are from 2001.
    Our National Climate centre does study 10 year linear trends, and writes papers which make conclusions about global warming, “I’m surprised you’ve not come across them:”
    “Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to year fluctuations.”

  • 10
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink


    no use explaining anything to Tones9. He is happy to keep misleading people with ‘trends’ over a very short time frame trends to support his arguments. He does this repeatedly even when poeple point out that the data over such a short time period is not significant.

    The only person he seems to have convinced he is onto something is himself.

  • 11
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    Well, all the AGW theorists are very busy telling us all that “the science is in…it is true….we already know…the globe is warming” so why fund this expensive scientific talkfest?
    this IS a rhetorical question.

  • 12
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    ps I seriously hope that Shimkus was reminded by his god bothering Reps about a little thing called the Great Flood and a guy called Noah and his boat…animals 2 x 2 etc…. Seems God does do Flood.

  • 13
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    tones9. You are wasting you time here. Science has no place in the Climate Change world of Al Gores followers. Nothing you do or say will change the way believers feel about this subject. I could give you a demonstration by posting a scientifically irrefutable demolition of the Carbon Dioxide causes heating assertion and I’m sure it would be attacked by everyone on this site despite its scientific accuracy. But why bother. It is too late for them to admit they have all been conned.

  • 14
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Tones 9 The phrase “a new kind of science, free of data,” applies to the AGW theorists who still cannot point to any real science to confirm their claims about the dangers of CO2.

  • 15
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    The pro warmer bloggers always follow the same pattern. There is the same old philosophy of science which tries very hard to impress by pasting up some interesting basic science which is tangentially related to the main argument. At the end of the piece there is the cry “so therefore Carbon Dioxide did it”. Looking back through the text it is never possible to find the scientific step which links the theory to the practical situation of climate change. The IPCC doesn’t have the missing link either. It’s a hoax of gigantic proportions.

  • 16
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Wow, the delusional fossil fuels always and forever astro turf brigade have come out in force. Just because you can make an assertion that climate science is a grab bag of irrelevant rubbish designed purely for feathering the nest with research grants doesn’t make the assertion true. However it does show that a reasoned discussion with these anti-science ideologues is not possible, and that their delusional nonsense should be treated with the contempt and derision that it deserves.

  • 17
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Ok danr, I’ll take the bait re: I could give you a demonstration by posting a scientifically irrefutable demolition of the Carbon Dioxide causes heating assertion and I’m sure it would be attacked by everyone on this site despite its scientific accuracy

    Let’s hear it. There could be a noble prize in it for you.

  • 18
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Since the Truth in Science problem has been raised by kdkd maybe there should be comment. Calling people like Hal Lewis an “anti-science ideologue” leaves a gaping credibility gap. Rubbishing the views of distinguished scientists to help maintain the myth of Anthropometric Global Warming by CO2 is not good in the long run. It simply makes people wonder why the Science behind AGW is never discussed by those attacking scientists who point to errors in the theory. It’s a sad day when people can take money from tax payers for promoting weird science like AGW theory. There is a simple and undeniable fault in the CO2 – AGW theory which proves that this is about politics and not science.

  • 19
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Hi PeeBee.
    It seems that there is at least one scientist at heart in this group. Thanks for asking. I noticed in an earlier post you commented on another blogger who referred to trends. The fact that these long and short term trends are being brought up is good in that it shows that people are trying to find answers. You can find answers in the geologic temperature – CO2 estimates but as you illustrated it is a murky area. Very briefly the whole issue hinges on one very simple fact concerning the interrelationship of CO2 and the solar energy which is re-radiated from Earths surface. The mechanism by which CO2 is heated by radiant energy is well established science. The problem for the AGW theory is that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 500 times more energy in its energy spectrum than is currently the case. This concept can be hard to grasp but it means that if we add more solar energy to the mix ie. the sun becomes more active, then the Earth will heat up because the CO2 has the capacity to trap the resultant re-radiation. On the other side of the balance if we increase the amount of CO2 available and hold solar energy constant then there will be no temperature change. The sun is the only real variable unless there was so little CO2 in the atmosphere that some of the energy in the CO2 absorption spectrum was going untouched.

  • 20
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Permalink


    the fact that tones9 has not leapt to thank you for supporting him should tell you something.

    As you were.

  • 21
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    danr (are you an astroturf lobby bot?)

    Hal Lewis eh? Who’s resignation letter from the American Physical Society contained crackpot rubbish about global warming conspiracy for funding? Who’s now a part of the anti-science think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a well funded organisation with a political agenda with secret donors? Yes, very credible. We must revise 200+years of scientific theories based on this.

    I’m also interested to see your assertion about the lack of scientific understanding of the action of CO2 in the atmosphere defended properly. The long-discredited “CO2 is a trace gas and is plant food” delusional argument will not be an acceptable answer, as it fails to account for the complex interactions within the system it operates in. You’d do well to start by reviewing Arrhenius’ initial findings and how they’ve become better understood over the past couple of hundred years, and show us how that leads to the opposite conclusion of the scientific consensus.

    Can’t do that? Try personal attacks or changing the subject instead.

  • 22
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    The science doesn’t need any support apart from being repeatable and testable. Coincidentally these are not properties exhibited by the theory of AGW.
    The incident solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface in the UV spectrum is re-radiated as IR into the atmosphere. As it passes through the air it manages to lose energy to CO2 until all the energy in the CO2 spectrum is absorbed. At about 10metres above ground this process is all done. All the CO2 in the air above this 10 metre boundary layer is not involved and represents spare capacity to absorb any increase in energy available from increased solar activity.
    It’s funny that Carbon Dioxide is getting such a bad rap when it is the staff of life for plants and humans alike. Tones9 opinion is not needed to confirm the science.

  • 23
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Arrhenius’ was a man ahead of his time. A great scientist. It’s unfortunate that people living now have even less understanding of science than he had. If Arrhenius was alive today he would immediately see the fault in AGW theory. There is no evidence for AGW. There is no measurement and no postulated mechanism that can be shown. Where is the science. All there is is personal abuse and censorship of real science.

  • 24
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink


    How can this be the case given you just revealed to us that AGW theory is “a hoax of gigantic proportions”. That’s calculated, not coincidental.

    I’m confused now. I don’t know what to believe.

  • 25
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Not sure what’s happening here but! Yes “AGW theory is “a hoax of gigantic proportions” simply because nothing of it is “repeatable and testable”. It seems that the only ones who proved it exists are the IPCC Elite who are going to keep their deliberations secret from the rest of us poor unscientific dummies. If I can’t take the IPCC method and redo the experiment to my own satisfaction, it is not science. Rohan that is just the problem. You believe. Scientists work things out, one step at a time so that there is no uncertainty.

  • 26
    Peter Phelps
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    How ironic that this article uses the title that it does, given the repeated attempts by AGW disciples to eliminate the Medieval Warming (and the Roman Warming for that matter) from the Earth’s cliamte history.

  • 27
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    danr, if that was the case as you describe, how do you explain why the earth is warming and has been doing so for the last 100 years, yet the sun’s output has been constant over this time?

    Peter Phelps, how can make the leap that the earth was warmer in the past when you look at specific places like Rome?

  • 28
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink


    As it passes through the air it manages to lose energy to CO2 until all the energy in the CO2 spectrum is absorbed. At about 10metres above ground this process is all done. All the CO2 in the air above this 10 metre boundary layer is not involved and represents spare capacity to absorb any increase in energy available from increased solar activity.

    Wow, what an absurd made up set of assertions. It’s an excellent case study in how climate delusionists spout superficially plausible sounding [1] made up crap that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. What’s the mechanism that light is converted to IR radiation (i.e. heat)? It’s not the theory of chemical bonds is it? Well that’s in agreement with the scientific consensus. It’s a shame that the rest of your made up crap is just that.

    You appear to be describing is the theory[2] of greenhouse gasses with some kind of added theory that the light or the molecules are self-aware such that they know if they’re traveling from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere, rather than from the top to the bottom? And maybe that laws of diffusion, and stuff to do with the weather (like wind caused by pressure gradients) are also non operational? It’s difficult to tell. Do you have any credible[3] sceintific references?

    [1] Plausible sounding for people who weren’t paying attention in high school science lessons that is
    [2] Theory has some specific meanings in science that are distinct to its meaning in conversational usage. See this entry in Wikipedia’s list of common misconceptions
    [3] I’ll accept material from a text book from a reasonable academic or school text book publisher, or failing that something from the quality scientific literature.

  • 29
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    I’m becoming more convinced that danr is one of the climate sceptic astroturf brigade – part blog spam comment bot, part ideologically blind human being.

  • 30
    Frank Campbell
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Another day, another eruption of gas in this sterile, phony “debate”. This time it’s the Gliksonian zealots vs their god-soaked gringo opposites. The unspeakable in pursuit of the unbearable.

  • 31
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:36 pm | Permalink


    this has nothing to do with God. It’s about the science.

  • 32
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:39 pm | Permalink


    Cliche after cliche after cliche. You obviously have no clue about atmospheric physics. Too bad you’ll just have to trust an expert or in your case someone posing as an expert.

    NO SCIENCE at all.

  • 33
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Cliche after cliche after cliche

    Nope, I just asked for reputable scientific evidence. Instead you fulfilled my prediction in post #21 and moved to personal attack because if you’re honest with yourself, you know that your position has no substance.

    My work here is done.

  • 34
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:43 pm | Permalink


    Have you ever noticed that as you get further away from a hot object the heat becomes less intense? Do you know the difference between UV and IR?

  • 35
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    Wikipedia is quoted. Is that anything like the ABC?

  • 36
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    Hi PeeBee,

    The Earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years or so but the rate of warming has slowed in the last 4,000 years to almost flat line. There are still minor fluctuations that are not abnormal. The most recent surge started in about 1860 when my great grandfather came here from Wales.

  • 37
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 9:57 pm | Permalink


    I’m not responsible for your lack of understanding of the physical chemistry of the greenhouse effect. I also lack the professional expertise to explain it to you (although my grasp of the theory was reasonable enough to pass exams, and use lab techniques that rely on the same theory of chemical bonds at a couple of points in my life). A first year uni chemistry text book will explain the basic scientific theory underlying the greenhouse effect for you though. Not that you’re interested really, you’re just trying to score points with a combination of lies, misunderstandings and personal attacks.

  • 38
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised this thread is still going, but I’m not surprised no one has been able to defend Glikson for such a vacuous article, or provide any supporting data.

    danr if you want to see the intellectual powers of kdkd and peebee, enjoy this laugh

  • 39
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    C02 and the other greenhouse gases not only absorb energy but they re-radiate it as well, and in all directions. Some of it heads back towards the earth and heats the land and oceans. Some of it escapes into space and is measured by satellites. The decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (as a cosequence of incresing greenhouse gases) has been measured by these satellites. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

    I don’t think that would be possible if, as you say, all the C02 effect was constrained to 10m above the surface.

  • 40
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    Yes, we are powerless over the delusional, vaccuous retardeness of “internet science” apparently. It doesn’t bode well.

  • 41
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    tones9 that set of comments was the same as this lot. No science just personal abuse. The sad thing is they are doing the work of defending the “theory of AGW” and not even being paid for it. Look at the guy operating out of UNSW. Just before the Copenhagen Climate Change Cancellation Conference , he came out on cue to promote it for Kev the Sequestrator before he took off. His resume showed multi million dollar grants to push AGW while real scientists beg for funding. What really set me off though is the main article above – full of beautiful diagrams and pseudo scientific posturing which all stands legless under the scientific scrutiny of the basic UV – IR – CO2 interaction. More CO2 will change nothing in the atmosphere as far as temperature goes. Giant moneymaking hoax.

  • 42
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    danr, still waiting for an answer to my question @27. You attempted an answer @36 but it didn’t address the question.

    So to repeat my question: Why has the earth heated up in the last 100 years when the out put from the sun has been constant? According to you, it cannot be due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere because it has absorbed as much heat as it can. So why is the earth heating up?

  • 43
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    danr, don’t listen to tones9. He is a misleader. He has been told many times that statements he has made are false and why they are false. He cannot defend his statements but rather repeats them over and over again to a new audience. He must know he is trying to mislead people, so I wonder why he persists.

    A little like the Monkton fellow but at least in his situation it is understandable, he is being paid to do it.

  • 44
    Frank Campbell
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    This really is an intellectual slum. Semi-literate, repetitive technobabble laced with thoughtful observations such as these:

    ” Not that you’re interested really, you’re just trying to score points with a combination of lies, misunderstandings and personal attacks.”

    “…we are powerless over the delusional, vaccuous retardeness of “internet science…”

  • 45
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Frank: I think you’re just annoyed because it’s not your intellectual sewer.

    p.s. it’s not my problem that you fail to perceive that environmental problems are all connected to each other. Meanwhile the time to be polite is long gone.

  • 46
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 8:31 am | Permalink


    legless under the scientific scrutiny of the basic UV – IR – CO2 interaction

    Repeating a false assertion does not make it true. Just thought you’d better know.

  • 47
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Frank, it’s obviously highly therapeutic for you to punch out your Frank assessments of what things are really, really, truly all about.

    Why not write a book? That way you can unleash with all your favourite metaphors and inimitable style of adjectives every second word, till you finally get your fix.

    I promise I’ll buy it.

  • 48
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    Hi PeeBee

    Are you sure that the sun’s output has been constant. Check out sun spot variations.
    This isn’t important though. The main thing is that CO2 didn’t do it since it’s CO2 we are debating. The Earth is a very large system and there are many forces at work which have large fluctuations in effect. The rise from 1860 was preceded by a similar drop from a warmer, earlier period. According to the IPCC this sudden temperature drop before 1860 would have been caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. There was no drop in CO2.

  • 49
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 9:03 am | Permalink


    If you don’t understand it how can you possibly make any comment at all. here’s a clue. Solar high frequency UV hits ground (Earth) – energy is lost and remaining low frequency radiation emitted by ground (Earth) as IR – CO2 “resonates” with emitted Ir and drains it of all energy in CO2 spectrum in first 10 m above ground. Other frequencies keep going up into God’s care. To get more energy out of the IR you need something else besides CO2. Try water vapour, nitrogen, oxygen, SO2, CH4 and so on. More CO2 cant do it. You can’t wring blood out of a stone. Maybe you can see the analogy , maybe you don’t want to. It is frightening to try to adjust to the fact that politicians and wealthy greenie executives have led you up the garden path. have a go anyhow.

  • 50
    Posted March 2, 2011 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Surprise, surprise. the author of this article works for a University (publicly funded) Climate Change Institute. Is that a Scientific conflict of interest perhaps?

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :